understanding honey bee - gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/document.aspx?document=13360_ph0512... ·...

Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders

1

Contents

Executive Summary 2

1 Introduction 9

2 Aims and Objectives 12

3 Literature Review 13

4 Methodology 17

5 Results 19

5.1 Stakeholder categories 19 5.2 Awareness, attitudes and activities of bee health stakeholders 25 5.3 Social Network Analysis- relationships of influence and interest 44

6 Discussion and Recommendations 55

6.1 Overview 55 6.2 Knowledge Exchange 57 6.3 How Can People Work Together? 58 6.4 What could be done? 61 6.5 Key Recommendations 63

References 64

Acknowledgements 71

Limitations and Disclaimer 71

Appendix 1: Full literature review 72

Appendix 2: Stakeholder definitions 96

Appendix 3: Invitation list for Project Management Board 98 Appendix 4: Scoping the research 100 Appendix 5: Full methodology 104 Appendix 6: Semi-structured interview schedule 112 Appendix 7: SNA interview schedule 113 Appendix 8: Mapping Pollinator Stakeholders: Scoping Study Report 120

Suggested Citation:

Scott K, Reed MS, Bradley S, Bryce R and Curzon R. (2013) Honey Bee Health: Mapping, analysis

and improved understanding of stakeholder groups to help sustain honey bee health. Defra Final

Report, Project Code PH051: London.


2

Executive Summary

A key aim of the Defra Healthy Bees Plan of 2009 is ‘to get everyone to work together on

bee health’ (Defra, 2009). A wide variety of people are currently concerned about honey bee

health. Beekeepers, farmers, environmental groups, scientists, businesses and the public

are all possible stakeholders1 in bee health, yet may have different interests, motivations,

attitudes, beliefs or practices. This makes it difficult to work together to address bee health

issues at a national level, for instance in controlling disease, promoting particular practices

for bee health or just exchanging good practice and other knowledge.

The aim of this project was to contribute towards the health and sustainability of the honey

bee population by determining how best to communicate with relevant stakeholders to

improve bee health. This was done by identifying, categorizing and analyzing relationships

between relevant stakeholders, and better understanding their awareness, motivations and

practices in relation to maintaining good pest and disease control. The ultimate goal is to

produce a knowledge exchange and communications strategy for the sector, to guide future

work with stakeholders to improve bee health.

Methods

The project incorporated a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods to meet its objectives.

An initial literature review fed into the design of a stakeholder mapping workshop to identify

and categorize those who hold a stake in bee health issues, in which we systematically

assessed their interest in and influence on bee health. This stakeholder mapping exercise

and subsequent scoping interviews informed the selection of stakeholder representatives for

interview. In total, seven categories of stakeholder were identified, and both theoretical and

snowball sampling was used to identify interviewees within each category until theoretical

saturation was reached. Interviews were divided into two parts; an initial semi-structured

interview to collect qualitative data, followed by a structured questionnaire to collect data for

social network analysis.

Semi-structured interviews were used to assess respondents’ awareness and knowledge of

honey bee health, risks and related issues, their beliefs, attitudes, motivations and activities

in relation to honey bee health, and how best to communicate with different types of

stakeholder to influence honey bee health practices. These interviews also considered the

ways that knowledge is interpreted and framed by different groups to support current beliefs

and practices.

The Social Network Analysis (SNA) was designed to identify: individuals and groups with

similar or different views about honey bee health and who access information in similar or

different ways; individuals and organisations that are key nodes/influencers with significant

gatekeeping roles for transmission of knowledge to support current beliefs and practices;

and individuals and groups that are well positioned to access knowledge and help on bee

issues, and those who are typically excluded or hard-to-reach. Data was collected initially

1 See Appendix 2 for definitions of stakeholder


3

from the same interviewees that were selected to represent stakeholder categories from the

initial stakeholder mapping workshop (“tier one”). Subsequently, as many as possible of their

contacts were interviewed to collect a second tier of SNA data.

Findings

The categories of stakeholder that were derived from the research were:

1. Beekeepers and bee farmers

2. Beekeeping education/training and beekeeping media

3. Public interest groups, campaigning groups, and mainstream media

4. Beekeeping supplies, honey and other bee-related products

5. Land and Ecosystems Management

6. Government and government-funded bodies

7. Research and funding

There appears to be a fundamental difference between two general framings of honey bee

health. One framing places honey bee health within the broader, longer-term context of an

‘agro-industrial paradigm’. Here a focus on disease/honey bee husbandry is perceived as

narrow and limiting, and as only capable of addressing the symptoms, rather than the

causes of poor honey bee health. According to this framing, potential solutions lie in radical

changes to land use and agricultural systems, while questions of husbandry are secondary,

and in themselves part of a long-term problem of human interference in natural systems.

This contrasts with a more pragmatic framing where potential solutions lie in improving floral

resources within current land use and agricultural systems, and in better pest and disease

identification and management by beekeepers, to be achieved through education and

knowledge exchange.

Particular flashpoints of conflict between these two framings were disease control and

pesticide issues. However, it was clear from the first stakeholder meeting in December 2012

(see appendices 3 and 4) and subsequently through in-depth interviews that concern for all

pollinators was high on the agenda for many honey bee stakeholders. Two concerns were

common to stakeholders from all categories (even in traditionally opposed groups e.g.

natural beekeepers and bee farmers), and may provide common ground for future

communications:

i) the need for floral resources for all pollinators (not just honey bees), and the need

for more coordinated working between the bee health/beekeeping education

stakeholders and those in the land use category;

ii) the need for more long-term, field-based research on a range of issues including

pollinator decline, pest and disease control/prevention and food security issues.

which can be followed through into practical implementations,

The Social Network Analysis showed that there was a core honey bee health community that

could be characterised as a generally well-connected community. Respondents from

government bodies and research/funding scored highly across all network measures,

suggesting that these individuals are central to knowledge exchange in relation to honey bee


4

health. Individuals from government bodies and public interest groups had the highest levels

of overall influence in the network (as measured by their eigenvector scores). This may

mean that these individuals are well-placed to communicate information about honey bee

health to disparate parts of the bee health network in future, though those in government

bodies and the education/training were much more likely to be perceived as key individuals

in honey bee health discussions compared to public interest stakeholders, who were not

well-recognised by others in the network (as measured by the frequency with which these

people were mentioned as contacts by others). However, the semi-structured interviews

showed that the public interest stakeholders were recognised as being very influential in

general public awareness about bee health and that they needed to be brought more

centrally into honey bee health discussions. Individuals in the education/training category

communicated with high numbers of people albeit within more peripheral clusters based on

their low eigenvalues and structural positions in the overall network. This is likely to be due

to the local nature of regional bee keeping associations and training schemes, and the fact

that sub groups like natural beekeepers and bee farmers have their own networks. The high

number of people reached though these individuals, and the fact that much of this

information is exchanged through personal relationships of trust, may mean they are a good

group to target in achieving improved communication about honey bee health.

Eighty-five percent of communications around honey bee health issues in the network were

considered to be either ‘very useful’ or ‘useful’. However, data from the qualitative interviews

suggests that those with a high degree of disagreement tend not to communicate with each

other, and this tends to reflect different constituencies of belief around honey bee health.

This means that within constituencies there are few major barriers that should prevent

effective knowledge exchange but there is a need to widen the network communications

across differing constituencies of belief around honey bee health.

Across all stakeholder groups, the most common way of finding information about honey bee

health was through personal contacts, further emphasising the potential for knowledge

exchange across this network. Other popular means of accessing information about honey

bee health included research articles, followed by websites, expert talks, meetings, books,

reports and magazines. Most of these either provided quite specialised information more

likely to include information about honey bee health (e.g. research articles, books and expert

talks) or provided people with the opportunity to search for specialised information or ask

specific questions (e.g. internet and meetings). By contrast, more generalist sources of

information such as newsletters, newspapers and broadcast media were less likely to

provide useful sources of information about honey bee health, although these tended to be

used more by the public interest category than other stakeholders.

Respondents particularly valued information that they considered to be: in-depth and

reliable; easy, fast and convenient to access; trustworthy and delivered by people with

experience; tailored to answer specific queries; comprehensive (including a range of

different opinions and sources); and able to provide evidence and guidance that could inform

decisions and help solve problems. These considerations are important to tailor the design

of any future knowledge management strategy to the needs of these stakeholders. As

important as the nature of the information (in-depth, reliable and comprehensive) is the way

that it is presented (easy, fast and convenient to access, and able to provide answers to

specific questions), and who it is delivered by (people who are considered trustworthy and

who have experience).


5

Many people felt their views to be misunderstood and misrepresented, while others

expressed a wish to gain better understandings of others’ perspectives in order to engage in

conversations. For example, some respondents criticised the ‘anti-pesticide lobby’ groups for

diverting attention away from a complex web of interrelated issues into a single-issue

campaign which over-simplified the issues. Respondents speaking on behalf of those lobby

groups expressed frustration at what they saw as a misrepresentation of their contribution to

these debates. Many respondents thought that a national forum of all stakeholders, related

to a national action plan for honey bee health and facilitated by government, was the best

way to achieve better relationships and foster greater understanding between differing

perspectives.

In an attempt to understand how different stakeholder groups might be able to work together

more effectively in future, Social Network Analysis data was aggregated to the level of

organisations (where this data was available), to examine the frequency with which

organisations in each stakeholder category communicated with each other. This made it

possible to see the organisations that were most likely to be in communication with a

particular category of stakeholder.

Education, training and bee media organisations had strong links to beekeepers, and had

many (often frequent) connections with government bodies and research organisations, but

had much weaker links with public interest groups and ecosystem and land-based

organisations. Organisations within the ecosystems and land management category typically

did not communicate widely with other organisations about honey bee health issues, and

with the exception of Waitrose Ltd and NFU, links to government bodies around honey bee

health issues were particularly weak.

The beekeeping supplies group had least communication with other categories of

stakeholder around bee health issues, and there was relatively little communication between

members of this category around these issues either. Data from qualitative interviews

reveals how this group are very constrained in terms of time to network and gain information

but how they are often asked advice from customers and need resources to cascade

information to frontline staff easily. This means that although they are weakly connected they

may perform a key role in reaching beekeepers not registered on BeeBase.

There were dense ties within and between government bodies, which contributed to the

position of respondents from this category at the core of the network. However contact

outward to other organisations was reported by representatives of government bodies to be

relatively infrequent. In contrast to this, representatives from other stakeholder categories

regularly reported inward links to government bodies. From interviews it is clear that some in

government are very well connected, for instance The National Bee Unit staff, and others

like policy officers rely on their teams to access information and to engage in networking

activities. They also relate perceived issues of trust between themselves and some

stakeholders so tend to work through intermediaries. Government officials are often the ones

organizing meetings so will be seen by lots of people but won’t necessarily network regularly

with all other stakeholders.

Research organisations were found to have regular communication spanning all stakeholder

categories. The influence of research organisations in relation to honey bee health as

measured by SNA is further supported by evidence that the majority of respondents across

the network when looking for information about honey bee health, looked primarily to

research articles. Researchers were well recognised as key individuals in debates around


6

honey bee health, as measured by the frequency with which these people were mentioned

as contacts by others. They were also highly influential, as measured by their eigenvector

scores. The semi-structured interviews shows that university researchers are highly trusted

for their expertise, objectivity and also their perceived independence from particular agendas

or interest groups (like government or agro-chemical companies). Putting these

characteristics together suggests that the research community has the potential to play a

pivotal role in future knowledge exchange around honey bee health issues, having both the

reach and influence necessary to disseminate messages, and potentially influence attitude

and behaviour change, if given the capacity to fulfil this potential. Researchers also have the

potential to provide the kind of information many honey bee health stakeholders are looking

for (in-depth, reliable and comprehensive), and are considered by many honey bee health

stakeholders to be the sort of people they want to learn from (if they are perceived to be

trustworthy and experienced enough). However, many respondents valued practical

experience as much as research expertise in the people they wanted to learn from, and the

research community do not always provide information in ways that are considered to be

easy, fast and convenient to access. There are also capacity issues around tailoring

information to address specific queries.

Multivariate statistical analysis showed that some stakeholder groups were clustered around

similar interests. Overall, two broad clusters of stakeholder groups emerged, sharing strong

social ties and similar interests: i) public interest and land/ecosystem management, who

were more likely to be interested in tailored and easily accessible information, often about

specific issues around pesticides, land management and wild pollinators, in addition to

information about communication and complexity in relation to honey bee health issues; and

ii) Government bodies, education/training and beekeeping stakeholders, who were more

likely to be interested in specific information about honey bee management and honey bee

health; background information; information about products and equipment; material for

teaching and training and information that could provide evidence/guidance to inform

decisions and solve problems.

As such, knowledge exchange around honey bee health is likely to be relatively

straightforward within each of these clusters, but more challenging between them. The

analysis suggests that there is already regular communication between government bodies

and education/training stakeholders, with beekeepers who they may wish to influence

around been health issues, and that these groups have quite compatible interests and

information needs. However, it may be more challenging for government bodies and

education/training stakeholder to communicate effectively around honey bee health with

public interest and land/ecosystem management stakeholders. In addition these groups

have more links with natural beekeepers that are outside the core honey bee health

groupings and so can perform a key linking role. It is likely that a more tailored knowledge

exchange strategy for honey bee health will be required to reach these stakeholder groups,

for example, linked to issues of greater interest to them (such as pesticides or wild

pollinators), using modes of communication that are highly accessible to these groups (e.g.

reports and research articles for public interest stakeholders, and expert talks for

land/ecosystem managers).

Researchers and beekeeping suppliers sit between these two clusters, but for different

reasons. Suppliers were the least well connected of all stakeholder groups to the honey bee

health network, and as such sit in a relatively isolated network position, disconnected from


7

either of the interest-based clusters identified above. However, they have access to a wide

range of beekeepers through their business and are often asked for advice, meaning they

may be an important source of knowledge for hard to reach beekeepers, although they have

little time for knowledge exchange through networking or other means. On the other hand,

researchers had regular contacts across all the stakeholder groups, and had a broad range

of interests that overlapped with stakeholder groups from each cluster of interests. This

again suggests a potential knowledge-brokering role for researchers to connect government

bodies and education/training stakeholders with public interest and land/ecosystem

management stakeholders.

Individuals from government bodies and public interest groups were also particularly

influential across the honey bee health network and therefore are also particularly well-

placed to communicate messages about honey bee health to a wide range of different

groups. Although well connected and influential, it would appear that public interest groups

are largely overlooked at present in their potential to promote messages to enhance honey

bee health (as measured by the frequency with which these people were mentioned as

contacts by others). However they may perform a key role as trusted intermediaries where

relationships of trust between government and stakeholder groups are problematic.

Although often local in their sphere of influence, education/training stakeholders

communicate with a large number of honey bee health stakeholders and should be

supported to continue this role. Respondents reported that there is a lack of ‘improver’ level

beekeeping advice in beekeeper groups due to the focus on new beekeepers and this focus

could now be shifted to ensuring the on-going education of existing beekeepers, rather than

taking on new ones.

The land and ecosystems management stakeholder group is less well connected to the

honey bee health core network, yet many stakeholders felt that closer relationships should

be fostered between these two groups in order to address important concerns about habitat,

pesticide use, forage etc. Many stakeholders felt that there were two sets of knowledge that

needed to be brought together to produce easily accessible information about management

of land for pollinator health which could be used for private land management or to lobby

bodies like local government.

Key recommendations:

A wider focus on all pollinators could foster greater understanding between differing

perspectives. Knowledge Exchange strategies should be developed which include all

pollinator health to draw together diverse interests around issues of concern common

to honey bee health and wild pollinator health constituencies of interest.

A national forum for pollinator health should be developed which includes all

stakeholders, related to a national action plan for pollinator health and facilitated

either by an independent body (preferably) or by government.

Closer working relationships should be developed between core honey bee health

constituencies, land and ecosystems management stakeholder groups, and public

interest groups in particular.

More tailored knowledge exchange strategies need to be developed for public interest

and land management stakeholder groups.

There is a need to integrate two sets of knowledge for pollinator health, between

honey bee health specialists and land use/ecosystem management specialists.


8

Tailored information for both individuals and organisations on land use management

for pollinator health would benefit both groups.

Bee suppliers could be supported with specific information they can cascade to

customers easily.

Many beekeepers valued highly the education, training and mentoring obtained

through contact with National Bee Unit Bee Inspectors. As funding constraints

increase, the training and educational work of the National Bee Unit is likely to be far

more strategic. Stakeholders felt that one way to focus their resources is to focus on

‘improver’ level beekeeping training.

Experiential learning is valued highly and face to face contact is seen as an effective

way to facilitate good practice and knowledge exchange among the beekeeping

community. Beekeeping and bee health stakeholders should be supported to look at

ways to facilitate and encourage this sort of learning and contact, perhaps through

supported mentoring schemes.

Any future Knowledge Exchange strategy should consider ways to provide specialist,

tailored information, primarily via personal contacts, by identifying key trusted

informants in the network, like Bee Inspectors, researchers or existing science

communicators, alongside the other popular means of learning about honey bee

health identified in this research.

Information about honey bee health should be: in-depth, reliable and comprehensive;

easy, fast and convenient to access; able to provide answers to specific questions;

delivered by people who are considered trustworthy and who have experience.

University researchers should play a key role in knowledge exchange and be

supported to communicate findings and expertise in ways that would be useful to

different stakeholder groups. This could be, for example, through the provision of

funding for a dedicated communications officer.

In order to reach those beekeepers that are reluctant to register on BeeBase, NBU

should continue their work on improving communications and relationships. It was

suggested that NBU consider a way for beekeepers to sign up to BeeBase

anonymously and therefore to access email alerts regarding disease, for example.

However, it should be noted that the majority of BeeBase information is open access

and free to use without requiring registration.


9

1 Introduction

Honey bees are important pollinators that make a significant contribution to biodiversity and

sustainable agriculture. Market-based values of their pollination services are estimated at

around £120-200m p.a. (commercial crops), while the value of honey production fluctuates

between £10-£30m p.a. (FERA, 2010). Like other pollinators, honey bees have faced habitat

loss, increasing environmental pressures, and biological threats. A key aim of the Defra

Healthy Bees Plan of 2009 is ‘to get everyone to work together on bee health’ (Defra, 2009).

Growing public and scientific concern led to BBSRC, Wellcome Trust, Defra, NERC and the

Scottish Government to fund the £10M Insect Pollinators Initiative to research pollinator

health. In 2010, nine grants were awarded to research projects in the UK to address key

issues such as honey bee nutrition, the impacts of pesticides, and serious honey bee pests

and diseases. While many of these projects involve stakeholders2, including beekeepers,

there is a dearth of empirical social science research concerning stakeholders themselves.

Yet if scientific knowledge about honey bee health is to be successfully applied, it must be

linked with economic factors and social context.

Currently the main domestic statutory instrument covering honey bee health is The Bees Act

1980, which ensures as far as possible that the spread of serious endemic honey bee

diseases and the introduction of exotic honey bee pests is minimised (FERA, 2010). Since

the introduction of the Act in 1980, various Statutory Orders have been made. The most

recent are the Bee Diseases and Pests Control Orders 2006 for England and for

Wales. These list the pests and diseases for which Statutory action must be taken to control

them. These are American foulbrood (AFB) and European foulbrood (EFB), plus the exotic

Small hive beetle (Aethina tumida) and Tropilaelaps spp. mites. Varroa is now so

widespread that it is no longer classed as notifiable (NBU BeeBase website). The National

Bee Unit (NBU), based within the The Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA),

delivers the honey bee health programmes on behalf of Defra and the Welsh Government,

as well as supporting the Scottish Government’s programme. The NBU are charged with

controlling serious notifiable diseases, providing advice to the beekeeping sector, minimising

the risk of importation of exotic pests and providing support to policy. The NBU organizes the

beekeeping Inspectorate and engages in research and development around honey bee

health issues. It manages a national database called BeeBase which serves as the

management and research tool for planning and executing the inspection programme but

also doubles as an internet based information service to beekeepers, underpinning an

extensive education programme of training, lectures and information leaflets. Registration

on BeeBase is not compulsory yet research suggests that those who are well integrated into

beekeeping networks and are members of BeeBase tend to use a larger number of pest and

disease monitoring methods (PSP, 2010). A number of national voluntary organisations

(including the British Beekeepers’ Association, Welsh Beekeepers’ Association, Council of

National Beekeeping Associations, Bee Improvement and Bee Breeders’ Association, and

Bee Farmers’ Association and The Natural Beekeeping Trust) and many local beekeeping

associations exist to support members and promote bee health.

2 See Appendix 2 for definitions of stakeholder


10

There are around 31,000 registered3 beekeepers in England and Wales (managing around

140,000 colonies of bees) and, unlike other countries, a very small commercial beekeeping

sector, with only around 300 operations (FERA, 2010). Beekeepers and bee farmers are key

stakeholders in honey bee health. Since the arrival and spread of the parasitic mite Varroa

destructor throughout UK honey bee colonies over the last two decades, and the subsequent

dramatic decline of stable feral bee colonies, these stakeholders have played an increasingly

important role in sustaining the honey bee population. For beekeepers and bee farmers

alike, pest and diseases are important concern; it costs money, risks hive loss and can be a

major disincentive to keeping honey bees (ADAS, 2001). Yet, due to the largely small scale

nature of beekeeping operations in the UK, and the fact that the vast majority of beekeepers

are non-commercial, the beekeeping sector is highly diverse and fragmented. In addition,

within the honey bee health stakeholder landscape in general there may exist a variety of

views associated with particular practices, motivations, agendas or beliefs regarding bee

health. This contributes to the sector’s difficulties in addressing honey bee health issues and

makes government intervention on disease control necessary to maintain uniform standards

of enforcement (FERA, 2010).

There has been a surge of interest in beekeeping in the last few years, probably due to

increased media reporting of pollinator declines, the intervention of high-profile beekeeping

personalities and campaigns by organisations like Friends of the Earth and the Co-operative

Ltd. Whilst greater public awareness of honey bee health threats is welcome, this marked

increase in new beekeepers (and potentially higher beekeeping turnover) has brought new

pressures: the NBU and many beekeeping associations are overstretched in trying to

provide training and support; honey bees are in short supply, causing many to buy honey

bees outside their local area, thereby risking pest and disease spread; current financial

constraints reduce the capacity of organisations like NBU and its inspectorate to manage

increased risk; the extra demand has raised prices, and many new beekeepers are reluctant

to invest in more than one hive, thus increasing chances of failure. Beekeepers are not the

only stakeholders involved in honey bee health of course. Farmers and commercial growers

may rely on pollination services and there are a number of businesses associated with bee

keeping (for example beekeeping suppliers like Thornes Ltd). A wide variety of people are

concerned about honey bee health and due to the recent surge of interest in bees, a wide

variety of different messages are being promoted, some misguided if well meant. These and

other factors may threaten honey bee health in many different ways. Farmers, wildlife

groups, ecologists, scientists, and the public (potential beekeepers) are all possible

stakeholders as well as beekeepers and bee farmers.

Beekeepers and other stakeholders have often been viewed by regulatory bodies in terms of

a management problem requiring regulation, inspection and education. However, the

National Audit Office (NAO) and Defra have recognized that a more collaborative approach

is needed: ‘The Department will need the active support of beekeepers to implement a

strategy for honey bee health, and should build its relationships with beekeeping

stakeholders by adopting a more consultative style’ (NAO, 2009). This project therefore

builds on this collaborative approach by involving stakeholders in informing the research at

3 Figures obtained from Beebase on 16 December 2013: The number of registered beekeepers in

England and Wales is 31,164 and in Scotland is 1,147. The number of unregistered beekeepers in England and Wales is estimated at approximately 33% (personal communication with Mike Brown and Giles Budge, National Bee Unit)


11

the outset. In the past honey bee stakeholders have called for compulsory registration of

beekeepers. However, Defra (2001) assessed that compulsory registration of beekeepers

would not bring sufficient benefits to justify costs. A recent Defra consultation on bee health

policy found that while there is a good level of support for compulsory registration, there

were a number of concerns including that it may act as a deterrent to new beekeepers and

that any benefits would not justify costs (Defra 2013). This is particularly a concern in the

light of recent public spending cuts. In addition, beekeepers themselves are assuming

greater responsibility in adopting better husbandry practices. Therefore understanding how

to support good beekeeping and influence better honey bee husbandry is key to promoting

the aims of the Coalition government goals regarding the Big Society and reduction in public

spending, in this context. In addition, a substantial portion of NBU’s annual budget is spent

on Bee Inspectors’ duties (ADAS, 2001) and it is important to identify where, how and with

which groups a Bee Inspector’s time can be most effective, including in a

mentoring/educational role. This means we need to understand the complex relationships

and interacting factors involved in supporting knowledge exchange amongst stakeholders in

honey bee health. Given that the tools now exist to control pests and disease and maintain

high standards of honey bee health, the key challenge is to communicate best practice,

facilitate learning about honey bee health and influence the attitudes and practices of

beekeepers and others who can contribute towards honey bee health. Partly, this is about

understanding the different stakeholder groups and tailoring knowledge exchange strategies

to suit their needs. This was a key recommendation of Defra commissioned research on

beekeeping practices (PSP, 2010).


12

2 Aims and Objectives

This aim of this project was to contribute towards the health and sustainability of the honey

bee population by determining how best to communicate with relevant stakeholders to

improve honey bee health. This was done by identifying, segmenting and analyzing

relationships between relevant stakeholders, and better understanding their awareness,

motivations and practices in relation to maintaining good pest and disease control.

The research had the following objectives:

Review of available literature on: honey bee health stakeholders, research on

working and communicating with stakeholders in comparable areas, and evaluation

of relevant theory and methods that can inform the design and execution of

stakeholder mapping in this project and the design of a knowledge exchange and

communications strategy for honey bee health

Systematically analyze stakeholders’ relative interest in and influence on honey bee

health issues, whilst gathering information about likely views of different groups,

existing or potential conflict between groups, and information about how best to

approach/involve hard-to-reach groups

Better understand the wider pollinator stakeholder landscape, provide targeted

inputs to the Government’s National Pollinator Strategy and discuss future research

needs relating to other pollinator stakeholders (Appendix 8)

Assess stakeholder awareness and knowledge of honey bee health, risks and

related issues, their beliefs, attitudes, motivations and activities in relation to honey

bee health, and how best to communicate with different types of stakeholder to

influence honey bee health practices. Consider the ways that knowledge is

interpreted and framed by different groups to support current beliefs and practices

Statistically analyze relationships between stakeholders to identify: those with

similar or different views about honey bee health and who access information in

similar or different ways; individuals and organisations with significant gatekeeping

roles for transmission of knowledge to support current beliefs and practices; and

individuals and groups that are well positioned to access knowledge and help on

honey bee issues, and those who are typically excluded or hard-to-reach

Produce knowledge exchange and communications materials to communicate key

messages from this research about how to most effectively communicate with and

influence different types of stakeholder to improve honey bee health

Produce a knowledge exchange and communications strategy and an associated

implementation plan for the sector, to guide future work with stakeholders to

improve honey bee health (this work is ongoing)


13

3 Literature Review

A literature review and current research audit was carried out to inform this work. This

covered:

Existing material on knowledge exchange, communication and behavior change in a

honey bee health context focused on/including honey bee health stakeholders

Examples of previous work with comparably diverse stakeholder groups regarding

pest and disease prevention/environmental protection which may inform this project,

identifying lessons from these other contexts that can be applied to honey bee health

Other relevant methods and theoretical approaches to stakeholder mapping,

knowledge exchange and communication that can be applied in this project, and that

could be used in other contexts in future (section 3.3).

A short summary is presented below. The full literature review and audit, including the

methodology for the literature review, can be found in Appendix 1.

Due to the sharp increase in awareness of honey bee health amongst scientists,

policymakers and the public internationally, there is now a high general awareness of honey

bee health issues. This has generated a large number of new scientific research studies on

honey bees and a large effort to include stakeholders in knowledge exchange. This is the

case in the EU and the Anglophone countries we reviewed (US, Canada, Australia and New

Zealand). Much work is going on at regional or national governmental level in terms of

education and consultation with honey bee health stakeholders and gathering information

about pest and disease management. This takes the shape of meetings, websites,

workshops, information initiatives aimed at making scientific findings accessible, training etc.

Much of this work, whilst attempting to involve stakeholders in honey bee health issues still

largely views scientific knowledge as unproblematic and a one-way exchange, from science

(to policy) to stakeholders (in most cases, beekeepers). There is a dearth of published

studies about honey bee health stakeholders themselves, their knowledge, opinions,

experience and practices, which can directly inform this research. Where studies exist, they

usually focus on beekeepers not wider stakeholder groups. These studies are usually large-

scale surveys of beekeepers, to find out statistical information about, for example, numbers

of beekeepers/colonies, economy/profitability of honey production and pollination services,

pest and disease spread and control practices. These studies don’t segment beekeepers

(except by number of colonies or length of time beekeeping), or study in depth the opinions,

practices, networks and knowledge acquisition/exchange of different groups. We found very

little in-depth work being carried out to understand and map honey bee health stakeholder

relationships and knowledge exchange. The Status and Trends of European Pollinators

(STEP) project funded by the seventh EU research framework programme carried out some

consultation work with pollination stakeholders in 2011 to map stakeholder groups and

knowledge gaps. The project found that ‘social and cultural aspects as well as [knowledge]

about the stakeholders role’ was identified as one of the major gaps in current knowledge

(STEP, 2010). Studies of wild insect pollinator stakeholder groups in UK find a similar dearth

of knowledge. In a review of wild pollinator literature Dicks et al. (2010) found no studies

focused on stakeholders themselves. The following section reviews the little available

research we found, most of it in the UK.


14

Two surveys commissioned by Defra (Adas 2001; PSP 2010) and ongoing research at

Newcastle and Lancaster Universities provide some useful information on beekeepers and

more limited information about other honey bee health stakeholders, like growers. Main

findings from a Defra commissioned survey in 2001 indicate that beekeepers respected

government advice, and those with lower numbers of colonies relied more on other

beekeepers for general beekeeping practice (Adas 2001). A more recent survey showed

that: newer beekeepers tended to prefer other beekeepers for knowledge whilst more

experienced beekeepers prefer written sources; those who were better networked tended to

use Integrated Pest Management (IPM); beekeepers were often confused about advice

received; beekeeping was becoming harder and a new influx of beekeepers was proving

challenging in terms of training capacity. Among main findings was the need to tailor

messages to different groups. As acknowledged by the researchers carrying out this study,

the methodology relied on an internet survey and the interviewees were mainly gathered

through advertisement on websites and through memberships of bee organisations. This

introduces a bias towards those already well networked, and those who are computer

literate. In addition beekeepers were segmented according to experience. This produces

interesting patterns which can inform policy, for example the split between ‘modern’ and

‘traditional’ beekeeping practices. However, as with all research, the particular method of

data collection and analysis can only produce a partial picture. One key finding of this

research was the need to tailor information to different beekeeping audiences. However, so

far, beekeepers have been segmented rather coarsely, in terms of their experience

(novice/established) or by the number of their colonies. However, it is likely that criteria for

segmentation based on a number of different factors will not only make it possible to identify

more useful categories for knowledge exchange strategies, but will also produce insights into

how these categories of beekeepers might be supported in order to control pests and

disease. For example, members of the Natural Beekeeping Trust may have specific

concerns and agenda which inform attitudes to honey bees, beekeeping practice and pest

and disease control. This may be very different to the concerns and agenda of members of

the Bee Farmers Association.

Recent and ongoing in depth empirical work carried out by Karen Scott and Sue Bradley

(2011-2012) at the Centre for Rural Economy at Newcastle University and Emily Adams at

Lancaster University (2010 – date) is contributing to more in-depth knowledge of the diverse

social contexts, personal motivations and challenges entailed in beekeeping. These studies

are concentrated on fairly close networks of beekeepers in Durham, Orkney and Lancashire

and use qualitative methods. The following preliminary findings are available: beekeepers

are highly diverse requiring a need for more sophisticated segmentation than previously;

there are a wide range of motivations for and types of knowledge acquisition, with a

particular finding regarding the importance of mentoring, the role of trust in knowledge

exchange and the value of experiential learning; good practice in beekeeping is very much

related to lifestyle; it is often difficult for beekeepers to assess quality of knowledge and

therefore they rely on personal trust; following a surge in numbers of beekeepers more

mentors/trainers are needed. This in-depth work at Newcastle and Lancaster is valuable in

bringing to light the range of factors which may impact on honey bee health practices.

However, more systematic coverage is needed to integrate this in-depth work with

information on how stakeholders interact and how knowledge is transmitted.

Studies which focus on controversies over the impact of pesticides on pollinators in Europe

find that that along with an escalation of research and an intensification of political interest in


15

pollination, there is a rise of ‘objecting minorities’ (Lezaun 2011). Maxim and van der Sluijs

(2007 highlight the key role that political and societal context plays in knowledge production

and usage and show how different actors including beekeepers, policy officials and pesticide

companies strategically select information sources to exploit scientific uncertainty in

promoting a particular agenda. Therefore, a combination of social pressure, media attention

as well as scientific evidence is important in knowledge production and they highlight the

need to understand the interests and assumptions of various actors.

The small number of existing studies that have been carried out and are currently underway

highlight the complex nature of honey bee health stakeholder groups, beekeepers in

particular, their many knowledge needs and different means of knowledge acquisition. Whilst

studies have found preliminary evidence of patterns in knowledge acquisition relating to

beekeeper profiles, much more nuanced research is needed to tailor messages to different

groups, and to understand more about the profiles of different groups. Research has

uncovered some information about where people go to find information but we need to know

much more about what information people actually use and trust, as opposed to just what

they access. This needs to be set into a context of looking at the complex link between

beliefs about honey bee health (and the strength of those) and knowledge acquisition for

honey bee health, something which is hugely under-researched. The same goes for

motivations for beekeeping and pests and disease management practices. However, some

beliefs are likely to be heavily contested between groups, and some are likely to be less

problematic. We need to understand which beliefs are reinforced by social networks.

Given the limited amount of previous work investigating honey bee health stakeholders in

the UK and elsewhere internationally, the second part of this literature review drew lessons

from other comparably diverse stakeholder groups regarding wider issues of plant and

animal health, disease prevention/control and biosecurity. More general lessons for

analyzing honey bee health stakeholders were drawn from theoretical and methodological

literature published in other environmental fields and where necessary non-environmental

disciplines e.g. business management. These lessons were used to help design a honey

bee health stakeholder mapping workshop in the UK, and are likely to be instructive for

others planning to identify, categorize and analyze relationships between stakeholders in an

environmental setting.

This part of the review started by highlighting the limitations of scientific evidence and top-

down, technocratic governance approaches in the management of disease risk. It

emphasizes, instead, the need to draw upon and where possible integrate a range of

knowledge sources including universal, scientific, expert knowledge and local, lay, generalist

knowledge, and to effectively engage stakeholders in the design of disease management

strategies from the outset. Managing pest and disease risks and improving honey bee health

depends as much upon what people do as it does on the science of how a pest or disease

spreads. It is therefore imperative to understand and take into account the knowledge,

attitudes and practices of stakeholders in the management of these risks. In this way, it may

be possible to anticipate how different stakeholder groups are likely to perceive risks to

honey bee health and the benefits of adopting new biosecurity practices. There is also

strong evidence that stakeholder representation is a key factor in the success of participatory

processes and can significantly influence outcomes, by providing (sometimes selective)

access to information and adapting outcomes to local contexts.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969707000095



16

The current research on mapping stakeholders in honey bee health takes a “normative”

approach to stakeholder mapping, as it aims to both represent and empower the full range of

stakeholders to inform honey bee health strategies. This may involve developing specific

strategies for engaging with “hard to reach” groups and understanding their needs, so that

future knowledge exchange and communications work can meet the needs and priorities of

as many stakeholders as possible.

To this end, methods have been reviewed for identifying, categorizing and analysing

relationships between stakeholders (Appendix 2). This led to the identification of

theoretically-informed questions that could help identify stakeholders (these questions were

provided to participants as part of the honey bee health stakeholder mapping workshop),

and a list of common stakeholder categories found in literature about stakeholders in plant

and animal health (which were used as prompts in the stakeholder mapping workshop).

Although the majority of stakeholder mapping exercises use pre-defined categories, based

on stakeholder theory, there is a growing literature suggesting that stakeholders can usefully

be engaged in this process themselves, to help derive categories. The approach proposed

for the workshop was a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches, working with

stakeholders to identify categories, whilst also collecting data about potential stakeholders

using a number of pre-defined criteria e.g. levels of interest and influence. Preliminary

information about key relationships the research team should be aware of was collected

during this workshop; however these relationships were investigated in greater depth during

subsequent empirical data collection and analysis.


17

4 Methodology

This project incorporated a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods to meet its objectives.

Figure 1 summarises the research design. This section provides a summary of the methods

used. A full account of the methodology is contained in Appendix 5.

The literature review (section 3 and Appendix 1) fed into the design of a stakeholder

mapping workshop to identify and categorize those who hold a stake in honey bee health

issues, in which we systematically assessed their interest in and influence on honey bee

health. This stakeholder mapping exercise and subsequent scoping interviews informed the

selection of stakeholder representatives for interview. In total, seven categories of

stakeholder were identified and theoretical and snowball sampling was used to identify

interviewees within each category till theoretical saturation was reached. Interviews were

divided into two parts; an initial semi-structured interview to collect qualitative data, followed

by a structured questionnaire to collect data for social network analysis.

Semi-structured interviews were used to assess respondents’ awareness and knowledge of

honey bee health, risks and related issues, their beliefs, attitudes, motivations and activities

in relation to honey bee health, and how best to communicate with different types of

stakeholder to influence honey bee health practices. These interviews also considered the

ways that knowledge is interpreted and framed by different groups to support current beliefs

and practices.

The Social Network Analysis (SNA) was designed to identify: individuals and groups with

similar or different views about honey bee health and who access information in similar or

different ways; individuals and organisations that are key nodes/influencers with significant

gatekeeping roles for transmission of knowledge to support current beliefs and practices;

and individuals and groups that are well positioned to access knowledge and help on honey

bee issues, and those who are typically excluded or hard-to-reach. Data was collected

initially from the same interviewees that were selected to represent stakeholder categories

from the initial stakeholder mapping workshop (‘tier one”). Subsequently, as many as

possible of their contacts were interviewed to collect a second tier of SNA data.

Findings from qualitative interview data and quantitative SNA data are described in section

5. This is then used in section 6 to derive recommendations that can inform the development

of knowledge exchange and communications materials to disseminate key messages about

how to most effectively communicate with and influence different types of stakeholder to

improve honey bee health. The project will subsequently produce a knowledge exchange

and communications strategy and an associated implementation plan to guide future work

with stakeholders to improve honey bee health.

Finally, as a late addition to this study, a second stakeholder mapping workshop followed by

telephone interviews was held with a small selection of cross-sectoral pollination

stakeholders to better understand this wider stakeholder landscape, and provide targeted

inputs to the Government’s National Pollinator Strategy and discuss future research needs

(Appendix 8).


18

Figure 1. Overview of research design, showing the order in which methods were used, and how

these relate to the work package structure of the project.

Stakeholder Mapping

Focus group

Literature review

Scoping interviews

Semi-structured

interviews

First tier SNA

interviews

WP1

WP2

WP3

WP4

WP5

Second tier SNA

interviews

Reporting

Dissemination

Knowledge exchange

& communications

strategy for future

work


19

5 Results

5.1 Stakeholder categories

Table 1 outlines the stakeholder categories reached following extensive stakeholder

participation through a workshop and nine follow up scoping interviews with careful analysis

of all comments. Given the large number of stakeholders in honey bee health, there are

many different ways that stakeholders could in theory be categorized. This is the result of

what seemed most appropriate to the research team and stakeholders questioned, based on

their experience and considering a wide range of stakeholder group interests and activities.

There was a balance to be had about including ‘core’ stakeholders as opposed to those who

are very ‘peripheral’ to honey bee health but also to ensure that those stakeholders who are

normally marginalized had more of a voice. There were also some limitations on the

categorization due to the need to use it in a particular research methodology (Social Network

Analysis) and therefore to keep it manageable (between 7-10 categories). As such the

categorization provided here is not intended to be definitive; rather it aims to provide a

functional framework that can usefully inform any future attempt to enhance knowledge

exchange and communication to improve honey bee health. The categorization attempts to

minimize overlap between categories, however it should be noted that a number of

stakeholders could be situated in multiple categories.

Table 1. Summary of stakeholder categories, noting sub-categories where relevant, and providing examples of stakeholder organisations and other

comments

Stakeholder category Sub-categories Examples and comments

1. Beekeepers 1. Commercial beekeepers:

Using “conventional” approaches

Using “natural” approaches

2. Non-commercial beekeepers:

Using “conventional” approaches

Using “natural” approaches

All respondents felt that there were difficulties with nomenclature for this category;

what is offered here is the solution preferred by most, whilst taking care not to

exclude marginalized views. ‘Hobbyist’ and ‘amateur’ were seen as patronising terms

that undervalue expertise. Most respondents felt a split between ‘commercial’ and

‘non-commercial’ was the best distinction. However, some warned against using the

40-hive criterion because 40 colonies are not sufficient for a viable commercial

venture. The research team considered this and proposed that, for the purposes of

this study, ‘commercial’ means: beekeeping makes a significant contribution to the

household income. This might include, for example, a retiree who depends on

beekeeping income as a supplement to the household income in order to maintain a

particular standard of living. In interviews for this research, beekeepers were asked to

self-select which category they wished to be in. Most respondents felt that there was

also a need to split the sector into ‘natural’ and ‘conventional’ beekeepers. Whilst

many acknowledge the problems with these terms, they represent the best

compromise.

2. Beekeeping

education/training and

beekeeping media

This category includes, for example:

National Diploma of Beekeeping

Beekeeping associations

Training (school level, apprenticeship schemes, BBKA education)

Beekeeping press

Bee Farmers Association

Training schemes run by Natural Beekeepers

BIBBA

National Bee Unit

Thorne’s runs training courses as a commercial firm

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

Media (e.g. newsletters) issued by Welsh, Scottish, Ulster and Irish

Beekeepers Associations (i.e. not only BBKA)


21

Council of National Beekeeping Associations (CONBA)

3. Public interest

groups, campaigning

groups, and mainstream

media


Environmental/conservationist groups e.g. wildlife trusts, amateur entomology

groups, Bees and Wasps Recording Society

National Federation of Women’s Institutes

The Co-operative Group

Mainstream media

National Honey Show

Local honey shows and Health through Honey

Bumble Bee Conservation Trust

Bug Life

Friends of the Earth

Pesticides Action Network

Corporations e.g. Magners Cider, Banrock Wines (the latter have been

involved in bee-health promotions with Co-op) (note that there is overlap with

category 4)

School teachers

Local natural history societies

Soil Association

Soroptimists

Greenpeace

Gardeners at household level (might be reached through retailers, e.g. Home

Base with concerns about selling products affected by neonicotinoids).

National Trust (as their public reach would make them a valuable partner in

conveying messages more widely about bee health)

Small-scale gardeners

4. Beekeeping supplies,

honey and other bee-

related products

1. Into the hive: specialist suppliers to the

beekeeping sector:

Suppliers of bees

Suppliers of beekeeping

equipment

This category (previously titled “food chain”) was altered following the scoping

interviews because it was widely seen as too complex (one respondent described it

as ‘massive and complicated’) and including groups that might be better placed

elsewhere. These groups have been moved accordingly (i.e. farmers to “land

management”) but questions remain about the overlap between growers and


22

Suppliers of medicinal products

for bees

Swarm co-ordination officers in

local associations

Specialist suppliers of feed, i.e.

sugar products (e.g. British

Sugar, Alumgard)

Veterinary Medicines Directorate

(See also Category 6)

Veterinary Laboratories Agency

(VLA), which prescribes medicinal

products

Bee medicine manufacturers, e.g.

Vita (Basingstoke), BCW

(Shropshire), makers of Varroa

Guard; Bee Vital (importers based

in Devon)

Animal health professionals

2. Outside the hive:

Grower/Producers e.g. cider-

makers

Growers, e.g. fruit and flower

growers (but overlap with

category 5)

Agro-chemical companies

Honey packers and importers

Retailers, e.g.

supermarkets/British Retail

Consortium

Small-scale/independent retailers

Consumers

Makers of candles and cosmetics

producers. Some suggested making “producers and growers” a single category

because many (e.g. cider makers) will fall in both. Realistically, there will be some

overlaps which we will be unable to resolve and we will ask interviewees to select the

category they believe is most appropriate to themselves. This category was sub-

divided into two sub-categories:


23

from bee products

Manufacturers of bee-based

alternative health products, e.g.

using propolis, bee sting venom,

Manuka

5. Land and

Ecosystems

Management


Farmers (farmers may be further segmented into “individual farmers” and

“corporate agri-business” and we may distinguish between horticultural

farmers, e.g. of orchards, and arable farmers, e.g. of oil seed rape. It may

also be relevant to consider intermediaries/brokers between farms and

supermarkets).

Seed production companies and agro-chemical corporations e.g. Syngenta

and their Operation Pollinator campaign

Gardeners (e.g. Royal Horticultural Association, National Allotment Society,

smallholders)

Local government (but see also: Category 6: Government,)

Rail Track

National Trust

MoD

Private gardeners (e.g. those who have approached local associations to

offer land for hives)

The Co-op Group

Council workers in charge of managing road verges

Community groups

Highways Agency

Managers of sports facilities, e.g. golf courses

Market gardeners

Land management at local, national and European levels. Local authorities

are directed by national government. European governance has big impact,

e.g. through CAP reform and biodiversity strategy.

National Parks

Forestry Commission (e.g. as managers of heather moors)


24

6. Government and

government-funded

bodies


Defra

Scottish Government

Parliamentary interest groups

Individual MPs with special interest in bees, e.g. Richard Benyon,

Environment Minister

Grant organizations like KTN Bioscience

Chemical Regulatory Directorate (CRD) based at York

The National Bee Unit including the National Bee Inspectorate

Natural England (finance schemes for farmers to include wildflower pollinator

strips)

Environment Agency

MEPs

European Union policy-makers

Regional government, e.g. Welsh National Assembly, and local government

Veterinary Medicines Directorate (see also category 4ii)

Trading Standards

Food Standards Agency

7. Research and

funding

This includes, for example:

National Bee Unit

Academic research scientists

International Pollination Initiative researchers (but also category 6)

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)

Academic research scientists also provide education/training

International Bee Research Association (Cardiff)

Pesticide companies run schemes (e.g. planting schemes) to promote bee

health

NERC, ESRC, Wellcome Trust (all fund pollinator projects)

Industry often includes in-house research, e.g. East Malling Research

European Union (in its capacity as funder for bee-related research/education

and training)

5.2 Awareness, attitudes and activities of bee health stakeholders

5.2.1 How Bee Health is conceptualized

We asked an initial question about what people thought were the main factors involved in

honey bee health. This allowed us to understand how people conceptualized honey bee

health as well as accessing a range of different concerns. Bee health was often expressed

simply in relation to population numbers and there were differing views regarding whether or

not the honey bee population was in decline or at risk of sudden decline. A few respondents,

mainly those in the beekeeping, beekeeping education and public interest categories, were

concerned about honey bee population numbers suddenly dropping or reaching a tipping

point and expressed concern at the high colony losses experienced over the 2012/2013

winter. People often drew on their own long term personal experience of the change in

pollinator numbers.

I can remember seeing in my own back garden as a child, an abundance of butterflies and

bees and you know what, this year I haven't seen one. (Int 19)

But I’m aware that when I was a kid we drove out in the car and your headlights and

windscreen would be splattered with insects. It would just be covered. Now if I go out in the

car it doesn’t happen. (Int 42)

Some respondents felt that honey bees were not at risk right now because the population

was stable and that the picture was far more serious for wild pollinators but in these cases

honey bee health tended to be read simply in terms of population numbers. However, many

respondents talked about health not only in terms of population numbers but also in terms of

general lower vitality of the population and the various stresses faced by honey bees,

highlighting issues like poor nutrition, pesticides, bad management, weather, poor queen

mating, lowered longevity of queens (and increased supercedure) and lower honey

production.

First of all we don't appear to have got the bee population which we would expect or we

would like. So the population appears to be in decline. But also the actual fitness of those

insects would appear to be potentially under - have been compromised. So we're not really

sure whether or not, even though a bee is alive, whether it is actually performing in the way

a bee should perform. (int 19)

These concerns were expressed by respondents in every stakeholder group and concern

about the complicated matrix of factors affecting honey bees and the need to understand the

whole picture. However, there was a general difference in how the causes and solutions to

these problems were framed. Some, including many natural beekeepers but not exclusively

so, framed bee health in terms of the health of the whole environmental system over the very

long term (millions of years). In this context, husbandry concerns regarding honey bees were

given a relatively low priority:

So there is just a major collapse of bee vitality if I can put it that way. So simply focusing

on one aspect of it I don’t think actually moves us forward, and I think there’s far too much

focus on beekeepers finding a solution, whereas I actually think the solution lies in

addressing the whole of the issue which I think is the agro/industrial paradigm that we’ve


26

got ourselves into, as opposed to biodiversity and habitat loss. In fact for some, husbandry

has negative connotations with regard to the impact man has had on bee health. (Int 3)

In these respects, there are fundamental differences between different constituencies over

the issue of honey bee health and how to manage it. However, the membership of these

belief constituencies cannot be defined simply in terms of the stakeholder categories. It is

important not to assume that because an individual belongs to a particular stakeholder

group, or sub group, that their views will be predictable. Having said that, some trends are

apparent in the sample we interviewed. The conventional beekeepers, bee farmers,

beekeeping education and government categories place more priority on husbandry and

management of colonies. For some groups, like the bee farmers, farmers, bee suppliers and

those in the honey industry, honey bee health is closely linked to livelihoods and jobs in the

agricultural sector, and so is set within a socio-economic as well as an environmental frame.

For this reason, respondents in these groups related honey bee health to sustainable

populations of bees in order to perform targeted migratory pollination services and increase

UK honey production. However, for some conventional beekeepers, natural beekeepers,

public interest groups, land and ecosystem groups and some researchers, this was seen as

part of the intensification of farming and food production which is part of the problem.

However, interestingly both the natural beekeepers and the BFA, although fairly in

opposition on these matters, have a common interest in seeing the focus shifted from non-

commercial beekeepers onto the commercial sector and farming more generally, albeit that

one party wants to change the way this is practised and the other party wants to support it.

Some felt that weather affected bee health significantly but suggested that the focus should

be on issues that are more under our own control. Most people felt that the effects of

adverse weather were largely unmanageable, although some felt that good husbandry could

ameliorate its worst effects (e.g. keeping the risk of disease low, ensuring honey bees had

enough stores, siting hives well etc). Very few people mentioned climate change as a

concern.

The weather does have a major impact on whether bees survive or not, but the weather is

changeable from year to year, so you get good years and you get bad years. So I think in

the end it’s a neutral thing, because in the good years you get more swarming and you get

more bees and so on, and in bad years you lose more colonies over the winter. I think the

weather impacts on the success of the bee community year on year, but not in the long

term. (Int 15)

Most people stressed the complexity and interrelationships between multiple factors

affecting honey bee health including weather, husbandry, disease and pests, land

management, pesticides and diversity of floral resources.

‘They all interact so it’s pretty complex trying to unravel what are the most important things’

(Int. 12)

I think actually the interactions between those factors is really important too, so I think

there’s also been research suggesting that honey bees become more susceptible to

damage to their health from exposure to chemicals where they’re struggling to find enough

sources of food. And, if they’re exposed to particular chemicals they may become more

susceptible to the diseases that are of great concern to the species. So, I think the fact

that it is very much multiple drivers and very much that we need to look at interactions

between those and not treat those as completely separate aspects of the problem. (Int 25)


27

Some respondents answered specifically with reference to their local environment rather

than speaking from a UK perspective. For example one stakeholder in Northern England

focused on Varroa rather than other pests and or diseases specifically because other pests

and or diseases weren’t an issue in that area. For a stakeholder in Wales, the main factor

was weather and climate. Foulbrood diseases are more of a problem in Southern England,

so this disease was a concern for some in that area, including some natural beekeepers we

spoke to.

5.2.2 Other Pollinators

We asked if respondents had any interest in or thoughts about other sorts of insect

pollinators. Most people assumed honey bees need to be managed (and are non-native)

and made a distinction between managed honey bees and ‘wild’ pollinators. Many people

made the distinction between the need for habitat for wild pollinators on the one hand and

the need for husbandry for managed bees on the other. Otherwise, most people across all

stakeholder groups expressed the view that the health of honey bees and other insect

pollinators was subject to many of the same drivers. Some respondents felt that not enough

interest was paid to the possibility of encouraging and breeding the native British Black

honey bee which is more resistant to Varroa (Int 10). Some of the researchers that were

interviewed considered strategies to increase the population of native British honey bees to

be a difficult idea which had not been adequately proven and assumed that most honey

bees in UK are not native species (Int 41). Natural beekeepers fell somewhere in between

these positions as their view of the honey bee was to try to manage it as naturally as

possible and therefore their view was to try and replicate its wild environment.

People most often mentioned bumblebees, butterflies and solitary bees with wasps, beetles,

moths and hoverflies mentioned far less. In fact, one stakeholder felt it was a problem that

some pollinators like hoverflies perform an important role but the focus is too much on the

charismatic species. However, a campaign group felt that focusing on a few species such as

bumblebees and butterflies was useful in mobilizing public pressure and that action to

improve habitat would benefit a wider range of pollinators.

Some were concerned that a lack of management of honey bees may mean that a pest or

disease could potentially spread to wild pollinators, particularly bumblebees and vice versa.

A few stakeholders mentioned concern about disease vectors and the lack of research into

which direction diseases were potentially transmitted and which species were reservoirs of

pathogens.

And I guess I would like to say that they [wild pollinators] differ somewhat in that it's more

about those effects of land use intensification and climate change that are driving the

issues around their health although it's becoming apparent that many of the diseases that

honey bees suffer from are occurring in these wild populations also, but hitherto, they

haven't really been looked at. (int 40).

Some were concerned that imported bumblebees for glasshouse crop pollination could upset

the balance of native bumblebees and contribute to their decline.

Most people recognized the importance of other pollinators and for some the interest was

wider, extending to birds due to their direct link to honey bees in the food chain:


28

Yes, in fact I would say it goes even further than that, because I see these as a chain, you

know. I mean, I’m also a member of the RSPB and I’m very interested in birds and we

notice what the impact is, or we notice the changes in the bird population here in [name of

place] so I would say, yes, I have a much broader interest than just bees. (Int 15)

The groups that broadly seemed more interested in wild pollinators were also the ones who

tended to frame bee health in terms of a wider environmental paradigm shift: natural

beekeepers; public interest; land and ecosystems; researchers. Most people thought that

wild pollinators were as, if not more, important than honey bees for pollination. However,

some stakeholder groups expressed the need for ‘targeted’ pollination by honey bees to

systematically increase crop yield. Others felt that honey bee pollination was only a ‘top up’

to the far bigger job done by wild pollinators. Others still felt that targeted pollination was part

of the intensification of agriculture and therefore part of a whole system problem and that

merely increasing habitat and floral diversity didn’t go far enough.

Almost all the migratory pollination in this country is done by bee farmer members. So

although there is great importance to the other pollinators, targeted and properly worked

out pollination is only done by the Bee Farmers' Association in the UK. (Int 27)

Increasingly the evidence shows that those wild pollinators are the mainstay of all

pollination, whether that’s of wild habitats or indeed agricultural crops. Any managed

pollinators you bring into that environment are really just a top up if you like on top of a

fundamental level of pollination that’s been done by wild insect pollinators. (Int 17)

Wild pollinators were more of a proactive concern for the following stakeholder categories:

public interest, campaign and media; natural beekeepers; land and ecosystems

management; government; researchers and funders. Some people stressed their higher

importance in terms of pollination and mentioned recent research to back this up. Some

respondents discussed the tensions existing between some parties over the relative

importance of honey bees to pollination. This tension has been linked to discussions of

research priorities and subsequent funding. In particular the BBKA in the past felt that honey

bees were more important to pollination and therefore should have more funding for

research within the IPI. However, one respondent felt that a recent research paper which

challenged this assumption has started a different narrative within the BBKA. This year the

BBKA has photographs of other pollinators featured on its calendar and this respondent felt

that this as a sign of greater awareness of the comparative roles of all pollinators.

Many people (predominantly in the conventional beekeeping groups) who did not have a

proactive or professional interest in other pollinators nevertheless consistently said they felt

they were important and /or ‘like to see them around’. There was a fondness expressed for

particular types of insects like bumblebees. Public interest groups mentioned that these

iconic or charismatic species are useful for drawing attention to wider problems.

5.2.3 Specific concerns about honey bee health

We asked respondents to tell us more about their own particular concerns regarding honey

bee health, what they thought should be done, and by whom. We also asked them to rate

how urgent they were.


29

I think because there are so many issues behind it I think it needs to be everybody so they

can possibly work together which I suppose is what you guys are trying to do here. You

know, farmers need to look at it, campaigning groups need to look at it, pesticide

companies need to look at it, and the bee keepers themselves need to look at, you know,

where they are siting the hives and what practices they are using. So I think everybody

who has an interest or the stake holders I think they need to take responsibility for where

they can maintain and improve the situation. (Int 5)

Land management and floral resources

Overwhelmingly, and across all stakeholder groups, respondents highlighted concerns about

the decline of floral resources for pollinators and the need for land management to increase

biodiversity. Most stressed the importance of having a variety of floral resources and

mentioned the decline of species rich meadows and field margins. However, this was

particularly of concern in stakeholder groups whose interests spanned all pollinator health,

these were: Public interest, campaign groups and mainstream media; land and ecosystems

management; government; and research and funding stakeholder groups.

Many people felt that there needed to be more regulation and legislation, and that

regulations on spraying should be extended to all land not just agricultural. Some people

expressed the idea of land management needing to be re-balanced, so that the needs of

pollinators could be considered alongside other needs, like growing food. Others felt that

what was needed was a systemic change towards the adoption of farming processes that

were more in harmony with pollinator needs. This illustrates the different framings of honey

bee health in the sample.

I think land management is about balance, you know, it is not…obviously, land

management, the UK is not only about providing a decent habitat for wildlife and

biodiversity, but doing that alongside other aims. (Int 20)

The short answer is I don’t think DEFRA and folk by simply pushing at the farmer's end of it

works. I think there’s got to be a broader approach than that, so that effectively you look at

the whole supply chain of food through distribution out to retail outlets to the customer’s

plate, and people look at their plate and they say, ah, when I look at the food I’m eating I

realise it’s actually harming or costing in environmental terms. (Int 3)

Pesticides

A number of people felt that natural beekeeping groups and public interest/media

stakeholders had focused too much on the issue of pesticides with the result that this had

deflected from a more holistic look at honey bee health, or from other serious or ‘real’

concerns. However, analysis of the interviews from natural beekeepers and public

interest/media groups only partly bears this perception out. The discussions that were

recorded with these stakeholders were far more nuanced and wide ranging than was

generally perceived by other stakeholders, with pesticides being only one part of the picture.

This is one area where more understanding of other groups’ values could be fruitful. All

respondents who mentioned pesticides felt that there was a need for more research.

However, some argued for a precautionary approach, while others argued that banning

certain compounds like neo-nicotinoids would produce further harm because farmers would

go back to spraying.


30

Even within the research and funding stakeholder group, there were differing views on the

right line to take on neo-nicotinoids and the role of agro-chemical companies in honey bee

health. Some researchers were concerned that agro-chemical companies were too close to

government and that they were protecting their own interests. Others thought that

government should take a lesson from the way in which some agro-chemical companies had

prioritized honey bee health and were actively working with stakeholder groups and applying

research to improve products. One issue mentioned by the scientists particularly was the

lack of proper field research (as opposed to lab research) on pesticides and the inability to

access the methods and data of research carried out on pesticides by the agro-chemical

companies, so their findings could be properly scrutinized. Respondents from agro-chemical

companies said that they felt that they were automatically dismissed due to the perception

that they had ‘vested interests’ and it was difficult for them to engage effectively in debates.

Many respondents in every group mentioned their frustration with honey bee health being

focused on the pesticide issue and neglecting the complex matrix of factors.

My particular concern about bee health would be that the spotlight is stolen very much by

issues around pesticides and bees and that a disproportionate amount of activity and

resource is focused on the issue of pesticides and bees at the cost of all those other

problems that are faced by bees. (int 17)

What we do find difficult is making a case that we believe is based on sound science. So

for example, taking the recent debate and discussion around the neo-nicotinoids and the

impact they have on bees, you know, we believe that we've been absolutely passionate in

presenting the evidence which was then suggested that the impact in the real world of

these products is very small. And there's not, you know, a hidden agenda or there's no,

you know, smokes and mirrors, they're simply putting the evidence on the table and saying

look at it. But as I said, because we're an industry and a vested interested in the eyes of

many, you know, some, for example, environmental NGOs seem to have been unwilling to

accept that evidence and that data. So we do struggle, like any trade association or any

industry, you do struggle with a credibility issue sometimes. (Int 20)

So what's getting in the way, I think, is that there's misinformation or poorly supported

information being put out to farmers and the general public and the wider media, that

comes largely, I think, from the agrochemical sector who are pushing forward the idea that

pesticides are not having a negative impact on honey bees and wild pollinators. And that's

proving to be a real barrier. And things like the recent House of Commons Environmental

Audit Committee have exposed some of the problems with that, but it's so well embedded

in the public perception and also for a lot of farmers that it's a real barrier I think. (Int 9)

Pests and Diseases

Many respondents were concerned about Varroa and felt that it was an endemic stress

factor, which increased susceptibility to other stressors like bad weather, poor nutrition and

disease. Some felt that the viral infection which Varroa spreads could exist even when

Varroa mite levels were low, so many beekeepers may not recognize their honey bees are in

poor health. Many felt that there were major difficulties tackling Varroa at a national level.

Reasons given for this were: that it was no longer a statutory pest and the government have

increasingly made its control the beekeeper’s responsibility; not enough funding for

research; problems taking research findings through into development of treatments/


31

interventions due to the short term nature of research funding and the focus of research

councils on publication of findings rather than their practical application; difficulties in

developing new treatments due to insufficient commercial incentive for companies (high

cost/small market); difficulty doing enough field tests due to logistics of having to work with

many beekeepers who may not understand the rigor of research process; difficulty training

hard-to-reach beekeepers; not enough knowledge of disease vectors between honey bees

and bumblebees. Some people felt that the practice of ‘let alone’ or ‘natural’ beekeepers was

dangerous as they don’t for or treat pests and diseases. In fact, when talking to natural

beekeepers, this assumption proved erroneous. It was obvious in the four interviews we

conducted that there are a range of practices and views within the natural beekeeping

community. Some natural beekeepers do inspect hives and do check for Varroa and treat for

it if necessary (one told us he uses oxalic acid) but they believe in the multi-factorial nature

of stressors to the hives and that regular disturbance makes honey bees more vulnerable.

They see Varroa as a symptom of intensification and over-commercialization of honey bee

management practices. Some natural beekeepers told us that Varroa is far less apparent in

natural beekeeping colonies and would welcome more research into this. However, overall

their perception was that they were disregarded by mainstream beekeeping interests as

cranks.

Some respondents mentioned the possibility of breeding disease resistant honey bees;

however this was not something that was mentioned across the board. One respondent

called for the breeding of the British black bee, native to UK, on the one hand and another

respondent called for research into genetics in general with a suggestion of looking at

African or Asian bees which have lower honey production but may have higher Varroa

tolerance.

Varroa seemed to be much more of a concern than bee diseases, such as EFB or AFB. The

main concerns with EFB and AFB were the serious lack of knowledge among beekeepers to

recognize these diseases and this was linked with a strong feeling that practical experience

is needed to be able to recognize them. Bee farmers often have the expertise to recognize

these diseases due to their much greater daily contact with colonies but some may shy away

from publicising the fact due to impacts on their business, as one told us: ‘I wouldn’t shout it

from the rooftops’. As such, recognition of these diseases and their timely control depend

heavily on the Bee Inspectorate (a number of whom are also bee farmers (i.e. while may not

be members of the BFA, manage more than 40 colonies) but a substantial number of

respondents had concerns over the long term funding for the Bee Inspectorate in UK.

Therefore, a number of people had very serious concerns about the future detection and

control of exotic pests and diseases coming into honey bee populations in UK.

For natural beekeepers, bee inspections were problematic due to the perceived rough

handling of the colonies by Bee Inspectors. Natural beekeepers have beliefs about how

often the hive should be disturbed and how it should be handled. Respondents informed us

that is why many natural beekeepers would not sign up to BeeBase. Many other people

reported on the good relationship between Bee Inspectors and beekeepers and the

important role they fulfill in training for groups and individual knowledge exchange over the

hive inspections, but these experiences are not the case for natural beekeepers. If many

Bee Inspectors are also bee farmers this may pose further problems due to the reported

negative relationships between some individuals in these two groups. However, one natural


32

beekeeper told us he had been approached by a bee farmer who was interested in finding

out more about how he could make his business more bee friendly.

Training, knowledge of beekeepers

The training of beekeepers was cited as important for two main reasons: firstly, to encourage

new and retain existing beekeepers/bee farmers to sustain the numbers of honey bee

colonies in the UK; secondly, to ensure bees were well managed to ensure the health of

colonies. There were disagreements on the encouragement of new beekeepers. Some

respondents in the beekeeper, beekeeping education and public interest, campaign groups

stakeholders categories had actively encouraged new beekeepers and saw this as one of

the main ways to enhance honey bee health through increasing colony numbers. Some

respondents mainly in the bee education, government and research categories felt that part

of the problem was a recent surge of too many hobby beekeepers which they felt had

caused some problems for honey bee health: putting pressure on local beekeeping

associations who didn’t have the resources to train new beekeepers properly; not enough

honey bees to supply demand with the result that existing colonies were being put under

stress to produce extra colonies to sell; lack of experience of new beekeepers resulting in

many colonies dying; inappropriate application of bee medicines. They suggested that many

people were coming into beekeeping for ‘environmental’ reasons and suggested instead that

people should be encouraged to promote wild pollinators or to fund existing beekeepers (e.g.

by sponsoring hives) instead. One respondent felt that the BBKA and local BKAs should give

out stronger messages to aspiring beekeepers about what sort of commitment they should

make if they take up the hobby.

Husbandry and management were sources of concern, particularly to the beekeeper/bee

farmer and beekeeping education and government stakeholder groups. They had a strong

focus on honey bee management and were more concerned about the impacts of husbandry

on honey bee health and therefore on colony numbers. The bee farmers felt that more

people should be encouraged into the profession, that the UK should be more self-sufficient

in honey and that the government should support investment in the bee farming industry.

The demographics are such that bee farmers are an ageing population and some

respondents worried about the long-term viability of the profession, and therefore the

sustainability of pollination services needed by growers. It must be noted however, that

some people felt that this view was misguided (some researchers and some beekeepers and

public campaign groups) because they saw bee farmers as part of intensive farming

paradigms and as such part of a systemic problem.

People in the Natural beekeeping stakeholder sub group felt that the training given by BBKA

and such groups was irrelevant to them as it completely failed to address their concerns.


33

5.2.4 Urgency

There were mixed feelings regarding how urgent the honey bee health situation was. In

general people perceived the decline in wild pollinators to be more concerning and urgent

due to the rapid decline of some species and the lack of knowledge about which species are

declining at what rate. Across all stakeholder groups there were respondents who felt that

the honey bee situation was less urgent than that for wild pollinators and generally less

urgent than the public perception. However, some respondents in all groups were also very

concerned due to the recent large number of colony losses of managed honey bees due to

weather conditions. Having said this, some of these same respondents largely felt that was

mostly seen as a recent and specific issue connected with particular weather events that

needed a short term response. Others who felt the honey bee situation was very urgent were

concerned about overall health of the population rather than numbers, particularly regarding

Varroa and felt that poor health was working to cause lower resistance to other factors, like

bad weather, and had contributed to the very heavy colony losses over the 2012/2013

winter. Some respondents noted that the urgency of honey bee health was greater in

different geographical situations, due to different disease levels/weather conditions and also

in developing countries due to their higher dependence on insect pollinated food. Some

people felt that a sense of urgency may provoke short-term solutions, like encouraging more

people to take up beekeeping, which may cause extra problems rather than helping prioritise

the longer-term paradigm shift they perceived was necessary to reverse the decline in

biodiversity (due to the intensification of agriculture). It is interesting that urgency seemed to

be mostly related to decline of populations, rather than health of those populations. So for

example, one person stated that the honey bee was still a very common insect so there was

no real urgency.

Below is a list of specific actions which were mentioned:

A national action plan to address the multiple causes of pollinator decline

(advocated across all stakeholder groups). Bring together diverse stakeholders for

a targeted action plan, especially the beekeeping and land use categories.

Top-down support for formal knowledge exchange mechanisms, well facilitated and

managed face-to-face meetings and online national forum bringing all stakeholders

together. Need to particularly engage public interest groups/campaign groups and

mainstream media as they have an important role to play in shifting consumer

behavior and are responsible for creating widespread messages about honey bee

health.

More legislation/incentives to enforce/encourage wildlife margins, habitat creation

and organic farming, with associated funding.

Fundamental change from intensive systems of agriculture and food production and

consumption.

More focus on bee farming sector and investment into apprenticeships.

More research on neo-nicotinoids and pesticides in general and their effects.

More research into food security in general.

Investment into genetic research and bee breeding programmes to strengthen

stock -although there were people who promoted the native British black bee and

those who wanted to look at the disease resistant potentials of Asian/African

strains.


34

In research sector, less focus on incentive systems and more on practical benefits

for society, for example the current focus on pure research for published outputs

can work against research with practical applications that will really make a

difference. There is a lack of interest from RCUK for developing applied and

commercial type research activities (e.g. biological controls for Varroa). This needs

to be addressed.

Address the lack of statutory requirement at a Defra policy level regarding Varroa.

Funding mechanisms mean a lack of security for longer term research programmes

which could yield real benefits. Researchers spend too much time chasing relatively

small amounts of short term funding, which deflects time and energy from research.

Beekeepers (and general public) could become much more involved in research,

gathering data and field experiments.

Retain seasonal Bee Inspectors and strengthen Bee Inspectorate in general due to

hands on, one to one, trusted experience.

Better training of beekeepers with basic minimum standard attached to compulsory

registration.

5.2.5 What are stakeholders doing to promote bee health?

We asked stakeholders what they were currently doing or would like to do in future to

address their concerns around honey bee health, and what difficulties they encountered in

trying to promote better bee health. This gives us some idea of what the key barriers may be

and where stakeholders could be supported to do more. Table 2 summarises the findings.

Please note these are synthesized from all responses, some of which conflict. It is not our

role here to judge which of these actions should or could be supported.

The amount of time that gets wasted in applying to do various things, you can almost

hardly do your job anymore because you’re constantly trying to raise money. I manage to

battle through it and get stuff done, but you often think how much more you could get

done.…You can’t also plan, you can’t plan ahead properly. You never quite know how

much funding you’re going to have; you can’t strategically plan things properly. It’s not

easy to…I can exist in this world, I do, I’ve been successful in it, but I also think that it’s

reduced what I’ve been able to achieve. (Int 8 - researcher)

When we were looking for somewhere to live, we wanted somewhere with a fair amount of

land so that we could provide a good wildlife habitat and…I’m sort of putting my money is

where my mouth is, we’re trying to encourage wildflowers, wildflower meadows… I can

read things, I can read things in books, I can read things in magazines, I can read the

Internet, but I would really like the help of some environmental expert who could say, right,

if you want to improve the quality of your wildflowers here, then this is what you need to do.

(Int 15- beekeeper)

I would say our biggest weakness at the moment is working with the land and eco systems

management people…I’ve had some enquiries from people who have got levels of

management of housing associations, these sorts of things which they’ve got various areas

of open land, it’s what is the best way to plant these, whether it’s worth building corridors,

wildlife corridors, these sort of things. The questions are beginning to be asked, and

they’re very difficult to answer because I might know an awful lot about honey bees…what I


35

Table 2. Actions and problems faced by bee health stakeholders

Action / aspiration Difficulties

Keeping bees Complicated skill and knowledge requirements; lack of time; lack of training at mid/improver level for beekeepers; many conflicting voices and sources of advice; too political.

Support, education and training of beekeepers/bee farmers

Time and lack of suitably qualified people to act as mentors; need one to one learning and this takes a huge time resources; Inspectorate provides huge amount of support and training but this requires resource; difficult to get at hard to reach beekeepers; public interest groups encouraging beekeepers get criticized for not training properly.

Collection of database about beekeeping, colonies, bee health in UK through BeeBase

Not all beekeepers register; question of trust for hard to reach beekeepers; not enough time and resources to analyze all the data gathered.

Inspection and regulatory service for disease control

Increasingly stretched resources to provide services; pushing against withdrawal of the state; hard to reach bee keepers.

Supporting bee farming profession through apprenticeship schemes, information and training and lobbying

Bee farmers are an aging population, concerns about encouraging younger trainees; perceived lack of support/investment from Defra into bee farming profession, particularly after winter losses of 2012/2013.

Providing accessible information to members of associations through websites, newsletters, e-bulletins etc.

This works quite well, due to organizational structures and the ability to easily cascade information through electronic means and smart phone technology. Sometimes research/government information is complex and needs to be summarized/communicated in a more accessible form, which takes time and resources.

Lobbying local authority to change land management practices

Lack of time and knowledge to be effective at campaigning local authority.

Research into bee health/research training/bee medicine development

Lack of funding; short term nature of many projects; disproportionate amount of time chasing funding means less time for research; problems with commercial development of new bee medicines due to high cost of research and small market; ability to do R&D is reducing.

Sponsoring or participating

with research projects

Persuading members to part with money and commit time to participating in research; flexibility and availability to fit around research need; understanding the requirements of researchers.

Campaigning and lobbying central government (all)

Time and resources required; criticism for mounting ‘single-issue’ campaigns; lack of understanding; hard to fight against dominant culture and mindset of current politics; being perceived as cranks; bee health being hijacked by single issue campaign groups.

Managing own land for pollinators (all)

Lack of knowledge or accessible tailored advice; lack of suitable grants/funding structures (grants specify benefit to community but don’t cover creating undisturbed habitats on private land).

Giving advice to members on bee friendly garden plants

Would like more research/knowledge about garden plants which are good for pollinators; need more links between bee experts and gardeners.

General public awareness

raising/advice to

customers/public

information

Time is a large constraint. It takes time to synthesize complicated research findings into accessible information to share. Skills, time, facilities and resources needed to communicate to public effectively.


36

don’t know much about is land management…there is no, if you like, industry voice for

pollinators that can respond in a simple way to these sort of enquiries.(Int 37- beekeeper,

trainer and Inspector)

We also asked respondents if there was anything other people were doing to try to help the

situation, which they found difficult or didn’t agree with. A great many respondents

mentioned their frustration with the focus on pesticides in the media and by certain groups.

The public interest/campaign groups and media category came under a lot of criticism here

for: promoting ‘single issue campaigns’ around pesticides and deflecting a focus from other

important factors; sensationalizing and over simplifying the issues; getting involved in honey

bee health just because it is topical and not having any real knowledge; one click activism.

Even some respondents from the Public interest, campaigning groups, and mainstream

media stakeholder group voiced the same frustrations:

One thing I don’t agree with is that people are trying to pin the issue on one particular

factor, so maybe pesticides. I think we’ve been quite proactive in what we’ve done with

prohibition of neo-nicotinoid pesticides…but I think some people are just using this as an

excuse to beat up agrochemical companies who, you know, aren’t the most popular

companies to start with. I don’t think it’s helpful because, yeah, we might get a ban and the

EEC have just announced, you know, the temporary ban on three of the neo-nicotinoids

but what if it’s not that, and what happens if we wait till 2015, 2016 and see what’s

happening and then we all got it wrong? (Int 5)

Other criticisms were that some local beekeeping organisations could be better organised

and more proactive at sifting out ‘unsuitable’ people i.e. those aspiring to be beekeepers but

who don’t really have the time or commitment to do it properly. Some respondents reported

that local organisations are sometimes more concerned about the honey show than bee

health, or that there are dominant voices but who may not be giving out the best messages.

Some respondents criticised natural or ‘hands off’ beekeeping as they believed ‘good

husbandry’ was crucial for honey bee health. Many respondents criticised well intentioned

people who take up beekeeping but are ‘not doing it for the right reasons’ or who can’t

commit the time to do it properly.

A few respondents in the beekeeper, beekeeping education and researcher category

criticised Defra policy section for being too removed from actual problems on the ground; for

not being committed enough to action and implementation of disease prevention; for

focussing too narrowly on their statutory obligations when honey bee health was much wider

than that; for framing the whole issue of honey bee health within an intensive farming

paradigm; for being hard to contact and hard to influence. There was often a distinction

made between FERA, (NBU and the Bee Inspectorate), which on the whole was perceived

as a very valuable, useful and accessible resource and Defra policy teams which on the

whole were perceived as more remote, difficult and hard to connect with or influence.

Interestingly when speaking to government stakeholders some of their feelings about

networking were that there was an issue of trust between government and a lot of

stakeholders, that they were an ‘easy target’ in meetings and that often they worked through

trusted relationships and intermediaries rather than through direct contact. Often government

officials also had excessive time constraints, the scope of their roles cover much more than

honey bee health and therefore they find it hard to attend too many specific events on honey

bee health and rely on a team to provide up to date accessible information. Some others


37

have a key role specifically in honey bee health but are drawn into wider meetings on animal

health where they only have a peripheral role and see this as frustrating and time wasting.

However, as discussed previously, natural beekeepers felt that FERA was not giving the

information that was relevant to them at all. They also felt that BeeBase should have a

facility where beekeepers could register to gain information but without being identified. They

suggested beekeepers could give a postcode instead for data gathering purposes, and an

email address for updates and cascades of important information. NBU felt that knowing

detailed geographical information about apiaries was very important in their role to prevent

disease spread. A more trusting dialogue between these two groups would be useful and

perhaps this is beginning to happen with initiatives like ‘Ask the Inspector’ on the Biobees

website.

Some people in the public interest/campaign group criticized Defra for characterizing

beekeepers as lacking knowledge or commitment. They related that their experience with

beekeepers has been very positive and that the beekeepers who engage with their projects

and campaigns are knowledgeable and committed:

Government were trying to say that bee keepers weren’t trained adequately and weren’t

good enough and I know that angered a lot of bee keepers that I spoke to because, you

know, obviously you can’t say every bee keeper is amazing…but the ones that I’ve always

met really care about what they’re doing…so I don’t think that’s a fair thing to say any

more. (Int 5)

This is in contrast to some of the perceptions about beekeepers of the government

stakeholders who relate a large number of new and established beekeepers who in their

opinion are not taking enough responsibility for recognizing disease, making sure bees don’t

starve and keeping up to date with new information.

This is a really difficult one, is we've got to try and get away from this ‘the bees are in peril,

so everybody should take up beekeeping and it will help’, because actually it doesn't. I

meet lots of beekeepers who have gone down that avenue and they are appalling

beekeepers and are completely clueless…because you can put [bees] in a pretty box in the

corner of the garden and forget about it, nobody ever knows. It's an unseen evil almost. (Int

1)

Some dialogue between these stakeholder groups might be useful.

5.2.6 Knowledge

We asked stakeholders if there were any knowledge gaps or needs they felt they needed

support with and if they had any problems getting hold of information. We also asked them

what sources of information they use and trust, how they networked and the best ways to

share knowledge.

Many people especially in the research, government and beekeeping education categories

felt that they were in a privileged position to access a wide range of knowledge sources and

relied heavily on personal contact with scientific experts or experienced beekeepers. Some

higher in government management positions perform several roles (not just around honey

bee health) and therefore depended on a team of people to synthesize knowledge for them.


38

The government and research/funding stakeholder groups tended not to use online forums

and relied heavily on scientific outputs and personal contact with a range of other officers,

researchers and experienced beekeepers or Bee Inspectors. This network seemed in most

cases very tight and relied on good relationships built up over time.

Respondents in the public interest, campaign groups and mainstream media stakeholder

group relied more heavily on links with NGOs for information (like FoE or Bumblebee

Conservation Trust).

Some respondents cited the difficulty (or impossibility) of accessing research

methods/findings, of both academic and agro-chemical based research (due to intellectual

ownership/commercial confidentiality issues).

Most, not all, natural beekeeping respondents distrusted official or mainstream government

or BBKA information because it pointed them in a direction which is contrary to their framing

of honey bee health. They tended to gain information through natural beekeeping networks

either through personal contact or through natural beekeeping websites or internet forums.

They also used scientific information from peer reviewed articles. This group is more

internationally connected and so online forums tend to be very useful. Some forums are

closed or private and respondents view this as important for allowing natural beekeepers to

talk confidently to one another. Although one respondent was registered on BeeBase, this

was just to keep an eye on what information was coming out but he felt that most of it was

irrelevant to his beekeeping.

Across stakeholder groups which deal with beekeeping a key message was that hands on

practical experience is the most useful way of learning the skill. Some mentioned the way

that theoretical learning or ‘book’ learning was useful to provide a structure but this must be

done hand in hand with practical experience. Many respondents stressed that practical

experience should be within a context of personal contact and/or mentorship by someone

very experienced and trusted and this is in fact how many of the respondents had learned

beekeeping and continue to learn.

Across all stakeholder groups personal contact was also one of the key ways that knowledge

was exchanged. Trusted individuals, who were recognized for their experience or expertise

and who were known to the respondent seemed to be one of the main ways information is

circulated. This would explain the rather tight networks in honey bee health. This was

especially so in the bee education, government and research communities where

respondents told us they are able to draw on a number of contacts by just picking up the

phone.

The specific knowledge gaps that were mentioned could be summarized as follows:

1) Positive selection for disease resistance.

2) What is the optimum hive density in an area?

3) Nutritional balance of bees, how can we understand more?

4) More research on pesticides.

5) Still at the stage of identifying questions before we can start to answer, so much we

don’t know about bees.

6) Winter losses have not been uniform throughout the country so to what causes the

variation and what is the role of husbandry

7) Understanding more about colony collapse disorder.

8) How important Varroa is in decline of bees.


39

9) How is bee health affected by some of the bee medicine products?

10) What is the potential for developing genetic tolerance for Varroa both from native

British black bee and Asian and African strains?

11) More about stress factors and how they impact on bees.

12) What are the disease vectors between honey bees and wild pollinators?

13) What impact does the import of bumblebees have on wild bumblebee populations?

14) Knowledge about land management practices for pollinator health.

15) Research on long term health of queens and poor mating performance, more

supercedure.

16) Research into natural beekeeping methods and why they don’t have any problems

with Varroa.

17) How to reach ‘hard to reach’ beekeepers?

18) Need to better understand the perspectives of people who hold different opinions.

19) The reason for pollinator decline.

20) Proper pollinator surveys to assess decline.

21) Knowledge about practices of farmers/land use agents.

22) Lack of systematic gathering of and access to long-term records maintained by many

bee keepers. These could be a valuable research resource.

Some respondents in the government and research stakeholder group mentioned the need

to capture more data from beekeepers and also to have the resources to analyze data that

has already been captured, not only through BeeBase but also through extensive records

beekeepers themselves may keep:

So we'd like to hear more from beekeepers and beekeeping associations about the kind of

information they have on the stressors on their hives. So more information about actually -

any data they've captured associated with actual losses. I know part of that comes through

the NBU but there is also a lot of honey bee keepers that aren't contributing that data to the

NBU so it would be nice to have access to that…just from my conversations with

beekeepers, I know a lot of them aren't registered or known to the NBU and I know a lot of

them have quite a lot of information regarding how the hives are doing and where they've

been located prior to any particular severe losses and so on. (Int 9)

Stakeholders from the honey bee supplies category expressed concerns about the impact

their business was having on honey bee health. For example, a bee supplies company

worried about the range of products available to put into the hive and the cumulative effect of

these, yet sells these to the public and would like more advice and knowledge about this. A

respondent who imports bumblebees for glasshouse pollination expressed concern about

the effect their business has on wild bumblebees and would like more advice on this.

Respondents in this group tended to have less time for networking and knowledge exchange

than respondents in other groups.

And you've only got to look on some websites; the plethora of stuff that you can pump into

a beehive now is huge. All sorts of additives and cleansing agents that will do this that and

the other to your bees. I thought crikey, if somebody was using all of this what is it going to

do to them...I think we're probably guilty of it ourselves, because we do sell some of the

more natural products for dealing with bee disease…I don't know, it's quite scary really

what people put in their beehives now and expect the bees to survive. (Int 6)


40

We provide bumblebees as pollinators, and that's actually quite a big and difficult issue

because the bumblebees that we use are…originally from Yugoslavia, and it has been

implied that our industry, in providing pollinators, could be part of the reason for bumblebee

decline in particular because they're saying they could become indigenous and out-

compete the local populations, but secondly because of the way that bumblebees are mass

produced and they're fed things like pollen and it's seen as a possibility that they could be

vectors of disease. (Int 28)

5.2.7 How people use information on bee health

We asked people how they used information on honey bee health. This helps us to

understand people’s information needs. Respondents in the beekeeping groups, and

beekeeping education tended to use information to inform their beekeeping practice,

although for natural beekeepers this information was more embedded in learning about

environmental issues in general and their focus on management and husbandry was less.

Some beekeepers complained about the plethora of information and confusing or conflicting

information out there. Many beekeepers mentored others and so information was important

for them to pass on.

Respondents in the government stakeholder category used knowledge to either inform policy

decisions, to persuade government/policy colleagues, or to train others and provide material

for beekeepers.

Respondents in the bee supplier’s category used knowledge for passing to members and

customers, as they tend to deal with lots of queries in the daily business. Some bee

suppliers also run courses and provide training. They used information to produce briefings

and newsletters for staff/public but expressed difficulties with time and that they ‘do what we

can’.

Stakeholders in the public interest categories used the mainstream media more to get

messages out to the public and viewed this as more useful than other groups which tended

to criticise the media as sensationalizing or over simplifying messages.

I mean talking to the media we do sometimes get asked questions by the general public

media, the press and TV and getting information out that way I think probably, you know,

on a TV or a newspaper may actually be more effective than using a website.(Int 14)

Teaching and imparting information to others was a key motivation for keeping up to date

with latest research and information.

Well because I do [teach] the course at [name of place] I, sort of, you know, revolve my

beekeeping around that and...so that’s about the reason really, and it makes you look at

the research and things like that, try and keep the beginners abreast of anything new that’s

going on.(Int. 26)

5.2.8 Networking

We asked people if and how they networked in terms of honey bee health. Respondents in

the natural beekeeping as mentioned above tended to network with each other mainly, some

public interest groups and some land and ecosystem groups but not with the mainstream

beekeeping groups. Bee farmers also have their own network although they are also


41

connected with other beekeeping groups and with government. The bee farmers felt that

their network was efficient due to a limited number of members and high attendance at

annual meetings etc. They were also, like natural beekeepers, internationally connected with

other bee farmers around the world.

The bee supplier’s category expressed time constraints as a reason they did not do more

networking. One told us they don’t tend to attend conferences or workshops but did go to

some meetings and their contacts were mainly maintained via phone. Another respondent

did attend more meetings but told us that they tend to see the same people at workshops

and conferences. Respondents in this group were more specific about networking and had

developed a particular network e.g. around one particular conference for example which they

may attend regularly. They felt that time and staff availability was limited to engage in

networking activities.

Respondents valued networking opportunities for the mix of beekeepers and scientists, to

make contacts and see who was there.

5.2.9 Education and Training

Many respondents across all groups had taken on some beekeeping knowledge in order to

understand honey bee health better. Indeed there were beekeepers and/or people who had

beekeeping training in every stakeholder category. Some respondents had training as

entomologists or biologists, not just in the researcher stakeholder group, and as such had a

wider view than honey bee health or husbandry and felt this was important in understanding

wider ecological and environmental processes and the role of other pollinators.

As mentioned earlier, a key finding is that knowledge and education seem to be taken up

most effectively when linked to the need to impart knowledge to others. People feel greater

responsibility to ‘get it right’ when having to answer others’ questions, for example as a Bee

Inspector, local bee mentor, bee supplier, or lobbyist. The roles of trusted mentors,

relationships and practical ‘hands on’ experience are emphasized over and over again in

relation to education and training. Bee Inspectors, trusted colleagues and respected mentors

play a key role, not just in the dissemination of knowledge, but in the extent to which it is

taken on board. Longevity of experience, and practical results borne out over time, are

crucial in gaining respect of peers.

5.2.10 Information sharing

We asked people what were the most effective ways of sharing information about honey bee

health and what gets in the way of sharing knowledge. A range of information methods was

cited for sharing information but overwhelmingly personal contacts were viewed as one of

the best ways for sharing knowledge and particularly when this was within a trusted

relationship. Bee Inspectors passed knowledge on verbally through face to face inspections

over the hive.

A common complaint was that time constraints get in the way of sharing knowledge. For

example a strong message that came out of the research and funding group is the

constraints that researchers have for disseminating knowledge. Although they placed a high

priority on knowledge exchange (KE) they felt they had little time and resources for KE


42

activities and indeed KE activities may actually be detrimental to their careers as they take a

lot of time away from core research and publishing.

In addition respondents viewed intellectual and commercial property rights as a barrier.

So the real barrier is, well one of them is, the fact that the science or the research based

evidence from universities and academic institutions is in the public domain and peer

reviewed, but the supposed evidence from the agrochemical companies saying there is no

negative impact [of pesticides] is not available to the public or to scientists to view because

apparently it's commercially sensitive. So we can't actually look at their methods or their

analysis or their conclusions. That's kind of a little bit of a bias in my mind. (Int 9)

Certainly, there are regulatory barriers for us as an industry. So when a company is

bringing a product to market over a number of years, they have to collate very huge

amounts of data. This enables them to prove the safety of the products in order to get the

regulatory approval for the product. But that information is held by the regulator then, and

so not always available for the industry to disseminate. There are also obviously

commercial issues. If you have one company who's created a new product, for example,

that will have data about the effect and impact of that active ingredient on bee health, but

they may be anxious about publishing that because it may contain, you know, commercially

sensitive information that they're not willing to share…with other companies. So that is an

understandable barrier sometimes. And I think one that needs work to try to find ways that

we can improve things so that we can, as an industry, share more information and the

huge amount of data that we hold. (Int 20)

Many respondents across groups highlighted the gap between the land and ecosystems

management categories and the bee-keeping and bee education stakeholders:

In my own work I would like to have more to do with gardening groups because of the

value of plants, garden plants for bees. We’re doing research on this and I’ve actually

found it extremely difficult to make any headway at all when I contact people like [name of

organisation], or [name of organisation] or the local agricultural college. It seems that you

hear stories that [name of organisation] is interested in bees and they’ve got a head of

research somewhere and you have a contact made and you never hear back from them. I

think it is actually very difficult to talk to things like local councils and plant groups. I don’t

know, it seems like everybody’s either too busy or you also get the feeling that lots of

groups are in sealed compartments, the people who study plants don’t really need to talk to

the people that study bees. (Int 8)

Some respondents in the government stakeholder group said that sometimes there were

trust issues between government and stakeholder groups so it was useful to go through a

trusted intermediary, like an NGO, in order to disseminate messages about honey bee

health.


43

5.2.11 Ways that people can work better together?

We asked people how they thought people from each of the stakeholder groups could work

better together. Many respondents found this a challenging question and highlighted the

very diverse nature of honey bee health stakeholder landscape and conflicting opinions on a

wide range of issues. However, a very clear message coming through from most

respondents across all stakeholder groups was the need to bring diverse stakeholders

together and to understand and respect different views. Some people highlighted the land

management and ecosystems category, and the public interest/campaign and media

category which were very important and which needed to be more fully brought into

discussions. Many people suggested the need for a national action plan, and many felt that

this should cover all pollinator health to bring honey bee health and wild pollinator

stakeholder’s closer together. Also a clear message was that in order to work together the

focus would need to be on identifying common ground and actions that a wide range of

people could agree on. A further clear message was that this needs to be action focused.

Most people felt that government has a clear role for co-ordinating such a plan, others were

unsure if government was the best body for that due to the lack of trust in some quarters and

whether an independent body would be better for this.

I mean, my feeling in these things is that government is clearly very well placed to at least

co-ordinate. I think we have to be aware that, at the moment, there's not a lots of public

money around to do stuff, but that doesn't prevent government from at least playing a very

crucial co-ordinating role, but…and they are, I think, making attempts to do that anyway.

But there needs to be, you know, involvement by all parties, but I think co-ordinated by

government. (int 20)

Very disparate group, a very disparate bunch, but there are, I’m absolutely positive about it,

there will be common interests. It’s just trying to steer perhaps some independent body,

perhaps it’s not a role for government, I don’t know, not everyone particularly trusts

government, but for maybe some independent body to steer a course through that. To find

some common ground that everyone can agree to and sign up to, to move the whole area

of bee health forward in a more pragmatic and positive way. At the moment it’s just

bashing people with sticks and I don’t think it’s very productive. (int 17)

Well I think what you need to have is a unifying cause or issue. Because they will all have

disparate agendas… You have to work out what it is that links them altogether and focus

on that. Because otherwise you end up with those ghastly talking shops…I get very

impatient with them and quite circumspect these days about attending them actually…It

needs to have the ability to actually do something. (int 19)


44

5.3 Social Network Analysis

A total of 110 individuals were interviewed for the Social Network Analysis: 50 interviews

were based on the initial stakeholder mapping exercise (tier one) and a further 60 interviews

were conducted with their contacts (out of a total of 140 potential contacts) (tier two). At the

completion of the interviews, the rate at which new contacts were being identified had

slowed considerably in all the categories with the exception of beekeepers (which is a

significantly larger group than the others). We therefore conclude that data was collected

about a high proportion of the individuals with a key role in the communication of information

about honey bee health in England and Wales.

5.3.1 Limitations

While we are confident that the majority of key individual stakeholders in bee health were

included in the analysis, there were limitations in the social network analysis resulting from

our sampling method. We measured the relationships between stakeholder categories but

the numbers of individuals in some of the categories are relatively low, particularly for public

interest stakeholders (7) and beekeeping supplies (9) compared to other groups e.g.

beekeepers (30) (Table 1). It is likely there are other individuals in the lesser represented

groups with interests in bee health whom were not interviewed, having not been identified as

stakeholders, or, who were unable to participate in the study. There is therefore some bias in

the results that may show a greater diversity of contacts for stakeholder categories with

higher representation, although we did weight communication frequencies between

categories by the number of individuals in each. A further limitation of our sampling is that

only individuals that respondents do communicate with were included in the analysis. There

may be stakeholders who play a significant role in bee health who were rarely or never

identified by respondents for reasons such as distrust or differing views. Indeed, the

interviewers reported that respondents had a tendency to name contacts whom they

considered useful or interesting. It may be that respondents, particularly those with many

contacts, did not always identify less useful or peripheral contacts. Thus it is likely that some

weaker connections in the network were not included in the analysis. Finally, it should be

noted that social networks may alter over time, however this analysis should not be seen as

a “snap-shot” in time, as social structures typically change very slowly over time, and

changes in social ties typically occur within rather than between stakeholder categories e.g.

a natural beekeeper might spend more time in contact with different natural beekeepers over

time, but is less likely to spend significantly more time with bee farmers, given that these

groups tend to have significantly different views. This is the concept of “homophily”, where

people tend to spend more time connected to people who are similar to themselves.

5.3.2 Social Network Structure

The communication about honey bee health has a highly clustered structure. Figure 2 shows

the relationships between all respondents and their reported contacts, with individuals

represented as circular “nodes” that vary in size according to their “betweeness centrality”

i.e. the extent to which an individual connects others in the network who would not otherwise

be connected; widely regarded as a measure of a node’s influence in the network.


45

Relationships between individuals in the network are represented as connecting lines

between nodes, with the thickness of the connecting lines denoting the frequency of

communication reported between these individuals. Representatives of government bodies

are central to the core of the network indicating their prominence in the discussion of issues

surrounding honey bee health across all categories of stakeholder. Researchers and

education and training stakeholders are also well integrated within the network. Figure 2

visualises these statistics via the size of nodes and thickness of connecting lines, showing at

a glance how representatives of government bodies are represented by the largest nodes,

with many relationships characterised by frequent communication, followed by research,

education and training stakeholders. Given the number of nodes and the fact that all nodes

are anonymous, the presentation of data tables ranking individuals according to different

network measures would have been difficult to interpret and would have added little in the

way of additional insights. Therefore, visualisation of data was chosen to display these

results. However, detailed network statistics are presented in section 5.3.3, where

individuals are aggregated to the level of the stakeholder categories they belong to.

Figure 2. Social network diagram of all respondents and their reported contacts. Nodes represent

individuals and are coloured according to stakeholder category. Their size represents their

‘betweeness’ i.e. the extent to which they link other nodes in the network. The connectors joining the

nodes vary in thickness according to relative communication frequency.

Beekeepers Education/training Public interest Supplies and products

products Land and ecosystem management

Research and funding Government bodies


46

Figure 3. Frequency of communication between stakeholder categories. Nodes represent stakeholder

categories. The thickness of the connections between nodes shows the relative frequency of

interaction between groups weighted by the number of respondents in each category.

5.3.3 Communication between stakeholder categories

Aggregating individual responses to look for patterns of communication at the level of

stakeholder categories can inform our knowledge of the broad relationships between the

focal groups identified in the initial stakeholder mapping as part of this study. Figure 3 shows

some obvious differences in the extent to which representatives of different stakeholder

categories communicated with one another (Figure 3). Beekeepers tended to interact with

all categories frequently. Stakeholders belonging to the beekeeping supplies and products

group were the most weakly linked to other categories, with the exception of their frequent

interactions with beekeepers. The land and ecosystems management group was also

relatively weakly integrated into the honey bee health network, with particularly infrequent

interactions with government bodies and stakeholders involved with education, training and

beekeeping media. With the exception of beekeepers, members of all groups interacted with

other members of the same category more often than would be observed in a random

network (χ2=268, P=0.0002). This supports the stakeholder mapping and categorization as

we would expect stakeholders with similar attributes to be more closely linked in a social

network (McPherson et al., 2001).

Beekeepers

Education& training

Public interest

Supplies & products

Land/ecosystem management

Government bodies

Research & funding


47

5.3.4 Measures of centrality and influence

Using network measures derived from all interview respondents, we found significant

differences between stakeholder categories (Table 3). Respondents from government

bodies and research and funding had consistently high scores across the network measures,

suggesting that the individuals interviewed from these categories are central to discussions

about honey bee health. Individuals from government bodies had the highest levels of

overall influence, as measured by their eigenvector scores. Eigenvector scores are

calculated using an algorithm to assign relative scores to individuals based on how well they

and their contacts are connected within the network i.e. those well connected to other highly

connected individuals receive higher weights than those connected to individuals with fewer

contacts and are thus considered to have more influence in the network. Those interviewed

from public interest bodies also had average eigenvector scores as high as those from

government bodies although this is based on a smaller number of respondents (7). Despite

this, the public interest respondents had low receiver scores suggesting they were not

necessarily well-recognised key individuals in honey bee health discussions. However this

is also likely to be partly a function of the small number of people interviewed in that

category. It was those in government bodies and the education, training and bee media

category that tended to be the best known contacts in honey bee health as measured by the

frequency with which these people were mentioned as contacts by others. Researchers

were also relatively well known.


48

Table 3. Means with standard deviation for respondent network measures

Category Connection

strength

Receiver

strength

Eigenvector

centrality

Beekeepers

13.0 ± 6.4 3.5 ± 3.0 0.02 ± 0.04

Education &

training

17.1 ± 11.4 9.0 ± 8.7 0.04 ± 0.05

Public interest

14.8 ± 8.8 2.7 ± 2.7 0.10 ± 0.07

Supplies &

products

10.9 ± 5.9 5.4 ± 6.0 0.04 ± 0.03

Ecosystem/land

management

13.5 ± 6.8 4.5 ± 5.6 0.05 ± 0.06

Government

bodies

20.1 ± 12.1 9.7 ± 12.3 0.10 ± 0.09

Research &

funding

21 ± 8.8

7.3 ± 6.1 0.10 ± 0.1

Anova test of

group means

F(6,99)=2.4

P=0.03

F(6,99)=2.2

P=0.05

F(6,99)=5.1

P=0.0006

5.3.5 Communication between institutions

In this section we “”describe the communications between institutions reported by each

stakeholder category in turn. Where it was possible to associate an individual with a specific

organisation, this sub-set of data was used for the analysis. Organisations were assigned to

stakeholder categories on the basis of the category that the majority of individuals from that

organisation were assigned to.

Beekeepers

Beekeepers reported strong links to organisations across all categories of stakeholder. Links

were weakest to organisations in the ecosystems and land management category. There

were differences between commercial and natural bee keepers in the organisations they

communicate with and there is relatively little contact between the two types of beekeeper.

The three natural beekeepers interviewed did not have the strong cross category links of

commercial beekeepers and had the strongest links to the Natural beekeeping Trust and

Friends of the Earth.

Education, training and bee media

The BKABBKA and its regional branches were the dominant institutions in this category with

strong links to NBU, various research institutes and to the beekeeping community. Links

were very weak to ecosystem and land organisation and public interest groups.


49

Public interest

Friends of the Earth and Buglife appeared to be particularly prolific in their communication

with other organisations, both within and beyond the public interest group, while the BBC

also played an important role, particularly in maintaining communication ties with

organisations outside the public interest group. There were links between public interest

organisations and a range of ecosystem and land organisations, in particular the Bumblebee

Conservation Trust. The strong links between these two categories may represent an

important communication bridge as the ecosystem and land management category is

otherwise weakly integrated in the honey bee health network.

Beekeeping supplies and products

Most communication by organisations in this group was with beekeepers. There was some

communication with NBU and connections to some research institutes. Apart from a weak

link to BBKA in the education and training category, there were no reported interactions with

organisations in other categories.

Ecosystems and land management

There was a relatively low density of inter-organisational ties in this category Waitrose Ltd

and NFU were the dominant organisations. Waitrose Ltd. Reported links to a range of

research institutes; indeed many of the organisations have direct links to researchers and

public interest organisations. The links to government bodies were very weak and nearly all

interactions to this category were reported by a single representative of NFU.

Government bodies


position of respondents from this category at the core of the network. However reported

contact outward to other organisations was relatively weak. There was regular contact with

BBKA and Thorne’s (the bee equipment and supplies company). Direct contact with

beekeepers, however, was rare. The only land & ecosystem management organisation that

representatives of government bodies reported that they had contact with was NFU. The

Department for Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland reported links with

the Agri-Food & Bioscience Institute but otherwise links with research organisations were

also infrequent.

Research Institutes

Research institutes, including universities from across the UK, were found to be well

embedded in the honey bee health social network, with a diverse range of contacts spanning

all stakeholder categories. Cambridge University is was the best-connected organisation

holding most of the contacts with public interest organisations, as well as being strongly

linked to land & ecosystem management groups. There were also strong links between the

various research institutes.


50

Eighty-five percent of communications were considered either ‘very useful’ or ‘useful’. Only

3% were considered to be not useful or negative. Half of these un-useful or negative

encounters were between beekeepers and stakeholders from education/training, public

interest groups or land/ecosystem management where relationships were generally reported

to be challenging or distant. In general therefore, the discussions about honey bee health

reported in this study were considered to be positive.

5.3.6 Use of sources

The sources described by respondents were generally those they found useful. Those

classed as only partly useful, not very useful or not useful on the likert-type scale were few

and we therefore focus on sources that were classed as useful or very useful. Personal

contact was the most important means of sourcing information about honey bee health for all

groups (Figure 4). This was followed by scientific articles as the second mostly highly used

source type.

Figure 4. Bar chart showing how to what proportion stakeholder categories use the most common

sources for information on bee health. The numbers of respondents in each category to provide

information on sources are shown in brackets.

5.3.7 How do bee health knowledge sources inform stakeholders?

After information about honey bee health, the five most important reasons why honey bee

health stakeholders accessed knowledge/information were because: they were looking for

specific information about the management of honey bees; they wanted to keep up to date

with the latest news (general); they wanted to access specifically scientific or technical

papers, expertise and in-depth, reliable information; they wanted to share information,

interact, network, discuss and learn from others; and they were looking for specific

information about pesticides (Table 4).

0

20

40

60

80

100

Websites

Scientific Articles

Reports

Personal contacts

Newspapers

Newsletters

Meetings

Magazines

Expert Talks

BroadcastMedia

Books


51

Table 4. Frequencies with which coded themes emerged in response to questions about why

respondents found sources useful and the most important information learned from them.

Frequency Theme Code

129 Specific information on disease /pest ID and control and other bee health

issues e.g. starvation 10b

79 Specific information on management of bees/bee behaviour/decline 10a

67 Keeping up to date/latest general news or findings 3

65 To access specifically scientific/technical papers / expertise / in-depth/reliable

information 4

62 Sharing information/interactive/networking/discussion/learning from others/

finding out who specialises in what 8

57 Specific information on pesticides 10c

44 For general context/background/basic information 2

37 Easy/fast/convenient/accessible/clear (summary) information 7

34 Trusted source of information (not specified as being scientific (4) or being

used to inform decisions (15)) from people with experience 17

33 Specific information on political/economic/international context 10f

32 Access tailored information to specific queries (not specified) 5

31 Other specific information 10g

23 Comprehensive information including range of differing

opinions/sources/perspectives 6

23 To provide evidence/tips/instructions to inform decisions and solve problems 15

21 Information for teaching or other dissemination and confirmation that material

being taught is consistent with research evidence 1

17 Issues around how knowledge about bee health is constructed and questions

about the reliability of information 23

16 Specific information on wild pollinators/species ID 10e


52

14 Complexity of issues around bee health 18

13 Useful as a permanent, updatable, reference resource 11

13 Locally relevant information 22

12 Feedback on your own practice/ideas from others or by comparison with others 19

11 Specific information on floral resources/land management /ecosystems 10d

9 Specific information on public attitudes towards bee health/decline 10h

8 Directs you to relevant information 13

8 Interesting/appealing/visual 20

7 Challenges preconceptions / makes you think about different approaches 14

6 Information about products and equipment (general) 16

5 Knowing that knowledge about bee health is increasing/changing 12

4 How to communicate better around bee health issues 24

3 Way of finding out about events 21

Information conveyed by different sources

The information picked up from different source types was found to differ significantly in its

thematic content (χ2=128, P<0.001). We used ordination plots to visualise the assocations

between information themes about bee health and source types. Figure 5 shows that topics

such as pesticides (code: 10c) and public attitudes to honey bee health (10h) are more

commonly picked up by internet searches and the general media (broadcast and

newspapers). Reports tended to be a rich source for information on floral resources and

ecoystem management (10d), information about wild pollinators and species identification

(10e) and political, economic and international dimensions of honey bee health (10f).

Information about honey bee health (10b) is closely associated with scientific articles which

may explain their frequent use by stakeholder as discussed above. Books were an important

source of general honey bee management information and meetings were specifically

associated with opportunities for knowledge sharing.


53

Figure 5. An ordination plot of the results from a correspondence analysis showing how sources are separated along two axes according to the different information themes stakeholders associated with them. The coordinates of the variables show their relative association with the two axes and the numbers are an arbitrary measure of these associations. The x axis explains the greatest proportion of variation and the y axis explains further residual variation.

5.3.8 Information learned by different stakeholder categories

There were significant differences in the thematic content that stakeholders in different

categories reported as most important (χ2=230, P<0.001). In terms of specific information,

land & ecosystem management and public interest stakeholders reported themes such as

pesticides (code: 10c), public attitudes (10h), floral resources & ecosystem management

(10d) and wild pollinators (10e) as being particularly important. Public interest groups were

particularly interested in information about improving communication on honey bee health

(3). In contrast, the beekeeping and education & training groups were more likely to be

interested in general honey bee management information (10a) and honey bee health issues

(10b). Respondents from government bodies tended to seek evidence that might inform

decision and problems (15) and were aware of changing knowledge in relation to honey bee

health (12).

Interestingly, stakeholders who had strong social ties with one another according to the

Social Network Analysis were more likely to perceive that similar information about bee

-1 0 1 2

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1

10a

10b

10c

10d10e

10f

10g

10h

12

13

1516

18

2

2122

23

24

34

5

6

7

8

Books

BroadcastMedia

Internet Search Engine

Magazines

Meetings

Newsletters

Newspapers

Reports

Scientific Articles

Talks by Experts

Websites


54

health was important. For example the public interest, land/ecosystem management and

research stakeholders shared strong links as did the government bodies, education/training

and beekeeping stakeholders, while the weaker links tended to occur between these two

groupings. In Figure 6, these two groupings appear to be associated with separate clusters

of information themes. Public interest, land/ecosystem management and research

stakeholders were more likely to be interested in information: that was easy, fast and

convenient to access; about how to communicate better around honey bee health issues;

about the complexity of honey bee health issues; that is tailored to specific queries; keeps

them up-to-date with general news and the latest scientific findings; and specific information

about pesticides, land/ecosystem management, wild pollinators, and the

political/economic/international context. On the other hand, government bodies,

education/training and beekeeping stakeholders were more likely to be interested in

information: about honey bee management and honey bee health/disease;

general/background information; that can provide evidence/guidance to inform decisions and

solve problems; about products and equipment; about how knowledge about honey bee

health is changing; and for teaching and training.

Ordination plots were also produced relating the reasons behind the usefulness of sources

to source type and stakeholder category but there were no clear trends and they are

therefore not displayed here.

Figure 6. An ordination plot of the results from a correspondence analysis showing how stakeholder categories are separated along two axes according to the different information themes they reported as important. The coordinates of the variables show their relative association with the two axes and the numbers are an arbitrary measure of these associations. The x axis explains the greatest proportion of variation and the y axis explains further residual variation.

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

1

10a10b

10c

10d

10e

10f

10g

10h

12

13

15

16

18

2

21

22

23

24

34

5

6

78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7Beekeepers

Education

& training

Public interest

Supplies

Land/ecosystem management

mngt

Government

bodies

Research &

funding

10c 10h


55

6 Discussion and Recommendations

6.1 Overview

The different ways in which respondents framed the issue of honey bee health provide an

insight into the difficulties of finding common ground between these diverse groups of

stakeholders. There appears to be a fundamental difference between two general framings.

One framing places honey bee health within the broader, longer-term context of an ‘agro-

industrial paradigm’. Here, for example, a focus on disease/honey bee husbandry is

perceived as narrow and limiting, and as only capable of addressing the symptoms, rather

than the causes of poor honey bee health. According to this framing, potential solutions lie in

radical changes to land use and agricultural systems, while questions of husbandry are

secondary, and in themselves part of a long-term problem of human interference in natural

systems. This contrasts with a more pragmatic framing where potential solutions lie in

improving floral resources within current land use and agricultural systems, and in better

pest and disease identification and management by beekeepers, to be achieved through

education and knowledge exchange.

Each framing poses different challenges in terms of the engagement of particular

stakeholder constituencies in addressing the potential causes of poor honey bee health. We

have also had to be reflexive about where this project sits in terms of these framings and

how this may be perceived by certain groups. It is therefore important to find common

ground/interests as a basis for improved working relationships between these constituencies

and indeed that was the recommendation of many respondents.

Particular flashpoints of conflict between these two framings were pest and disease control

(closely related to narratives regarding responsible husbandry and responsible policies) and

pesticide issues (related to narratives regarding the role of campaign groups and the media

and also to the responsibility of agro-chemical companies). However, two strands were

common to all categories. In order to undercut tensions and establish common ground it

might be useful to focus on these:

1) The need for floral resources, not just for honey bees but for all pollinators. Most

people were concerned that not enough was being done at the national level to

increase floral resources for pollinators. In addition, many people highlighted the need

for more co-ordinated working between the bee health/beekeeping education

categories and the land use category4 and advocated bringing these stakeholder

categories closer together.

2) The need for more sustainable, field-based research programmes which are

followed through to practical implementation. All respondents highlighted the need for

more research, both generally and on a range of issues, including pollinator decline,

disease control/prevention and food security issues. Although the impact of pesticides

4 This is not the case for bee farmers who often have close links with farmers via targeted pollination services.

Some are also members of the NFU.


56

(especially neo-nicotinoids) had caused tensions between different categories of

stakeholders, many respondents acknowledged that difficult issues remain to be

resolved, regardless of a ban on neo-nicotinoids. One key area was the need for

sustainability of funding for research over the long term so that research findings can

be properly implemented and tested in the field.

Interestingly, these commonalities of interest existed even in diametrically opposed groups

(e.g. natural beekeepers and bee farmers). Another view held in common by natural

beekeepers and bee farmers was the need for a shift in the focus of policy away from non-

commercial beekeepers – whether to radically change the agro-industrial paradigm (in the

view of natural beekeepers) or to focus attention more on the long term sustainability of the

bee farming profession (in the view of bee farmers).

The Social Network Analysis summarised in Figure 2 showed that there is a core honey bee

health community which can be characterised as a generally well-connected community.

Respondents from government bodies and research/funding scored highly across all

network measures, suggesting that these individuals are central to knowledge exchange in

relation to honey bee health. Individuals from government bodies and public interest groups

had the highest levels of overall influence in the network (as measured by their eigenvector

scores). This may mean that these individuals are well-placed to communicate information

about honey bee health to disparate parts of the honey bee health network in future, though

those in government bodies and the education/training were much more likely to be

perceived as key individuals in honey bee health discussions compared to public interest

stakeholders, who were not well-recognised by others in the network (as measured by the

frequency with which these people were mentioned as contacts by others). However, the

semi-structured interviews show that they were recognised as being very influential in

general public awareness about honey bee health and that they needed to be brought more

centrally into honey bee health discussions. Individuals in the education/training category

communicated with high numbers of people albeit within more peripheral clusters based on

their low eigenvalues and structural positions in the overall network (Figure 2). This is likely

to be due to the local nature of regional beekeeping associations and training schemes, and

the fact that sub groups like natural beekeepers and bee farmers have their own networks.

The high number of people reached though these individuals may mean they are a good

group to target in achieving improved communication about honey bee health.

The frequent connections between representatives of government bodies, researchers and

education/training may reflect the mandate of government bodies and those in the research,

education and training community to communicate as widely as possible across the

community of honey bee health stakeholders. It suggests that these individuals are

succeeding in meeting this mandate, and by virtue of their investment in communication,

often now sit in influential positions in the social network. This provides a strong foundation

for future education, training and communications work around honey bee health, given their

access to stakeholders across the network. However, researchers in particular feel very

constrained to engage in knowledge exchange activities and therefore may need extra

support to ensure their findings, expertise and influence are fully utilised. They are also the

group that seem to be most trusted by the other stakeholders who place a high value on

independent scientific research and evidence.

The interactions about bee health measured by the social network analysis were confined to

a 12 month period. While the size of the network and the frequency of interactions will


57

fluctuate over time depending on factors such as, for example, the availability of new

research information, funding for bee health initiatives and trends in media interest, the

structure of the network we have described is likely to be relatively stable over time.

Networks tend to display homophily where individuals whom are alike tend to form stable

relationships (McPherson et al. 2001); so unless new research information or media activity

is so significant that it causes fundamental shifts in peoples’ values, the core structures of

the network are also likely to be stable.

6.2 Knowledge Exchange

Eighty-five percent of communications around honey bee health issues in the network were

considered to be either ‘very useful’ or ‘useful’, suggesting that there are few major barriers

to prevent effective knowledge exchange within or between different stakeholder groups in

the network. However, data from the qualitative interviews suggest that those with a high

degree of disagreement tend not to communicate with each other, and this tends to reflect

different constituencies of belief around honey bee health. This means that within

constituencies there are few major barriers to prevent effective knowledge exchange but

there is a need to widen the network communications across differing constituencies of belief

around honey bee health.

Across all stakeholder groups, the most common way of finding information about honey bee

health was through personal contacts, further emphasising the potential for knowledge

exchange across this network. Other popular means of accessing information about honey

bee health included research articles, followed by websites, expert talks, meetings, books,

reports and magazines. Most of these either provided quite specialised information more

likely to include information about honey bee health (e.g. research articles, books and expert

talks) or provided people with the opportunity to search for specialised information or ask

specific questions (e.g. internet and meetings). By contrast, more generalist sources of

information such as newsletters, newspapers and broadcast media were less likely to

provide useful sources of information about honey bee health, although these tended to be

used more by the public interest category than other stakeholders.

Given the focus of the survey was on honey bee health, it was not surprising that specific

information about honey bee health was the most useful/important thing that respondents

received from the information sources that were cited. After this, the most useful information

and/or important reasons why honey bee health stakeholders accessed

knowledge/information were: because they were looking for specific information (e.g. about

the management of honey bees, pesticides, political/economic/international context or other

specific information); they wanted to keep up to date (e.g. with general news or the latest

research or technical advances); they wanted to interact with and learn from others; they

wanted general/background information; or they wanted information for teaching, or to

confirm that what they were teaching was consistent with research evidence.

Online beekeeping fora were described by many respondents as effective places for

knowledge exchange. However, although frequently used, their reliability as a source of

information was identified as an issue of concern for some respondents who would prefer

access to recognised experts via such fora. Well-networked respondents stated that they

could generally gain access to knowledge quickly from a range of trusted expert sources.


58

The two most important (and often inter-related) factors in evaluating the reliability and

trustworthiness of information were: (a) that it had been peer-reviewed (academic

publications); (b) it came from a person/organization with good

experience/reputation/accreditation in the field. Although peer-reviewed academic research

was seen by all categories of stakeholder as the pinnacle of trusted knowledge, serious

concerns regarding the sustainability and application of research were raised. The degree of

trust in information was closely linked to good relationships between peers and/or with

mentors. Many respondents spoke of the need to focus on building relationships at a

national level, because this trust is so important for knowledge exchange. In many different

contexts, respondents stressed the need for face-to-face meetings between people. Some

referred to the stakeholder workshop hosted by this project (in December 2012 at Birkbeck

College, London) and expressed appreciation for the opportunity to meet others at a

facilitated event.

There is evidence that respondents are more willing to respect viewpoints that differ from

their own when these are seen to be based on experience or evidence, rather than opinion.

This presents an opportunity to develop understanding and respect between different

groups, as there appear to be misunderstandings/misconceptions about whose views are or

are not based on robust evidence.

Several people recognised that in certain circumstances (for example the sharing of

scientific knowledge) effective knowledge exchange requires skill and resources, including

time, and that often some or all of these are lacking. Other respondents identified powerful

gatekeepers or ‘gurus’ who act as ‘blockers’ to knowledge exchange because of their own

agendas. Several respondents also identified the problem of lack of or misinformation

resulting in a proliferation of different messages, compounding uncertainty. Respondents

also mentioned lack of trust, confidentiality issues, competition, and damage to reputation as

reasons why people may be reluctant to share particular kinds of knowledge.

Respondents particularly valued information that they considered to be: in-depth and

reliable; easy, fast and convenient to access; trustworthy and delivered by people with

experience; tailored to answer specific queries; comprehensive (including a range of

different opinions and sources); and able to provide evidence and guidance that could inform

decisions and help solve problems. These considerations are important to tailor the design

of any future knowledge management strategy to the needs of these stakeholders. As

important as the nature of the information (in-depth, reliable and comprehensive) is the way

that it is presented (easy, fast and convenient to access, and able to provide answers to

specific questions), and who it is delivered by (people who are considered trustworthy and

who have experience).

6.3 How Can People Work Together?

Many respondents regarded this as an extremely difficult question. People mentioned the

conflicts within the sector, the lack of trust and lack of respect/understanding for others’

views, and hidden agendas and politics. Some aspects of the problem were seen as almost

insurmountable in the face of larger economic systems or development paradigms. This

relates back to our initial comments about the way in which the whole issue of honey bee

health is framed. Some groups highlighted the conflicts apparent in their own work between


59

health and socio-economic factors. For example, the importation of bumblebees for

glasshouse pollination was perceived as a potential source of health problems for native

bees in terms of disease vectors, and business imperatives were held to be increasingly

driving production methods.

Many people felt their views to be misunderstood and misrepresented, while others

expressed a wish to gain better understandings of others’ perspectives in order to engage in

conversations. For example, some respondents criticised the ‘anti-pesticide lobby’ groups for

diverting attention away from a complex web of interrelated issues into a single-issue

campaign which over-simplified the issues. Respondents speaking on behalf of those lobby

groups expressed frustration at what they saw as a misrepresentation of their contribution to

these debates. Many respondents thought that a national forum of all stakeholders, related

to a national action plan for honey bee health and facilitated by government, was the best

way to achieve better relationships and foster greater understanding between differing

perspectives.

In an attempt to address this question using Social Network Analysis, data was aggregated

to the level of organisations (where this data was available), to examine the frequency with

which organisations in each stakeholder category communicated with each other. This made

it possible to identify the organisations that were most likely to be in communication with a

particular category of stakeholder. For example, this analysis showed that although in

general there is a strong link between beekeepers and public interest organisations and

between beekeepers and education/training organisations, there were sub-sets of

organisations within these broad categories who communicated with each other, but who did

not communicate with the wider network of other public interest or education/training

stakeholders. In this example, “natural beekeepers” were in frequent communication with

Friends of the Earth and the Natural Beekeeping Trust, but had little contact with

conventional beekeepers and had few connections with other public interest or

training/education organisations. Although this may suggest that this group is relatively “hard

to reach”, it also suggests that it may be possible to work with Friends of the Earth and the

Natural Beekeeping Trust to tailor messages about honey bee health to the needs and

interests of this group, and it may also be possible to build on relatively infrequent

communication with the National Farmers’ Union and Beekeeping Suppliers to reach

beekeepers in this group.

Education, training and bee media organisations had strong links to beekeepers, and had

many (often frequent) connections with government bodies and research organisations, but

had much weaker links with public interest groups and ecosystem and land-based

organisations. Partly this may reflect their mandate to build capacity to enhance honey bee

health in the beekeeping community. However, it may also suggest that education/training

stakeholders are getting much of their material from government and research-based

sources, given their regular communication with these groups. This is supported by data on

sources of information used by education/training stakeholders. Although this group was

particularly interested in information about general bee management (which people tended

learn about primarily from books), they were also particularly interested in information about

honey bee health issues, which people tended to learn about primarily from research papers

and reports, many of which would have originated in the government and research

communities.


60

Organisations within the ecosystems and land management category typically did not

communicate widely with other organisations about bee health issues, and with the

exception of Waitrose Ltd and NFU, links to government bodies around honey bee health

issues were particularly weak. This suggests that organisations in this category were quite

unengaged in debates around honey bee health. However, qualitative interviews showed

that this group tend to be public facing in debates around honey bee health, more interested

in wild pollinators and tend to deal with more broad brush messages. This means that they

may be harder than other categories of stakeholder for government bodies to reach with new

messages around honey bee health. However their links with public interest groups and

research organisations mean they are likely to be able to access information indirectly via

these relationships.

The beekeeping supplies group had least communication with other categories of

stakeholder around honey bee health issues, and there was relatively little communication

between members of this category around these issues either. This suggests that honey bee

health is perceived as a relatively peripheral issue for this group. However, interviews show

that this group had less time to engage in knowledge exchange activities but their staff dealt

with lots of queries when selling products so there is potentially a role for them to play in KE

to beekeepers by cascading information. They already attempt to provide information and

training to customers but could be supported with tailored information to do more. This may

be a way to reach hard to reach beekeepers who are not registered on BeeBase. This is

currently a quite marginalised group with specific commercial interests and heavy time

constraints. Therefore, this group would probably require a carefully targeted approach to

engage them more in knowledge exchange around honey bee health.


position of respondents from this category at the core of the network. However contact

outward to other organisations was reported by representatives of government bodies to be

relatively infrequent. In contrast to this, representatives from other stakeholder categories

regularly reported inward links to government bodies. There are a number of ways to

interpret this discrepancy. It is clear that government bodies are well connected to each

other from this analysis, perhaps so much so, that compared to the frequency of

communication with representatives of other stakeholder categories, few of these weaker

ties came to mind when questioned. Alternatively, this finding may represent a bias in the

data, due to the fact that the research was funded by a government body, and was framed to

respondents as such. Therefore, when asked to name the first people that came to mind,

respondents may have been primed to mention their contacts within government bodies.

Although this may have slightly increased the number, frequency and influence of

connections with government bodies, it is unlikely that this would significantly affect the

overall findings. Whether reciprocated by representatives of government bodies or not, it is

clear that these organisations do regularly communicate with a range of stakeholders, and

they have influence. From interviews it is clear that some in government are very well

connected, for instance The National Bee Unit staff, and others like policy officers rely on

their teams to access information and to engage in networking activities. They also relate

perceived issues of trust between themselves and some stakeholders so tend to work

through intermediaries. Government officials are often the ones organizing meetings so will

be seen by lots of people but won’t necessarily network regularly with all other stakeholders.


61

Research organisations were found to have regular communication spanning all stakeholder

categories. Cambridge University was the best-connected organisation, holding most of the

contacts with public interest groups, and being strongly linked to land & ecosystem

management groups. The influence of research organisations in relation to honey bee health

as measured by SNA is further supported by evidence that the majority of respondents

across the network when looking for information about honey bee health, looked primarily to

research articles. In addition to generating new knowledge about honey bee health issues

themselves, researchers had regular communication with each other around honey bee

health issues. This suggests that this may be a relatively cohesive research community,

used to collaboration.

6.4 What could be done?

Returning to the individual data presented in Figure 4 and Table 3, researchers were well

recognised as key individuals in debates around honey bee health, as measured by the

frequency with which these people were mentioned as contacts by others. They were also

highly influential, as measured by their eigenvector scores. Putting these characteristics

together suggests that the research community has the potential to play a pivotal role in

future knowledge exchange around honey bee health issues, having both the reach and

influence necessary to disseminate messages, and potentially influence attitude and

behaviour change, if given the capacity to fulfil this potential. Researchers also have the

potential to provide the kind of information many honey bee health stakeholders are looking

for (in-depth, reliable and comprehensive), and are considered by many honey bee health

stakeholders to be the sort of people they want to learn from (if they are perceived to be

trustworthy and experienced enough). However, many respondents valued practical

experience as much as research expertise in the people they wanted to learn from, and the

research community do not always provide information in ways that are considered to be

easy, fast and convenient to access. There are also capacity issues around tailoring

information to address specific queries.

Multivariate statistical analysis showed that some stakeholder groups were clustered around

similar interests (Figure). Overall, two broad clusters of stakeholder groups emerged,

sharing strong social ties and similar interests:

i) Public interest and land/ecosystem management, who were more likely to be

interested in tailored and easily accessible information, often about specific

issues around pesticides, land management and wild pollinators, in addition to

information about communication and complexity in relation to honey bee health

issues; and

ii) Government bodies, education/training and beekeeping stakeholders, who were

more likely to be interested in specific information about honey bee management

and honey bee health; background information; information about products and

equipment; material for teaching and training and information that could provide

evidence/guidance to inform decisions and solve problems.

As such, knowledge exchange around honey bee health is likely to be relatively

straightforward within each of these clusters, but more challenging between them. The


62

analysis suggests that there is already regular communication between government bodies

and education/training stakeholders, with Bee Inspectors playing a key role here, with

beekeepers who they may wish to influence around bee health issues, and that these groups

have quite compatible interests and information needs. However, it may be more challenging

for government bodies and education/training stakeholder to communicate effectively around

honey bee health with public interest and land/ecosystem management stakeholders. In

addition these groups have more links with natural beekeepers who are outside the core

honey bee health groupings (and sometimes in conflict with Bee Inspectors) and so can

perform a key linking role. It is likely that a more tailored knowledge exchange strategy for

honey bee health will be required to reach these stakeholder groups, for example, linked to

issues of greater interest to them (such as pesticides or wild pollinators), using modes of

communication that are highly accessible to these groups (e.g. reports and research articles

for public interest stakeholders, and expert talks for land/ecosystem managers; Figure 4).

Researchers and beekeeping suppliers sit between these two clusters, but for different

reasons. Suppliers were the least well connected of all stakeholder groups to the honey bee

health network, and as such sit in a relatively isolated network position, disconnected from

either of the interest-based clusters identified above. However, they have access to a wide

range of beekeepers through their business and are often asked for advice, although they

have little time for knowledge exchange through networking or other means.

On the other hand, researchers had regular contacts across all the stakeholder groups, and

had a broad range of interests that overlapped with stakeholder groups from each cluster of

interests. This again suggests a potential knowledge-brokering role for researchers to

connect government bodies and education/training stakeholders with public interest and

land/ecosystem management stakeholders.

Individuals from government bodies and public interest groups were also particularly

influential across the honey bee health network and therefore are also particularly well-

placed to communicate messages about honey bee health to a wide range of different

groups. The role of Bee Inspectors is particularly important here in the government category.

Although well connected and influential, it would appear that public interest groups are

largely overlooked at present in their potential to promote messages to enhance honey bee

health (as measured by the frequency with which these people were mentioned as contacts

by others). However they may perform a key role as trusted intermediaries where

relationships of trust between government and stakeholder groups are problematic. It may

therefore be worth fostering closer relationships with public interest groups in future to

promote more understanding between disparate stakeholders regarding honey bee health

issues.

Although often local in their sphere of influence, education/training stakeholders

communicate with a large number of honey bee health stakeholders and should be

supported to continue this role. Respondents reported that there is a lack of ‘improver’ level

beekeeping advice in beekeeper groups due to the focus on new beekeepers and this focus

could now be shifted to ensuring the on-going education of existing beekeepers, rather than

taking on new ones.

The land and ecosystems management stakeholder group is less well connected to the

honey bee health core yet many stakeholders felt that closer relationships should be

fostered between these two sectors in order to address important concerns about habitat,

pesticide use, forage etc. Many stakeholders felt that there were two sets of knowledge that


63

needed to be brought together to produce easily accessible information about management

of land for pollinator health which could be used for private land management or to lobby

bodies like local government.

6.5 Key Recommendations

A wider focus on all pollinators could foster greater understanding between differing

perspectives. Knowledge Exchange strategies should be developed which include all

pollinator health to draw together diverse interests around issues of concern common

to honey bee health and wild pollinator health constituencies of interest.

A national forum for pollinator health should be developed which includes all

stakeholders, related to a national action plan for pollinator health and facilitated

either by an independent body (preferably) or by government.

Closer working relationships should be developed between core bee health

constituencies, land and ecosystems management stakeholder groups, and public

interest groups in particular.

More tailored knowledge exchange strategies need to be developed for public interest

and land management stakeholder groups.

There is a need to integrate two sets of knowledge for pollinator health, between

honey bee health specialists and land use/ecosystem management specialists.

Tailored information for both individuals and organisations on land use management

for pollinator health would benefit both groups.

Bee suppliers could be supported with specific information they can cascade to

customers easily.

Many beekeepers valued highly the education, training and mentoring obtained

through contact with National Bee Unit Bee Inspectors. As funding constraints

increase, the training and educational work of the National Bee Unit is likely to be far

more strategic. Stakeholders felt that one way to focus their resources is to focus on

‘improver’ level beekeeping training.

Experiential learning is valued highly and face to face contact is seen as an effective

way to facilitate good practice and knowledge exchange among the beekeeping

community. Beekeeping and bee health stakeholders should be supported to look at

ways to facilitate and encourage this sort of learning and contact, perhaps through

supported mentoring schemes.

Any future Knowledge Exchange strategy should consider ways to provide specialist,

tailored information, primarily via personal contacts, by identifying key trusted

informants in the network, like Bee Inspectors or university researchers, alongside the

other popular means of learning about honey bee health identified in this research.

Information for Knowledge Exchange should be: in-depth, reliable and

comprehensive; easy, fast and convenient to access; able to provide answers to

specific questions; delivered by people who are considered trustworthy and who have

experience.

University researchers should play a key role in KE and be supported to communicate

findings and expertise in ways that would be useful to different stakeholder groups.

This could be, for example, through the provision of funding for a dedicated

communications officer.


64

In order to reach those beekeepers that are reluctant to register on BeeBase, NBU

should continue their work on improving communications and relationships. It was

suggested that NBU consider a way for beekeepers to sign up to BeeBase

anonymously and therefore to access email alerts regarding disease, for example.

However, it should be noted that the majority of BeeBase information is open access

and free to use without requiring registration.

References

Adas Consulting Ltd (2001) An Economic Evaluation of DEFRA’s Bee Health Programme, Report to

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.

Andriof, J. and Waddock, S. (2002) 'Unfolding stakeholder engagement', in S. Sutherland Rahman, S.

Waddock, J. Andriof and B. Husted (eds.), Chapter One, Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking,

Greenleaf, UK.

Armitage D, Marschke M, Plummer R. 2008. Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning.

Global Environmental Change‐Human and Policy Dimensions 18: 86–98.

Barry, J., Proops, J., 1999. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological

Economics 28, 337–345.

Beierle, T.C., 2002. The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Analysis 22, 739–749.

Berman, S. L., A. C. Wicks, S.L. Kotha and T. M. Jones (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter?

The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance.

Academy of Management Journal, 42 (5): 488-506.

Biggs, S., Matsaert, H., 1999. An actor-orientated approach for strengthening research and

development capabilities in natural resource systems. Public Administration and Development 19,

231–262.

Bots, P. W. G., M. J. W. van Twist, and J. H. R. van Duin. 2000. Automatic pattern detection in

stakeholder networks. In J. F. Nunamaker and R. H. Sprague, editors. Proceedings of the 33rd

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (CD-ROM) January 4–7, 2000. Computer

Society Press, Manoa, Hawaii, USA. Available online at:

http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2000/0493/02/04932016.pdf.

Bots, P.W.G. (2007). Analysis of multi-actor policy contexts using perception graphs. In:

IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology

Brody, S.D. (2003) 'Measuring the Effects of Stakeholder Participation on the Quality of Local Plans

Based on the Principles of Collaborative Ecosystem Management.' Journal of Planning Education

and Research 22 (4): 407-19.

Calton, Jerry M. and Nancy B. Kurland, "A Theory of Stakeholder Enabling: Giving Voice to an

Emerging Postmodern Praxis of Organizational Discourse," in Boje, Thatchenkery (eds.),

Postmodern Management and Organizational Theory, Sage, 1996

Carroll A.B. 1993. Business and Society. Ethics and Stakeholder Management. Cincinnati:

SouthWestern Publishing Co.

Chevalier, J.M., Buckles, D.J., 2008. SAS2: a Guide to Collaborative Inquiry and Social Engagement.

Sage Publications.

http://csdl2.computer.org/comp/proceedings/hicss/2000/0493/02/04932016.pdf


65

Clarkson, M.B.E., 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social

performance. Academy of Management Review 20, 65–91.

Conrad, E., L.F. Cassar, M. Christie and I. Fazey (2011) 'Hearing but not listening? A participatory

assessment of public participation in planning.' Environment and Planning C: Government and

Policy 29 (5): 761-82.

Cuppen, E., Breukers, S., Hisschemoller, M., Bergsma, E (2010) Q methodology to select

participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands,

Ecological Economics 69: 579-591

Cuppen, E. (2012) 'Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for

design and methods.' Policy Sciences 45 (1): 23-46.

Defra (2001) Response to ADAS Consulting Ltd. Economic Evaluation of Defra’s Bee health

programme.

Defra (2009) Healthy Bees. Protecting and improving the health of honey bees in England and Wales.

Defra (2013) Consultation on improving bee health: proposed changes to managing and controlling

pests and diseases: Summary of responses. July 2013

(https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/improvong-honey-bee-health

Dale, A.P., Lane, M.B., 1994. Strategic perspectives analysis: a procedure for participatory and

political social impact assessment. Society and Natural Resources 7, 253–267.

De Lopez, T.T., 2001. Stakeholder management for conservation projects: a case study of Ream

National Park, Cambodia. Environmental Management 28, 47–60.

Dicks, L. V., Abrahams, A., Atkinson, J., Biesmeijer, J., Bourn, N., Brown, C., Brown, M. J. F., Carvell,

C., Connolly, C. N., Cresswell, JE., Croft, P., Darvill, B., De Zylva, P., Effingham, P., Fountain, M.,

Goggin, A., Harding, D., Harding, T., Hartfield, C., Heard, M.S., Heathcote, R., Heaver, D.,

Holland, J., Howe, M., Hughes, B., Huxley, T., Kunin, W.E., Little, J., Mason, C., Memmott, J.,

Osborne, J., Pankhurst, T., Paxton, R. J., Pocock, M.J. O., Potts, S. G., Power, E.F., Raine, N. E.,

Ranelagh, E., Roberts, S., Saunders, R., Smith, K., Smith, R.M., Sutton, P., Tilley, L. A. N.,

Tinsley, A., Tonhasca, A., Vanbergen, A.J., Webster, S., Wilson, A., Sutherland, W.J. (2012)

Identifying key knowledge needs for evidence-based conservation of wild insect pollinators: a

collaborative cross-sectoral exercise. Insect Conservation and Diversity. The Royal Entomological

Society 2012

Dicks, L.V., Showler, D. A. and Sutherland, W.J. (2010) Bee Conservation: Evidence for the effects of

interventions. http://www.conservationevidence.com/

Dietz, T. and P.C. Stern, eds. (2008) Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision-

Making. Panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making

Washington DC: National Research Council.

Donaldson A (2008) Biosecurity after the event: risk politics and animal disease. Environment and

Planning A 40 pp1552-1567

Donaldson, A., P. Lowe, N. Ward (2002) Virus-crisis-institutional change: the foot and mouth actor-

network and the governance of rural affairs in the UK, Sociologia Ruralis 42 pp201-214

Donaldson, T., Preston, L., 1995. The stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: concepts,

evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review 20: 65–91.

Dougill, A.J., Fraser, E.D.G., Holden, J., Hubacek, K., Prell, C., Reed, M.S., Stagl, S., Stringer, L.C.,

2006. Learning from doing participatory rural research: lessons from the Peak District National

Park. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57, 259–275.

http://www.conservationevidence.com/


66

Eden, C., Ackermann, F., 1998. Making Strategy: the Journey of Strategic Management. Sage

Publications, London.

Engelsdorp, D. et al (2012) A national survey of managed honey bee 2011-11 winter colony losses in

the USA; results from the Bee Informed Partnership. Journal of Apicultural Research 51 (1): 115-

124

Enticott G and Franklin A (2009) Biosecurity, Expertise and the Institutional Void: The Case of Bovine

Tuberculosis. Sociologia Ruralis 49 (4) pp375-393

FERA (2010) EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE BEE DISEASES AND PESTSCONTROL

(ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2010 No. 2363 Points7.1-7.3

Fazey I, Fazey JA, Salisbury JG, Lindenmayer DB, Dovers S. 2006a. The nature and role of

experiential knowledge for environmental conservation. Environmental Conservation 33: 1–10.

Fieldhouse, E.J. (1999) Environmental Involvement of Birmingham SME’s with Empirical Analysis of

Awareness, Involvement and Influencing Factors, Unpublished MA Dissertation, UCE Birmingham.

Freeman, R.E (1984). “Strategic Management: A stakeholder Approach”. Boston, MA: Pitman.

Friedman, A.L., Miles, S., 2004. Stakeholder theory and communication practice. Journal of

Communication Management 9, 89–97.

Fritsch, O. and J. Newig (2012) Participatory Governance and Sustainability: Findings of a Meta-

Analysis of Stakeholder Involvement in Environmental Decision Making., in Reflexive Governance

for Global Public Goods., eds. E. Brousseau, T. Dedeurwaerdere and B. Siebenhüner: 181-204.

Frooman, J., 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review 24, 191–205.

Garmendia, E., Stagl, S., 2010. Public participation for sustainability and social learning: concepts and

lessons from three case studies in Europe. Ecological Economics 69: 1712–1722.

Gerrits, L. and Edelenbos, J. (2004). Management of sediments through stakeholder involvement: the

risks and value of engaging stakeholders when looking for solutions for sediment-related

problems. Journal of Soils and Sediments 4 (4) 239-246.

Gray, S., A. Chan, D. Clark and R. Jordan (2012) 'Modelling the integration of stakeholder knowledge

in social–ecological decision-making: Benefits and limitations to knowledge diversity.' Ecological

Modelling 229 (0): 88-96.

Gilmour J, Beilin R, Sysak T (2011): Biosecurity risk and peri-urban landholders – using a stakeholder

consultative approach to build a risk communication strategy, Journal of Risk Research, 14:3, 281-

295

Gilmour, J., and R. Beilin. 2007. Stakeholder mapping for effective risk communication. Melbourne:

Australian Centre of Excellence for Risk Analysis. www.acera. unimelb.edu.au/materials/core.html.

Grimble, R., Chan, M.K., 1995. Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in developing

countries: some practical guidelines for making management more participatory and effective.

Natural Resources Forum 19, 113–124.

Hare, M., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2002. Stakeholder categorization in participatory integrated assessment.

Integrated Assessment 3, 50–62.

Hargadon AB. 2002. Brokering Knowledge: Linking Learning and Innovation. Research in

Organizational Behavior 24: 41– 85.

Harrison, J. S. and R. E. Freeman (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility and performance:

Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42 (5): 479-

487.


67

Hart, S.L., Sharma, S., 2004. Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of

Management Executive 18, 7–18.

Hermans, L.M. (2008) Exploring the promise of actor analysis for environmental policy analysis:

lessons from four cases in water resources management, Ecology and Society 13 (1)

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art21/.

Hill, C. W. L., & Jones, T. M. 1992. Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29:

131-154.

Hjortso, C. N., S. M. Christensen, and P. Tarp. 2005. Rapid stakeholder and conflict assessment for

natural resource management using cognitive mapping: the case of Damdoi Forest Enterprise,

Vietnam. Agriculture and Human Values 22(2):149-167.

House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, 2000. Science and Society—Third

Report. House of Lords Record Office, London.

Howard, N. 1989. The manager as politician and general: the metagame approach to analysing

cooperation and conflict. Pages 239-261 in J. Rosenhead, editor. Rational analysis for a

problematic world: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty, and conflict. Wiley,

Chichester, UK.

Howells J. 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy 35: 715–

728.

Jensen, K (2004) BSE in the UK: Why the Risk Communication Strategy Failed. Journal of

Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 17:405-423

Jonker, J., Foster, D., 2002. Stakeholder excellence? Framing the evolution and complexity of a

stakeholder perspective of the firm. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

Management 9, 187–195.

Kahan DM, Rejeski D (2009) Toward a comprehensive strategy for nanotechnology risk

communication. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC, USA.

http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/7091/

nano_090225_research_brief_kahan_nl1.pdf. Accessed 29 July 2010

Kilgour, D. M., and K. W. Hipel. 2005. The graph model for conflict resolution: past, present, and

future. Group Decision and Negotiation 14(6):441-460.

Klerkx L, Leeuwis C. 2008. Balancing multiple interests: Embedding innovation intermediation in the

agricultural knowledge infrastructure. Technocation 28: 364–378.

Klerkx L, Hall AJ, Leeuwis C. 2009. Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Capacity: Are Innovation

Brokers the Answer? No 19, UNU‐MERIT Working Paper Series, United Nations University,

Maastricht Economic and social Research and training centre on Innovation and Technology.

Koontz, T.M., 2005. We Finished the Plan, So Now What? Impacts of Collaborative Stakeholder

Participation on Land Use Policy. The Policy Studies Journal 33, 459–481.

Kontogiannia, A.D., Papageorgioub, E.I., Tourkoliasa, C. (2012) How do you perceive environmental

change? Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping informing stakeholder analysis for environmental policy making

and non-market valuation. Applied Soft Computing 12: 3725–3735.

Lezaun, J. (2011) Bees, beekeeping, and bureaucrats: parasitism and the politics of transgenic life.

Environment and Planning D 29 738-756

MacArthur, J., 1997. Stakeholder analysis in project planning: origins, applications and refinements of

the method. Project Appraisal 12, 251–265.


68

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. & Cook. J.M. 2001. Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.

Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415-444

Maxim, L. and van der Sluijs, J.P. (2007) Uncertainty: Cause or effect of stakeholders' debates:

Analysis of a case study: The risk for honey bees of the insecticide Gaucho®. Science of The Total

Environment, 376 (1–3): 1–17

McVea, J. and Freeman, R. (2005). A names-and-faces approach to stakeholder management.

Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(1), pp. 57-69.

Melhim, A., Weersink, A., Daly, Z. and Bennett, N. (2010) Beekeeping in Canada: Honey and

Pollination Outlook. Canadian Pollination Initiative Publication #6

Miller D (1999) Risk science and policy: definitional struggles, information management, the media

and BSE. Social Science and Medicine 49: 1239-1255

Mills, P. R., Dehnen-Schmutz, Katharina, Ilbery, B., Jeger, M., Jones, G., Little, R., MacLeod, A.,

Parker, S., Pautasso, M., Pietravalle, S. and Maye, D. (2011) Integrating natural and social

science perspectives on plant disease risk, management and policy formulation. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Vol.366 (No.1573). pp. 2035-2044

Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., Wood, D.J., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and

salience: defining the principle of whom and what really counts. Academy of Management Review

22, 853–886.

Mouratiadou, I., and D. Moran. 2007. Mapping public participation in the Water Framework Directive:

a case study of the Pinios River basin, Greece. Ecological Economics 62(1):66-76.

National Audit Office (NAO) (2009) The Health of Livestock and Honey bees in England.

Nerlich B, Brown B and Crawford P (2009) Health, Hygiene and Biosecurity: Tribal knowledge claims

in the UK poultry industry Health, Risk and Society 11(6) pp 561-577

Nerlich, B, Brown, B and Wright, N (2009) The Ins and Outs of Biosecurity: Bird ‘flu in East Anglia and

the Spatial Representation of Risk. Sociologia Ruralis 49(4): 344-359

Newig, J. and O. Fritsch (2009) 'Environmental Governance: Participatory, Multi-Level - and

Effective?' Environmental Policy and Governance 19 (3): 197-214.

Nisbett, R.E., Borgida, E., Crandall, R., Reed, H., 1982. Popular induction: information is not

necessarily informative. In: Kahne- man, D., Slovic, P., Tversky, A. (Eds.), Judgment Under

Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 101–116.

Nissen, M.E., Levitt, R.E., 2004. Agent-based modelling of knowledge dynamics. Knowledge

Management Research and Practice 2: 169–183.

Ng V, Sargeant JM (2012) A Stakeholder-Informed Approach to the Identification of Criteria for the

Prioritization of Zoonoses in Canada. PLoS ONE 7(1): e29752.

Novak, J.D. (1993) How do we learn our lesson? Taking students through the process, The Science

Teacher 60: 50–55.

Ostrom E. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press: New Jersey.

Patel, M., Kok, K., Rothman, D.S., 2007. Participatory planning in land use analysis: an insight into

the experiences and opportunities created by stakeholder involvement in scenario construction in

the Northern Mediterranean. Land Use Policy 24, 546–561.

People, Science and Policy (PSP)Ltd. (2010) A Study of Beekeeping Practices: Influences and

Information Sources. Report to Defra.

Pfeiffer D.U. (2006) Communicating risk and uncertainty in relation to development and

implementation of disease control policies. Veterinary Microbiology 112: 259–264.



http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00489697

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00489697

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00489697/376/1


69

Prell C, Hubacek K, Quinn CH, Reed MS. 2008. ‘Who’s in the network?’ When stakeholders influence

data analysis. Systemic Practice and Action Research 21: 443–458.

Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed MS (2009) Social network analysis and stakeholder analysis for natural

resource management. Society & Natural Resources 22: 501–518

Prell P, Reed MS, Racin L, Hubacek K (2010) Competing structures, competing views: the role of

formal and informal social structures in shaping stakeholder perceptions. Ecology & Society 15(4):

34. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art34/

Preston, L., and J. Post (1975) ‘Private Management and Public Policy: The Principle of Public

Responsibility’ (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Robinson GM, Evely AC (2010) Integrating local and

scientific knowledge for environmental management: From products to processes. Journal of

Environmental Management 91: 1766-1777

Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC

(2009) Who’s in and why? Stakeholder analysis as a prerequisite for sustainable natural resource

management. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 1933–1949

Reed MS, Fazey I, Stringer LC, Raymond CM, Akhtar-Schuster M, Begni G, Bigas H, Brehm S,

Briggs J, Bryce R, Buckmaster S, Chanda R, Davies J, Diez E, Essahli W, Evely A, Geeson N,

Hartmann I, Holden J, Hubacek K, Ioris I, Kruger B, Laureano P, Phillipson J, Prell C, Quinn CH,

Reeves AD, Seely M, Thomas R, van der Werff Ten Bosch MJ, Vergunst P, Wagner L (2011)

Knowledge management for land degradation monitoring and assessment: an analysis of

contemporary thinking. Land Degradation & Development

STEP (2010) List of Governing Questions and the hierarchical sub-division into more detailed

questions.

www.step-project.net/files/DOWNLOAD2/STEP_D6%201.pdf

Sabatier, P.A., W.D. Leach, M. Lubell and N.W. Pelkey (2005) Theoretical frameworks explaining

partnership success, in Swimming Upstream. Collaborative Approaches to Watershed

Management, eds. P.A. Sabatier, W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Vedlitz and M. Matlock.

Cambridge: MIT Press: 173-99.

Scholes, E. Clutterbuck, D. (1998) ‘Communication with stakeholders: an integrated Approach’. Long

Range Planning 31(2), 227-238

Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust and democracy. Risk Analysis 13: 675–682

Slovic P (1999) Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield.

Risk Analysis 19: 689–701

Somerville, D. (2008) A Study of New Zealand Beekeeping: Lessons for Australia. RIRDC / Australian

Government.

Stanghellini, P.S.L. (2010) 'Stakeholder involvement in water management: the role of the stakeholder

analysis within participatory processes.' Water Policy 12 (5): 675-94

Stoll-Kleemann, S., M. Welp. 2006. Towards a more effective and democratic natural resources

management. In: Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources management: Theory and practice.

Edited by S. Stoll-Kleemann, M. Welp. Berlin: Springer. 17–39.

Stone, H. L. 2002. Graphically modeling stakeholder values. Journal of the American Water

Resources Association 38(4):1019-1026.

Stringer, L.C., Prell, C., Reed, M.S., Hubacek, K., Fraser, E.D.G., Dougill, A.J., 2006. Unpacking

‘participation’ in the adaptive management of socio-ecological systems: a critical review. Ecology

and Society 11, 39 (online).

http://www.step-project.net/files/DOWNLOAD2/STEP_D6%201.pdf


70

Svendsen, A. (1998). The Stakeholder Strategy: Profiting from Collaborative Business Relationships.

San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.

Ward, N., Donaldson, A. & Lowe, P. (2004) Policy framing and learning the lessons from the UK's foot

and mouth disease crisis, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 22 pp 291 - 306

Warner, K.D. (2012) Fighting pathophobia: how to construct constructive public engagement with

biocontrol for nature without augmenting public fears. BioControl 57: 307–317

Wynne B (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science.

Public Underst Sci 1:281–304

Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Culture

10(4):445–481

Yafee SL (1997) Why environmental policy nightmares recur. Conservation Biology 11: 328–337.

Yemshanov, D., McKenney, D. W., Pedlar, J. H., Koch, F. H. & Cook, D. 2009 Towards an integrated

approach to modelling the risks and impacts of invasive forest species. Environmental Review 17,

163 – 178.


71

Acknowledgements

The research team would like to acknowledge and thank the many individuals and

organisations who have committed time to helping us with this research project. Thanks to

the Steering Group and project management board. Graphic design, proof-reading and

editing by Anna Sutherland. Thanks to the participants of the Stakeholder Mapping

Workshop in London 4th December 2012 and to the many interviewees. We hope we have

represented views and concerns adequately and will be delighted to receive further

comments and reflections on what is contained in this report.

Limitations and disclaimer

Birmingham City University has prepared this report for the sole use Defra (“Client”) in

accordance with the Agreement under which our services were performed (Project number:

PH0512). No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice

included in this report or any other services provided by BCU. The copyright for this report

belongs to the authors, and no other copying or reproduction of this report is allowed without

written permission from the authors. The authors retain the right to publish parts of this

report in other publications, with prior permission and full acknowledgement of funding from

Defra, and without compromising the anonymity of research subjects. Some of the

conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon information

provided by sub-contractors and upon the assumption that all relevant information provided

by those parties is accurate. Information obtained by BCU has not been independently

verified by BCU, unless otherwise stated in the report. The methodology adopted and the

sources of information used by BCU in providing its services are outlined in this report. The

work described in this report was undertaken between 01/10/12 and 13/12/13 and is based

on the conditions encountered and the information available during the said period of time.

The scope of this report and the services are accordingly factually limited by these

circumstances. Where assessments of works or costs identified in this report are made, such

assessments are based upon the information available at the time and where appropriate

are subject to further investigations or information which may become available. BCU

disclaim any undertaking or obligation to advise any person of any change in any matter

affecting the report, which may come or be brought to BCU’s attention after the date of the

report. Certain statements made in the report that are not historical facts may constitute

estimates, projections or other forward-looking statements and even though they are based

on reasonable assumptions as of the date of the report, such forward-looking statements by

their nature involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially

from the results predicted. BCU specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or

projections contained in this report.


72

Appendix 1: Full literature review

A literature review and current research audit was carried out to inform this work. This

covered:

Existing material on knowledge exchange, communication and behavior change in a

honey bee health context focused on/including honey bee health stakeholders

Examples of previous work with comparably diverse stakeholder groups regarding

pest and disease prevention/environmental protection which may inform this project,

identifying lessons from these other contexts that can be applied to honey bee health

Other relevant methods and theoretical approaches to stakeholder mapping,

knowledge exchange and communication that can be applied in this project, and that

could be used in other contexts in future.

Methodology for literature search

Key word searches were conducted through peer reviewed academic literature via Article

First, Web of Knowledge, British Library, EThOS (Electronic Theses Online Service), Index

to Theses databases.

Key words were developed by looking at existing literature. For the first section on “bee

health stakeholders”, a three way matrix was used, where search mechanisms allowed, with

combinations of the six broad groups of terms below. We avoided/refined particular

combinations to avoid turning up hundreds of scientific studies (for example on ‘bee’ and

‘behaviour’) and narrowed searches accordingly to omit scientific studies on bees, for

example by searching only social science journals where appropriate.

beekeep* OR apiculture OR stakeholder?

pollinat* OR bee OR bees OR honey bee?

knowledge OR behavior OR information OR communicate*

participate* OR collaborate* OR policy OR strategy*

Disease? OR health OR biosecurity OR risk?

conservation OR ecosystem services OR sustain*.

Academic literature searches for the second section on “stakeholder mapping and analysis

from other contexts” were conducted using the terms “stakeholder”, “stakeholder mapping”

and “stakeholder analysis”, combined with the following keywords to find literature from

comparable fields:

Animal disease

Plant disease

Animal health

Plant health

Zoonoses

Biosecurity

Literature for the first section on “bee health stakeholders” in other anglophone countries

was accessed by searching databases on relevant websites - science, stakeholder groups


73

and government websites (US, New Zealand, Australia and Canada). Key people were also

contacted in all four countries, representing scientists, government policy and stakeholder

groups in each country. A grey literature search was also carried out using Google with

combinations of key words. Some manual searching was carried out on a limited number of

references lists and bibliographies e.g. Bibliography of Commonwealth Apiculture (IBRA

2005), Apimondia website bibliography.

Bee health stakeholders: literature on knowledge exchange, communication and

behaviour change

The aim of this section is to review existing material on knowledge exchange,

communication and behaviour change in a honey bee health context focused on and/or

including honey bee health stakeholders.

Studies of honey bee health stakeholders in UK

There is currently little empirical evidence that can contribute to a systematic understanding

of the current and potential ways in which beekeepers and other stakeholders in the UK

share knowledge about honey bee health and pest and disease prevention. Two surveys

commissioned by Defra (2001 and 2010) and ongoing research at Newcastle and Lancaster

Universities provide some useful information on beekeepers and other stakeholders. In

addition the NBU carry out an annual husbandry survey of their members and the BBKA

have just commissioned a study of the training needs of their members. So the awareness

for the need for social science work is growing and this section will report on the findings

from the studies that are currently available in the UK.5

In 2001, Defra commissioned an economic evaluation of the Bee Health Programme by

ADAS Ltd. This included a stakeholder consultation exercise and survey of beekeepers

(n500) and bee farmers (n88) and crop growers (n237) and generated information which

included beekeeper profiles, motivation, knowledge acquisition and sources of information.

Beekeepers were segmented by number of colonies. Key findings included:

The training and information service provided through MAFF’s bee health programme was well respected.

There was strong support for compulsory inspections across the board.

On average c50% of beekeepers had read leaflets regarding disease control and a similar number had inspections.

Those which have fewer (1-3) colonies tend to have lower confidence in recognizing diseases, less experience with diseases such as AFB and EFB, and were less in touch with Bee Inspectors.

Those with lower numbers of colonies relied more on other beekeepers for general beekeeping practice. This trend is reversed for knowledge on honey bee disease.

5 This review will be updated as information becomes available during the course of the project, such as the

BBKA survey results, and results from the Newcastle and Lancaster University studies.


74

However, this information is in need of updating, given the increased interest in beekeeping,

and subsequent policy initiatives regarding training and education around pests and

diseases. This study segmented beekeepers according to how many colonies they kept.

Some interesting issues emerge from this segmentation, but the study cannot show which

stakeholder groups have which patterns of interest/influence. In addition, the study used a

tick-box questionnaire approach which can provide some interesting statistics but more in-

depth data is needed that reveals the complex combination of factors regarding stakeholder

motivations, practices and influence regarding honey bee health.

In 2009, Defra commissioned a study of beekeeping practices focusing on influences and

information sources, which produced some valuable findings from a survey of 906

beekeepers and 31 bee farmers, plus 70 semi-structured interviews with bee farmers and

beekeepers (PSP, 2010). Beekeepers were segmented according to length of experience.

Key findings:

The profile of beekeepers tended to be older males.

There was a split between ‘modern’ and ‘traditional’ practices.

Newer beekeepers tended to be more motivated by environmental factors, with c50% of beekeepers aspiring to chemical free beekeeping.

Newer beekeepers tended to prefer other beekeepers for knowledge, more experienced beekeepers prefer written sources.

Those who were better networked tended to use Integrated Pest Management (IPM).

Belonging to an association was very important for knowledge. Beekeepers were often confused about advice received.

Beekeeping was becoming harder and a new influx of beekeepers was proving challenging in terms of training capacity.

Recommendations:

Tailor message.

Headline messages about what constitutes ‘good practice’.

Support training.

Promote registration on BeeBase.

However, as acknowledged by the researchers carrying out the study, the methodology

relied on an internet survey and the interviewees were mainly gathered through

advertisement on websites and through memberships of bee organisations. This introduces

a bias towards those already well networked, accessing bee websites and who are computer

literate. In addition beekeepers were segmented according to experience. This produces

interesting patterns which can inform policy, for example the split between ‘modern’ and

‘traditional’ beekeeping practices. However, as with all research, the particular method of

data collection and analysis can only produce a partial picture. One key finding of this

research was the need to tailor information to different beekeeping audiences. However, so

far, beekeepers have been segmented rather coarsely, in terms of their experience

(novice/established) or by the number of their colonies. However, it is likely that criteria for

segmentation based on a number of different factors will not only make it possible to identify

more useful categories for knowledge exchange strategies, but will also produce insights into

how these categories of beekeepers might be supported in order to control pests and

disease. For example, members of the Natural Beekeeping Trust may have specific

concerns and agenda which inform attitudes to honey bees, beekeeping practice and pest


75

and disease control. This may be very different to the concerns and agenda of members of

the Bee Farmers Association.

Empirical research being carried out by Karen Scott and Sue Bradley (2011-2012) at the

Centre for Rural Economy at Newcastle University is contributing to more in-depth

knowledge of the diverse social contexts, personal motivations and challenges entailed in

amateur beekeeping. A study of two beekeeping networks was carried out through

interviews with beekeepers (n40) in Orkney and Durham, as well as participant observation

and oral history recordings. The research investigated a number of topics in depth, including

knowledge acquisition, mentoring, monitoring disease, networks, lifestyles, beekeeping

practices, attitudes and beliefs. Data is currently being analyzed and the following

preliminary findings are available.

The two case studies (and individuals within them) are very diverse, high-lighting the difficulties of trying to categorize beekeepers/associations and the need for more sophisticated segmentation than previously.

The influence and character of networks is variable and includes divisions of gender, ‘traditional’ v ‘environmental’, ‘scientific and ‘non-scientific’.

There are a range of beliefs and attitudes regarding disease, including divisions (and overlap) between a whole systems model of ecological health and a specific disease control model.

There are a wide range of motivations for and types of knowledge acquisition, with a particular finding regarding the importance of mentoring and experiential learning.

The difficulties of geographical isolation regarding honey bee health (keeping genetic vigor).

Good practice in beekeeping is very much related to lifestyle as well as knowledge/beliefs. Busy people acknowledge they don’t always have time for good practice in beekeeping.

The commitment to beekeeping is often related to early childhood experience (this has both positive and negative impacts on disease control).

The study finds that the behaviour of beekeepers reflects a complex interaction of beliefs,

motivations, priorities and pressures related to perceptions of risks and benefits. Additionally,

it is often difficult for beekeepers to assess the quality of information regarding honey bee

health due to the complexity of the field. The old adage that if you ask ten beekeepers a

question you will get ten different answers sums up the diversity of opinions in the

beekeeping world. Therefore, relationships (particularly mentoring type relationships) are an

important factor in how people decide which information to trust. The issue of pest and

disease prevention is crucial to the health of honey bees, but there are many theories and

beliefs about the spread and control of pests and diseases such as Varroa, AFB and EFB,

and knowledge can be very patchy. Many beekeepers have never encountered some of the

pests or diseases, and lack confidence in recognizing them. Some regard beekeeping as a

private activity involving themselves and their honey bees, and reject the interference of

regulatory frameworks. Other beekeepers, with full-time work and family commitments,

struggle to find the time needed for proper management of the honey bees and to acquire

the necessary knowledge and experience. Others may hold strong beliefs about genetic

resistance to disease (e.g. regarding the ‘British black bee’) and focus on honey bee

breeding and whole systems health, as opposed to treatment as a response to honey bee

health concerns. While some beekeepers might value guidance from figures such as Bee

Inspectors, others might not welcome it. This in-depth work is valuable in bringing to light the


76

range of factors which may impact on honey bee health practices. However, more

systematic coverage is needed to integrate this in-depth work with information on how

stakeholders interact and how knowledge is transmitted.

Emily Adams is currently conducting her PhD entitled 'Understanding and managing honey

bee health in the UK: beekeeper knowledge and engagement with science and policy', under

the supervision of Dr Rebecca Ellis and Prof Ken Wilson at the Lancaster Environment

Centre, Lancaster University. This involves interviews and participant observation with a

group of beekeepers in Lancashire within an association in the north west of England as well

as other stakeholders within the beekeeping community in the UK. Issues being researched

include existing knowledge and husbandry practices, the engagement of the non-commercial

beekeeping community with academic science, national statutory science and policy, and

relationships with other honey bee health stakeholders. Early results include an analysis of

the complex process of learning to keep bees, and an examination of the relationship

between beekeepers, honey bees and the environment. In particular, it has become clear

from the analysis of the learning process that as individuals become competent beekeepers,

they undergo an intensive, locally situated learning experience, akin to traditional forms of

apprenticeship. Following a rapid increase in the number of new beekeepers in the UK over

the last 5-8 years, there has been pressure put on trainers and mentors, and as a result a

general shift towards larger and often standardised training courses as a way of dealing with

this pressure. Whilst training courses do have a place in training future generations of

beekeepers, it is also important that there is support for more individual, hive-based and

locality-specific training through mentors, without which novice beekeepers often become

insecure and potentially ineffective beekeepers. In order to overcome the current shortfalls

in trainer and mentor provision, more beekeepers need to become mentors or trainers, yet

many feel relatively inexperienced even after several years of keeping bees successfully,

and are therefore reluctant to step forwards and take up mentoring or training

roles. Encouragement for such individuals is needed, especially in terms of support with

teaching skills or in ensuring a supportive environment for new mentors/trainers to ask for

help or learn tips from other trainers and mentors. Creating such an environment takes time

and effort, and may require a move away from local or club based training (currently the

main location for training and beekeeping discussions for most beekeepers) and towards a

network of trainers regionally or nationally. There are signs that this is happening in

Lancashire, but it takes time to develop and may need facilitation by stakeholders such as

national hobby organisations, or other organisations who can provide training in teaching

methods and learning theory.

Studies of wild insect pollinator stakeholder groups in UK

The work by Dicks et al. (2012) is based on the premise that where scientific knowledge is

complex, as in wild insect pollinator conservation, open discussion between stakeholder

groups and scientists is important. This helps to make existing knowledge available to users

and makes science more likely to have real impact. This study convened a stakeholder

group of 32 conservation practitioners and 16 scientists to devise a list of key knowledge

needs for conservation of wild insect pollinators. The participants collaboratively developed

a list of 35 key knowledge needs through scoring and voting.


77

Priority knowledge needs are:

understanding economic benefits of crop pollination

basic pollinator ecology

impacts of pesticides

need to monitor floral resources

What is striking about this research is that there were no knowledge needs identified

regarding social science understandings of stakeholders in bee conservation. In addition, in

a recent review of wild pollinator literature Dicks et al. (2010) found no studies focused on

stakeholders themselves. Nor did they find any studies looking at the impact of public

awareness raising strategies:

‘There is a strong need for awareness-raising, education and training about the diversity of

wild bees, their conservation and the services they provide (Brown and Paxton, 2009). The

International Pollinator Initiative (IPI) of the United Nations Convention on Biological

Diversity has awareness-raising amongst scientists, policymakers and the public as one of

its central aims (Byrne and Fitzpatrick, 2009).’ However, this review found no evidence for

the effects of developing taxonomy skills, the effects of providing training, or the effects of

campaigning techniques. In short, they ‘found no studies examining the effects of

awareness-raising in changing the way people behave or the way land is managed.’

Lynn Dicks at Cambridge University (lead author of the above papers and co-ordinator of the

Pollinator Conservation Delivery Group linked to the IPI and the Pollinator Conservation

Knowledge Exchange Project) informed us that she knew of no research/literature regarding

honey bee health stakeholder groups other than her own work on wild insect pollinators

(above), and the IPI stakeholder project focused on accessibility of conservation evidence

for stakeholders. This wild insect pollinator work has actively sought to engage with

stakeholders and has found a dearth of social science studies about the impact of training,

campaigning, awareness raising and more importantly for this project, a dearth of

studies/lack of perceived priority knowledge need (on the part of stakeholders themselves)

for research regarding stakeholder groups.

Bee health stakeholder research in other countries

This section briefly describes the results of searching in other countries, predominantly

Anglophone countries. Much of this was focused on searching grey literature and websites

and contacting key stakeholders6. We have split the literature up geographically because the

beekeeping sector is very different in the UK to other countries. The UK is fairly atypical in

that it is dominated by non-commercial beekeepers and findings in the US for example

would not necessarily be readily applicable to the UK.

6 This information will be continually updated throughout the length of the project as new contacts/information

comes to light through snowballing. In addition, some contacts were now acknowledging the need for social science work in this area so new studies may be commissioned.


78

Europe

A paper by Lezaun (2011) deals with the role and perceptions of beekeepers in terms of a

growing discourse and interest in genetically modified crops in the EU. A key point is that

along with an escalation of research and an intensification of political interest, the beekeeper

is seeing a risk to (his) traditional relationship to honey bees, crops and consumers and

there is a rise of ‘objecting minorities’. The paper used secondary data sources.

Maxim and van der Sluijs (2007) researched the French controversy over the pesticide

Gaucho® in terms of its effect on honey bee health. They study this in the context of the

need to move towards ‘post-normal science’, characteristics of which include the

management of uncertainty, acknowledgement of the plurality of perspectives and the

inclusion of non-science actors. They highlight the key role that political and societal context

plays in knowledge production and usage and show how different actors including

beekeepers, policy officials and pesticide companies strategically select information sources

to exploit scientific uncertainty in promoting a particular agenda. A combination of social

pressure, media attention as well as scientific evidence was important in banning the

pesticide. They highlight the need to understand the interests and assumptions of various

actors. Interestingly the study showed how farmers were split on two sides of the debate

between beekeepers (supported by organic farmers) and pesticide companies (supported by

intensive farmers). It is important to acknowledge that when working with honey bee health

stakeholders that divisions between stakeholder categories will not necessarily map easily

onto fracture lines over issues. Beekeeper groups in France had long been concerned due

to their own experiential knowledge of honey bee health declines, but their knowledge was

regarded as ‘illegitimate’. As a result, key factors in allowing them to gain recognition were

arguments of ‘equity’, ‘dignity’ and rights to participation which received much support from

civil society. A key finding is that the French Ministry of Agriculture, who were strongly allied

to arguments regarding the economic health of the farming industry, repeatedly marginalized

the beekeeping sector and thus contributed to the conflict. Principles of democracy, social

equity and ecological responsibility were downplayed yet these are likely to be the

battlegrounds of future debates as risks and uncertainty grow.

The Status and Trends of European Pollinators (STEP) project funded by the seventh EU

research framework programme has carried out some consultation work with pollination

stakeholders to map stakeholder groups. The STEP project started in February 2010 and will

run for 5 years, combining the expertise of 21 research institutions from 17 European

countries with more than 120 researchers. One of the main aims is to ‘develop

communication and educational links with a wide range of stakeholders and the general

public on the importance of recent shifts in pollinators, the main drivers and impacts of

pollinator shifts and mitigation strategies through dissemination and training’. The team is led

by Outi Ratamäki and Pekka Jokinen at the Finnish Environment Institute and includes

Simon Potts at the University of Reading. They carried out a stakeholder workshop in

Brussels in 2010 comprising 21 stakeholders from national and EU levels including

administration, entrepreneurs, NGOs, researchers. They identified all the possible

stakeholders related to pollinator loss and identified all the problems related to pollinator loss

and prioritized them. They then identified which stakeholders were most important in terms

of which problem through voting, discussion and sticky note type methods. They then

prioritized information needs by considering what the state of knowledge was regarding

those problems and where the gaps were. The stakeholders identified many uncertainties




79

regarding knowledge and identified that ‘social and cultural aspects as well as about the

stakeholders role’ was identified as one of the major gaps in current knowledge (STEP,

2010).

A survey is being circulated to participating beekeepers as part of a new a pan-European

Pilot Surveillance Project (Epilobee) for honey bee health. Designed to accurately and

consistently measure colony losses across the EU, this project involves 17 Member States

(MS) – the NBU are coordinating the response for the UK (England & Wales). Other MS

involved are Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy,

Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Slovak republic, Estonia and Sweden. Approximate

numbers of beekeepers involved across EU is around 3,560. This will include professionals

(commercial) and amateurs (hobbyist). The vast majority of questions relate to the health

risks associated with differing beekeeping practices (e.g. use of Varroa treatments, migration

of apiaries, proximity to risk sites for exotic pest entry). However, there are some that ask

specifically about motivation for keeping honey bees, and several about social aspects such

as age, length of time been keeping bees etc. This survey began at the end of summer

2012 and the first results will be available at the end of 2013.

United States

The United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service has an

improving Honey Bee Health program. This is a strategy comparable to the Defra Healthy

Bees Plan and seeks to involve stakeholders. In conjunction with Penn State and Bee

Informed (below) a national stakeholders meeting on honey bee health took place in October

but this was focused on imparting scientific research to stakeholders.

The Center for Pollinator Research, at Penn State University (led by Christina Grozinger) is

a predominantly bioscience facility but has two social scientists working with them. However,

Prof. Grozinger knew of no comparable work in the US which was directly relevant to us.

Their social science work was focused very specifically on a study of beekeeper queen

management practices.

The Bee Informed Partnership is an extension project formed in response to the need to

reduce the winter deaths of colonies (post CCD). It is a similar initiative to the bee

conservation work at Cambridge which is focused on making scientific work accessible to

stakeholders but also includes surveys of beekeepers. However, these surveys are very

specific and are focused on management practices (van Engelsdorp et al., 2012; 2010).

Dennis van Engelsdorp, project lead, knew of no work directly relevant to this project but

acknowledged a similar need they had identified for anthropological research with

stakeholders, and was considering commissioning work early next year.

Australia and New Zealand

A major program of pollinator research work in Australia is governed by the Rural Industries

Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), an organisation comparable to FERA. A

(European) Honey bee Program is funded on an on-going basis through statutory honey bee

industry levies (one on honey sold and one on queen bees sold). These are matched by

funds from the Australian Government. A Pollination Program of research, development and


80

extension is funded by the Honey bee Program and a sister organisation, Horticulture

Australia Limited which focuses on investments in research development and education that

will secure the pollination of Australia's horticultural and agricultural crops. Australia currently

does not have Varroa; so much of the investment is viewed through this lens. Australian bee

health stakeholders have a variety of opportunities to input to the direction of each Program.

The Corporation's Honey bee Program has an Advisory Committee that includes a

representative from the honey bee industry and scientists and the Pollination Program also

includes representatives from horticultural industries that are reliant on honey bees. The

health of honey bees is a primary issue for the plans of both programs7. Dr Dave Alden,

senior research manager at RIRDC, knew of no social science work which would be relevant

for our study.

The fact that Australia does not have Varroa yet prompted a group of honey bee health

stakeholders to carry out an investigation of New Zealand beekeepers (where Varroa is

present) to find out what impact Varroa may have (Somerville, 2008). A study group of nine

Australian beekeepers and scientists travelled through New Zealand and discussed key

issues with a range of beekeepers and scientists in North Island. Key findings:

The successful management of pests and diseases requires much input and management from numerous beekeeping officials

An industry-driven system, backed by economic incentives to combat pests and diseases, is more effective than a government owned system

A long standing and resilient blame culture persists, including strong emotions, around pests and diseases honey bee disease which is unhelpful in tackling pests and diseases

The arrival of Varroa benefitted commercial beekeeping due to increased honey stocks in managed hives and increased demand for pollination services.

In New Zealand there are many ‘honey-houses’ which sell a wide variety of honey bee related products and merchandise, so wider stakeholders are an important consideration.

Canada

The Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists (CAPA) is a group of research,

regulatory and extension professionals in Canada comprised of personnel such as Provincial

Apiculturists (regulatory and extension), university and government researchers, and

extension personnel. This organization provides scientific advice to the industry as well as

government agencies that regulate import/export, food safety, labelling and antibiotic and

pesticide registration. CAPA works closely with the industry stakeholders and government

agencies. CAPA, being comprised in part by the provincial apiculturists also have a direct

relationship with beekeepers across the country.

The major stakeholder groups in Canada are The Canadian Honey Council (CHC) which is a

national beekeepers’ organization. In addition there are many provincial beekeeping

associations which are geared at commercial beekeepers. Bee clubs for hobbyists exist

7 Text adapted from an email communication with Dr Dave Alden, Senior Research Manager, Rural Industries

Research & Development Corporation, Australia.


81

mainly outside of the three Prairie Provinces - Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. These

provinces are where 80% of Canadian production comes from and are dominated by

commercial producers.

Commodity groups that rely on honey bee pollination are also stakeholders. In Canada, the

companies that produce hybrid canola seed in southern Alberta would be a major

stakeholder group. These companies are typically multinationals and are very dependent on

honey bees to produce hybrid seed, which must be produced annually and purchased by

farmers. Other stakeholders would be cranberry, blueberry and tree fruit producers. The

latter groups have not traditionally interfaced with the beekeeping industry in Canada to any

great extent 8.

Dr Stephen Pernal, Research Scientist at the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Canada, who works with all of the above, was not aware of any relevant research in Canada

that focusses on honey bee health stakeholders. A report by Melhim et al. (2010) provided

the first statistical overview of the 7,000 beekeepers in Canada. It focused on honey bee

farm types and sizes and characteristics, honey and hive products and pollination services.

However, it relied on secondary statistical data sources and gives no in depth information on

practices, motivations and attitudes and relationships of beekeepers (or wider stakeholders)

towards honey bee health. In the introduction it acknowledges that despite the increased

public awareness of honey bee losses and the growing body of research into bee health,

beekeepers are rarely studied.

8 Dr Stephen Pernal, Research Scientist, at the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, provided us

with this information


82

Stakeholder mapping and analysis: what can we learn from other contexts?

Introduction

To supplement the narrow range of studies specifically focused on honey bee health

stakeholders, this section of the literature review derives lessons from research conducted

with comparably diverse stakeholder groups regarding wider issues of plant and animal

health, pest and disease prevention and control, and biosecurity.

Although not focused specifically on honey bee health, this literature offers a number of

important insights into the need to better understand and communicate with stakeholders

around disease risks, and approaches that have been used in these other biosecurity

contexts to identify and analyze stakeholders. Biosecurity refers to those ‘practices, routines

and technologies that are used to control the mobility of animal diseases’ (Enticott and

Franklin, 2009). A number of papers take an anthropological, sociological or human

geography perspective on stakeholders and biosecurity, using specific diseases as case

studies for example work on the UK outbreak of foot and mouth disease (Donaldson et al..,

2002; Ward et al.., 2004; Donaldson, 2008); bovine tuberculosis (Enticott and Franklin,

2009); BSE (Jensen, 2004; Miller, 1999) and Avian ‘flu (Nerlich et al.., 2009a and b). Taken

together this work represents a valuable body of critical analysis on the governance of

biosecurity issues and lessons to be learned. Together they show how, over the course of

the last decade or so, which was plagued with biosecurity issues, trust in government and

science was undermined (for example in the government chief scientist, traditional veterinary

logic) leading to the rise of ‘partnership’ narratives and new forms of expertise and influence.

Of course, stakeholder mapping has been conducted in many other fields (e.g. much of the

early literature came from business management and development studies), and this section

also considers what methodological and theoretical lessons may be learned for honey bee

health from these other fields. Given the prominence of the term ‘stakeholder’, “stakeholder

engagement” and “stakeholder mapping” within this research, Appendix 2 defines and

discuss these terms.

Limitations of scientific evidence and technocratic governance in the management of

disease risk

Policy-making in the UK has traditionally adopted an evidence-based or “technocratic”

approach to governance that favours scientific knowledge over other forms of knowledge,

relying on researchers to judge risks and make recommendations (Yemshanov et al., 2009).

Similarly, there is an (often unspoken) assumption amongst some in the academic

community that to communicate risk more effectively and change behavior to reduce risk, all

that is required is more and better science (e.g. Gilmour et al., 2011). Ng and Sargeant

(2012) found that members of the public also emphasized the role of scientific knowledge

and the responsibility of researchers in tackling emerging diseases. Such perspectives are

often based on a “reductionist” view of how knowledge is generated, which assumes it is

possible through science to understand the world by breaking it down into its constituent

parts to reveal universal truths. In practice, when scientific findings challenge deeply

cherished beliefs or economic imperatives, they are often contested or simply ignored. The

reality is that scientific evidence is just one line of argument among many, vying for the

attention of decision-makers. Indeed, Ng and Sergeant (2012) report that researchers taking


83

part in their focus groups acknowledged that public perceptions and political pressure often

play a strong role in determining the allocation of resources towards disease control. This is

not to say that scientific knowledge cannot help us assess, manage and communicate risk

and improve honey bee health. Rather, to make an effective contribution to decision-making

around honey bee health, decontextualized, scientific generalisations must be given local

context; “objective” scientific findings must be put alongside the beliefs of local stakeholders

and both scrutinised with equal rigour; and the knowledge of all kinds of experts must be

recognised and considered, whether formally codified or not (Raymond et al., 2010).

However, scientific knowledge has a number of important limitations in relation to honey bee

health and biosecurity more generally. The complexity of many scientific studies reduces the

transparency of their findings to stakeholders, who are often more likely to accept research

findings on the basis of the trustworthiness of the messenger, rather than the robustness of

the data (Wynne, 1992; Slovic, 1993; Yafee, 1997; Wynne, 2001; Kahan and Rejeski, 2009;

Warner, 2012). Using scientific methods, it is often impossible to prove cause–effect

relationships beyond doubt, due to confounding or unmeasured factors and various forms of

bias (Pfeiffer, 2006). In the same way as scientific findings may therefore be divergent,

stakeholder perceptions of risk may vary significantly between individuals and groups, and

often do not agree with scientific measures of risk (Slovic, 1999). If there are widely

divergent perceptions or beliefs amongst stakeholders about the relative importance of

disease risk factors, then scientific uncertainty may become particularly divisive (Pfeiffer,

2006). This is further compounded by a general loss of public trust in science in the UK

(House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, 2000). In some cases, this

extends to a lack of trust in the scientific method itself, relying instead on personal

experience (Nisbett et al., 1982; Pfeiffer, 2006). As a result, there is evidence that increasing

scientific evidence can sometimes increase fear and mistrust among stakeholders (Wynne,

2001; Warner, 2012).

Enticott and Franklin (2009) argue, in the case of bovine TB, that due to an increasing

institutional void (Hajer, 1995) and the increase of a range of stakeholders and partners in

governance arrangements responding to uncertainty, a fundamental challenge to the

legitimacy of scientific knowledge has been created. Their work, based on document

analysis and interviews, showed that a discourse of partnership was maintained by Defra

(between them and devolved administrations and between farmers and the state) yet as a

result of differing perspectives and stakeholder influence, the countryside became

differentiated in terms of biosecurity policies and practices according to different social

contexts and culture. They conclude that biosecurity doesn’t exist in one form at a national

level but can take many forms and work at different scales, leading to different policy

approaches in different parts of the country. As a result, stakeholders will develop different

coping mechanisms and perform different management practices. This is important to

consider in the light of the Bee Health Strategy, i.e. ‘working together’ may not mean that

everyone does the same thing, particularly in areas where science is uncertain.

Managing disease risks and improving honey bee health depends as much upon what

people do as it does on the science of how a disease spreads (Gilmour et al., 2011). It is

therefore imperative to take into account the knowledge, attitudes and practices of

stakeholders in the management of these risks. In this way, it may be possible to anticipate

how different stakeholder groups are likely to perceive risks to honey bee health and the

benefits of adopting new biosecurity practices. This in turn implies the need for far wider and


84

deeper engagement with all those who have a stake in honey bee health. As a result there is

now an increasing recognition that greater stakeholder engagement is needed in the

assessment, management and communication of risks around plant and animal health and

biosecurity issues more generally (Mills et al., 2011).

Challenges and benefits of effectively representing stakeholders in disease management

strategies

A number of bold claims have been made for the benefits of engaging stakeholders in the

management of environmental risks. Engaging with stakeholders has been claimed to offer

the promise of achieving environmental goals more efficiently and effectively, whilst coping

with or resolving conflict, and building trust and learning among stakeholders who are more

likely to support policy goals and implement decisions in the long term e.g. Beierle, 2002;

Brody, 2003; Reed, 2008; Dietz and Stern, 2008; Sabatier et al., 2005. However, many

critiques of participation now abound, and there is growing concern that many of the claimed

benefits are not being realised. For example, Gray et al. (2012) suggest that integrating local

and scientific knowledge in a participatory process may decrease the precision with which

socio-ecological system functions can be defined and predictions can be made. Others

discuss how problems with stakeholder representation or participatory process design mean

processes fail to achieve their goals or exacerbate conflict e.g. Gerrits and Edelenbos, 2004;

Garmendia and Stagl, 2010; Scott, 2011). Conrad et al. (2011) blame the mismatch between

the rhetoric of participation and its operational reality on weaknesses in the way that

participatory processes are designed and implemented.

As such, it has started to be recognised that the outputs (such as plans or other agreements)

and ultimate outcomes (such as improved honey bee health) of participatory processes are

highly dependent on the selection of participants, and the process design. For example,

Cuppen (2012) found that social learning from participatory processes was dependent upon

the diversity of perspectives held by those who engaged in the process. Similarly, Newig and

Fritsch (2009) found that the composition of groups engaging in participatory processes and

their associated preferences strongly influenced the environmental standard of outputs.

Building on this, others point to the importance of systematically identifying and selecting

stakeholders for inclusion in the participatory process as a pre-requisite for achieving the

desired outputs (e.g. Reed et al. 2009; Stanghellini, 2010).

This is supported by new research by de Vente et al. (under review) that suggests

participant selection and process design are more important than context variables in

determining beneficial environmental and other outcomes from participatory processes.

Their case study research into 13 participatory processes internationally and 11 processes in

Spain and Portugal showed that the most (statistically) significant ingredients of a successful

participatory process include: the systematic representation of stakeholders (including

opinion leaders and those needed to implement decisions) prior to starting a process;

professionally facilitated processes that include structured methods for eliciting and

aggregating information from participants and balance power dynamics between

participants; and the provision of information (ideally via face-to-face contact) and decision-

making power to all those involved in the process.

As such, effectively identifying, analysing and systematically representing stakeholders is

crucial to the design of participation and communication strategies to improve honey bee


85

health. Without fair representation of stakeholders, the outcome of any participatory process

may lack legitimacy and be contested by groups who felt excluded, adding time and costs,

and potentially creating or exacerbating conflict. Excluded groups may become further

marginalized and isolated, and outcomes may be biased towards the needs and priorities of

those who were able to participate at the expense of those who were excluded (Reed et al.,

2009). This in turn is likely to jeopardize levels of trust between stakeholders and those with

statutory responsibilities for managing disease risk (Svendson, 1998).

Theoretical approaches to stakeholder mapping

A range of methods exists to identify and analyze stakeholders. In the literature, these are

interchangeably referred to as stakeholder mapping and stakeholder analysis (referred to as

stakeholder mapping hereafter). There have been numerous attempts to classify the

different theoretical approaches to stakeholder mapping (e.g. Donaldson and Preston, 1995;

Friedman and Miles, 2006). Perhaps the most significant difference is between “normative”

(emphasising the legitimacy of stakeholder involvement and empowerment in decision-

making processes) and “instrumental” approaches (focused on understanding how

organisations, projects and policy-makers can identify, explain, and manage the behaviour of

stakeholders to achieve desired outcomes). A third approach, descriptive stakeholder

mapping, simply focuses on understanding the relationship between a particular

phenomenon (e.g. honey bee health) and its stakeholders (Donaldson and Preston, 1995).

There are a number of limitations to these theoretical approaches. For example, a

stakeholder group can incorporate numerous disparate groups and it is therefore difficult to

categorize or define many stakeholders. Perhaps for this reason, some researchers choose

to define stakeholders according to pre-named groups such as active or passive

stakeholders, or categorize them according to attributes and name them accordingly, for

example as “dominant” or “demanding”. For this reason, McVea and Freeman (2005) believe

that the application of stakeholder theory has led to an overemphasis on stakeholder roles

rather than relationships between stakeholders. In this research therefore, it has been

important to move beyond roles, to understand relationships between stakeholders in as

much depth as possible. In this way, it may be possible to design strategies to enhance

honey bee health that are effectively adapted to social context, and that have the capacity to

facilitate learning and the diffusion of ideas and practices from person to person through

social networks.

The rest of this section provides a summary of descriptive, normative and instrumental

theories in the context of stakeholder mapping. An example theory of how this is applied to

stakeholder mapping is supplied for each type. It should be noted that stakeholder theory

has been developed primarily in business management, so each section attempts to

consider the relevance of each approach in the context of this study.

Descriptive approaches to stakeholder mapping

The descriptive approach examines how stakeholder characteristics influence the decision-

making process, and focuses on describing the relationship between stakeholders and

decision-makers (Andriof and Waddock, 2002; Berman et al.., 1999). An important

theoretical model from the descriptive school is that of stakeholder identification and salience


86

developed by Mitchell et al. (1997). The model suggests that stakeholders become

significant to decision-makers according to their possession of three attributes, namely

power, legitimacy and urgency (Harrison and Freeman, 1999; Andriof and Waddock, 2002).

Power can be based on force, threat, incentives or symbolic influences. If a stakeholder

possesses this attribute the stakeholder may be able to get another stakeholder to do

something they may not otherwise have done. Mitchell et al. (1997) describe legitimacy as a

perception that stakeholder actions are desirable, proper and appropriate within the

individuals, organisation’s or society’s beliefs. Urgency is defined as the degree to which a

stakeholder’s claim calls for immediate attention. This may occur when the claim is of a time-

sensitive nature or the relationship is critical to the stakeholder (Mitchell et al.., 1997).

Mitchell et al. (1997) identified seven classes of stakeholder, categorized according to their

possession of one or more of the above attributes. Mitchell et al. (1997) suggest that the

greater the number of attributes, the more significant the stakeholder would become. They

use the term salient to describe stakeholder significance and define it as the degree to which

decision-makers give priority to competing stakeholder claims. The most salient stakeholder

would possess three attributes and be given high priority by decision-makers, while those

with only one attribute would receive little attention (Jonker and Foster, 2002). Mitchell et al.

(1997) believe that their model allows managers to systematically categorize stakeholder

management relationships and allows them to cope with multiple stakeholder demands.

A range of methods have been based on the descriptive theoretical approach, focused on

identifying and categorizing stakeholders, using the criteria proposed by Mitchel et al..

(1997) or simplified versions of these criteria. Many of these methods are likely to be useful

for the identification and categorization of stakeholders for honey bee health, and these are

explored in greater detail in section 3.2.5.

Normative approach to stakeholder mapping

The normative approach to stakeholder mapping is concerned with the legitimacy of

stakeholder involvement and empowerment in decision-making processes (Andriof and

Waddock, 2002). For example, Belal (2002) proposes a “Normative Stakeholder

Accountability Model” that considers how accountable decision-makers are towards their

stakeholders. The reasoning behind this approach is explained by Freeman’s (1984)

suggestion that if stakeholders are affected by a decision, then it follows that the decision

may affect the well-being of stakeholders. Berman et al. (1999) then suggest that this implies

a moral responsibility of decision-makers to the well-being of those who hold a stake in the

decisions they take. This means decision-makers should in theory be accountable to a wide

range of stakeholders (Berman et al., 1999). Systematically understanding who these

stakeholders are is therefore an essential first step in any decision-making process, requiring

early identification and involvement of a representative cross-section of stakeholders.

This approach underpins the current research, suggesting that a core goal of the project

should be to both represent and empower the full range of stakeholders to inform strategies

to enhance honey bee health. This may involve developing specific strategies for engaging

with “hard to reach” groups and understanding their needs, so that future knowledge

exchange and communications work can meet the needs and priorities of as many

stakeholders as possible.


87

Instrumental approach to stakeholder mapping

The instrumental approach to stakeholder mapping focuses on understanding how

organisations, projects and policy-makers can identify, explain, and manage the behaviour of

stakeholders and vice-versa to achieve desired outcomes. Theories in this category suggest

that certain outcomes are more likely if decision-makers behave in certain ways towards

stakeholders (Andriof and Waddock, 2002). In the business management literature, the

focus has tended to be on how firms can manage stakeholders in order to maximise profits

(Berman et al., 1999). However, in literature from development studies and natural resource

management more generally, this has largely been turned on its head, with instrumental

theory being advanced to explain how stakeholders can influence firms, governments and

other decision-makers to maximize their goals (Reed et al., 2009).

Berman et al. (1999) developed two “strategic stakeholder management models” in which

they argued that stakeholder concerns are only relevant to a decision-making process if they

have the capacity to influence the capacity for the goals of decision-makers to be met. As

such, it is argued that although many stakeholders may make claims to be involved in a

decision-making process, only those with the capacity to influence the goals of the decision-

maker should be prioritized for involvement.

Stakeholders have a variety of types of influence available to them to exploit. Frooman

(1999) found that stakeholders could influence decision-makers both directly or indirectly.

Whereas direct influence may entail approaching the organisation and attempting to

influence its behaviour, indirect influence may occur through alliances with other more

powerful stakeholders, or the media. Frooman’s (1999) Stakeholder Influence Theory

identifies different types of stakeholder influencing relationships, and suggests that the

balance of power in the relationship determines the sort of strategy that will be most effective

for a stakeholder to influence a decisions.

This theoretical approach implies that resource-constrained organisations that are seeking to

enhance honey bee health should identify and prioritise engagement with stakeholder

groups that have the greatest power and influence over honey bee health outcomes, and de-

prioritise stakeholders with little power and influence. A number of methods have been

developed to support this approach. However, although it may be useful to know which

groups have greatest influence, it will be necessary to integrate normative theoretical

approaches, to ensure that the full range of stakeholders is engaged in a process that can

be viewed as legitimate by as many stakeholders as possible.

Methods for stakeholder mapping

There are a wide range of different tools available for stakeholder mapping, which can

perform different functions. Broadly speaking, there are three types of stakeholder mapping

(Figure 7; Table 1; Reed et al., 2009):

Methods for identifying stakeholders;

Methods for differentiating between or categorizing stakeholders; and

Methods for analyzing relationships between stakeholders.


88

Figure 7. Schematic representation of rationale, typology and methods for stakeholder analysis,

showing resources required, level of stakeholder participation, strengths and weaknesses of each

method (from Reed et al., 2009)


89

Stakeholder mapping can be conducted with or without the participation of stakeholders, but

most experience in the environment field to date has involved directly stakeholder in the

exercise at some point. Participation of stakeholders in the mapping exercise can help define

and refine the scope of the issues being considered, and provide more comprehensive

information about who might have a stake in those issues (Reed et al., 2009). For many

stakeholder mapping exercises, the scope is already very clearly set e.g. those with a stake

in a particular disease or the production of a particular crop. However in many cases, the

scope of the mapping exercise is discussed and refined with stakeholders at the outset (e.g.

Dougill et al., 2006).

Stakeholder identification

The identification of stakeholders is typically an iterative process, eliciting feedback from new

stakeholders as they are identified, who in turn identify new stakeholders. The initial

identification of stakeholders is often done using secondary data sources, and used to select

workshop participants to start mapping stakeholders more systematically (e.g. Dougill et al.,

2006; Gilmour et al., 2011). This may then be checked and supplemented during interviews

with these stakeholders, who may then identify new stakeholders. The interviewer would

follow a “snowball sampling” approach until no new stakeholders are identified (e.g. Gilmour

and Beilin, 2007; Reed et al., 2009; Gilmour et al., 2011). Gilmour et al. (2011) suggest a

number of questions that may be asked during workshops and interviews to identify

stakeholders, for example:

Who will be affected?

Will the impacts be local, national or international?

Who has the power to influence the outcome?

Who are the potential allies and opponents?

What coalitions might build around this issue?

Are there people whose voices or interests in the issue may not be heard?

Who will be responsible for managing the outcome?

Who can facilitate or impede the outcome through their participation, non-participation or opposition?

Who can contribute financial or technical resources?

Chevalier and Buckles (2008) list a range of other ways to identify stakeholders, including:

self-selection (e.g. in response to advertisements or announcements); through written

records or census data (e.g. providing information that could help categorize stakeholders by

age, gender, religion or place of residence); through oral or written accounts of major events

(identifying the people who were involved); or using a checklist of likely stakeholder

categories. Example categories listed in papers conducting stakeholder analysis linked to

plant or animal health include:

Government departments and politicians

Government agencies

Industry/producer representative bodies/associations

Media

Trading partners

Land owners and managers

Beekeepers


90

Agribusiness

Processers

National representative and advisory groups

Research organisations

Animal health professionals

Consumer representative groups

Environmental NGOs

Community groups

Public

In addition to this, some analysts would argue that the plants, animals and insects that are

affected by a pest or disease should themselves be considered as stakeholders, although

representing their interests directly may be challenging.

In this study, the questions identified above were used as prompts where necessary to help

identify stakeholders during the initial stakeholder mapping workshop. To avoid biasing the

findings towards categories previously identified in the literature (above), these categories

were not given to participants to start with, using them instead as prompts to check that no

major categories of stakeholder had been missed, so that any such categories could be

discussed by the group at the end of the exercise and names/organisations added if

necessary.

Stakeholder categorization

Broadly speaking, there are two approaches to categorizing stakeholders: i) using pre-

defined categories that are based on a particular theoretical approach (see section 4.2.4); or

ii) developing categories from the bottom-up in collaboration with the stakeholders

themselves.

Pre-defined categories include for example categorizing stakeholders according to their

relative levels of:

Interest versus influence, for example as ‘Key players, ‘‘Context setters’’, ‘‘Subjects’’ and ‘‘Crowd’’ (Eden and Ackermann, 1998; De Lopez, 2001)

Co-operation versus competition/threat

Urgency versus legitimacy versus influence (Mitchell et al., 1997)

The most commonly used approach is to consider the relative interest of a stakeholder in the

issue or decision being considered versus their level of influence over that issue or decision.

This builds on the descriptive and instrumental theoretical approaches described in the

previous section. This is typically done using an “interest-influence matrix” (see example

matrix in Figure 8).

Stakeholders with high levels of interest and influence are termed “key players”, and

following the instrumental school of thought (section 4.2.4), it is argued that priority should

be given to engaging actively with this group. “Context setters” are highly influential, but

have little interest. Because of this, they may have significant influence over the success of

an initiative or decision, but may be difficult to engage in the decision-making process. As

such, particular effort may be necessary to engage this group in the process. “Subjects”

have high interest but low influence and although by definition they are supportive, they lack


91

the capacity for impact, although they may become influential by forming alliances with other

more influential stakeholders. These are often the marginal stakeholders that may also be

considered “hard to reach”, and that might warrant special attention to secure their

engagement and to empower them to engage as equals in any decision-making process

with more influential participants. Following the instrumental approach however, the low level

of influence held by this group is often used as a justification for excluding this group of

stakeholders from decision-making processes. The ‘‘crowd’’ are stakeholders who have little

interest in or influence over desired outcomes and there is little need to consider them in

much detail or to engage with them.

Figure 8. Interest-influence matrix for stakeholders for plant disease management/impacts (adapted

from Mills et al., 2011)

Although by far the most commonly used stakeholder mapping tool, interest-influence

matrices have been criticized for being simplistic, as there are many other factors that might

usefully inform the categorization and prioritization of stakeholders. For this reason, Reed et

al. (2009) propose the use of “extendable matrices” that consider levels of interest and

influence, but attempt to characterize the nature of those interests and to document reasons

for the level of influence that is ascribed (e.g. considering whether a stakeholder holds more

or less influence in different contexts or at different times). Such matrices can then be

extended to consider a range of other factors that may help categorize and engage

effectively with stakeholders, for example identifying any important relationships between


92

stakeholders (e.g. coalitions or conflicts), information about how best to approach and

engage with different stakeholders, and contact information that can be used to check and

further extend the analysis.

The use of interest-influence matrices to prioritise stakeholders for active engagement has

been criticized by those following the normative theoretical approach, who instead argue for

engaging with a representative cross-section of stakeholders, regardless of their level of

influence (Reed et al., 2009). Focusing on those with high levels of interest and influence

may lead to repeated engagement with the “usual suspects”, and there is a danger that

marginalized and disempowered groups may be further compromised (Calton and Kurland,

1996; Grimble and Chan, 1995; MacArthur, 1997). To overcome this, some stakeholder

mapping exercises purposefully start by identifying and engaging in dialogue with those who

might otherwise be considered peripheral or marginal (e.g. the “crowd” and “subjects”) (e.g.

the “radical transactiveness” approach; Hart and Sharma, 2004).

More bottom-up approaches also exist, in which stakeholders are grouped or categorized by

the stakeholders themselves, rather than according to an a priori theoretical framework. This

avoids biasing results towards the theoretical framework favoured by those undertaking the

stakeholder mapping exercise, which as can be seen from section 4.2.4 may have significant

implications for who is engaged or excluded from subsequent decisions or actions. These

methods are less widely used and less well developed than methods based on pre-

determined categories. The inductive nature of this approach means that there is no one

“correct” way of categorizing stakeholders; instead there are many alternative, often

overlapping options, which are equally valid. For this reason, in addition to deriving

categories, these techniques also seek to derive an overarching justification for the

categorization that is consistent with the goals of the decision-maker e.g. using “stakeholder-

led stakeholder categorization” (Hare and Pahl-Wostl, 2004), discourse analysis and Q

methodology (Cuppen et al., 2010; Barry and Proops, 1999) or Strategic Perspectives

Analysis (Dale and Lane, 1994).

Finally, it should be noted that all methods for identifying stakeholders provide a snap-shot in

time, and stakeholders and their interests and influence are typically dynamic. For example,

stakeholders may form alliances to either promote or defeat a particular outcome and

stakeholder mapping can be used to identify where such alliances are likely to arise. This

requires stakeholder mapping exercises to be revisited and updated periodically to ensure

that the needs and priorities of all stakeholders continue to be captured.

Analysing relationships between stakeholders

Finally, there is a range of methods that has been developed to understand relationships

between stakeholders (sometimes also referred to as “actor analysis” methods; Hermans,

2008). These include methods to analyze the structure of social networks (e.g. Prell et al.,

2008; 2009), to map stakeholder perceptions and values (e.g. Bots et al., 2000; Stone, 2002;

Mouratiadou and Moran, 2007), and methods to assess and analyze conflicts between

stakeholders (e.g. Howard, 1989; Hjortso et al., 2005; Kilgour and Hipel, 2005; Kujula et al.,

2012). Although these relationships may be used to categorize and prioritise stakeholders

for engagement, these sorts of analyzes are typically conducted after stakeholders have

been categorized, to understand how different stakeholder groups interact with one another,

and to identify specific individuals or organisations that may play an important role in


93

diffusing knowledge or practices within and between different groups of stakeholders. Such

methods can be useful to identify opportunities and risks of engaging with certain

stakeholders, and identify the values and priorities of different groups, so that these can be

taken into account in the design of a participatory process (Hermans, 2008). This is an

important final step to take, if the results of a stakeholder mapping exercise are to usefully

inform the development of pest and disease management and communications strategies

that could enhance honey bee health.

A range of methods has been used to analyze stakeholder relationships, including for

example: Social Network Analysis (e.g. Prell et al., 2008; 2009), knowledge mapping (e.g.

Nissen and Levitt, 2004); actor-linkage matrices (e.g. Biggs and Matsaert, 1995);

comparative cognitive mapping of social perceptions and values (Bots et al., 2000; Stone,

2002); perceptions mapping (e.g. Bots, 2007); mind mapping (Kontogianni et al., 2012);

concept mapping (Novak, 1993); Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (Kontogianni et al., 2012); and

focus groups and in-depth interviews (e.g. Dougill et al., 2006).

To understand the mechanisms through which knowledge spreads and can be managed, it

is necessary to understand the conditions, processes, and sorts of practices that influence

how people learn, and through what channels and sources people change their

understanding and management practice (Armitage et al., 2008; Fazey et al., 2006; Reed et

al., 2011). By understanding how knowledge is acquired and passed on in this way, it may

be possible to predict how messages about honey bee health might spread to and be

interpreted by different parts of a social network, and hence tailor communication strategies

more effectively in future.

There is an extensive literature describing and explaining the way knowledge flows between

individuals through social networks (Reed et al., 2011). Considerable attention has been

given to the role that “knowledge brokers” or “intermediaries” and “boundary organisations”

play in the diffusion of information and knowledge through these networks (Hargadon, 2002;

Howells, 2006; Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008; Klerkx et al., 2009). It is able to identify individuals

or groups within a social network that play brokering roles within or between disparate parts

of a social network: they are said to have high levels of “betweeness centrality”. Equally, it is

possible to identify knowledge “blockages” in certain areas where knowledgeable individuals

or groups fail to pass on their knowledge to others (Nissen and Levitt, 2004). Knowledge

brokers and boundary organisations can play both positive and negative roles in the spread

of knowledge through social networks. For example, they can bring together pieces of

information that may be scattered across a network to synthesise new ideas or new

applications for existing knowledge that could not have been developed by those who only

held partial information (Ostrom, 2005; Prell et al., 2008). They also have the capacity to

customise knowledge to make it more relevant for particular individuals, groups or contexts

(Howells, 2006). Their position in the network enables them to diffuse this information and

knowledge to parts of social networks that it may otherwise not reach. Researchers and Bee

Inspection officers can often play this brokering role, documenting and then sharing ideas

with those they come into contact with in the course of their work, potentially adapting this

knowledge to new contexts and purposes (Reed et al., 2011).


94

Conclusions

This literature review has reviewed existing literature on honey bee health stakeholders,

considering knowledge exchange, communication and behavior change among honey bee

health stakeholders in the UK and other comparable national contexts. Due to the sharp

increase in awareness of honey bee health amongst scientists, policymakers and the public

internationally, there is now a high general awareness of honey bee health issues. This has

generated a huge number of new research studies on honey bees and, in all countries, a

large effort to include stakeholders in knowledge exchange. This takes the shape of

meetings, websites, workshops, information initiatives aimed at making scientific findings

accessible, training etc. Much of this work, whilst attempting to involve stakeholders in honey

bee health issues still largely views scientific knowledge as unproblematic and a one-way

exchange, from science (to policy) to stakeholders (in most cases, beekeepers). There is a

dearth of published studies about honey bee health stakeholders themselves, their

knowledge, opinions, experience and practices, which can directly inform research. This is in

sharp contrast to the many studies looking at the practices, attitudes and knowledge of other

comparable groups dealing with animal health issues such as anglers, poultry keepers or

farmers.

Where studies exist, they usually focus on beekeepers not wider stakeholder groups. These

studies are usually large-scale surveys of beekeepers, to find out statistical information

about, for example, numbers of beekeepers/colonies, economy/profitability of honey

production and pollination services, pest and disease spread and control practices. These

studies don’t segment beekeepers (except by number of colonies or length of time

beekeeping), or study in depth the opinions, practices, networks and knowledge

acquisition/exchange of different groups.

However, the UK (Defra) and US (Bee Informed) have identified this as a gap and are

seeking to work with social scientists to address this. The UK is therefore at the leading edge

of this work. The small number of existing studies that have been carried out and are

currently underway in the UK highlight the complex nature of honey bee health stakeholder

groups, beekeepers in particular, their many knowledge needs and different means of

knowledge acquisition. Whilst studies have found preliminary evidence of patterns in

knowledge acquisition relating to beekeeper profiles, much more nuanced research is

needed to tailor messages to different groups, and to understand more about the profiles of

different groups. Research has uncovered some information about where people go to find

information but we need to know much more about what information people actually use and

trust, as opposed to just what they access. This needs to be set into a context of looking at

the complex link between beliefs about honey bee health (and the strength of those) and

knowledge acquisition for honey bee health, something which is hugely under-researched.

The same goes for motivations for beekeeping and pests and disease management

practices. However, some beliefs are likely to be heavily contested between groups, and

some are likely to be less problematic. We need to understand which beliefs are reinforced

by social networks. We also need to study beekeepers who have given up and why, again a

very under-researched area.

Given the limited amount of previous work investigating honey bee health stakeholders in

the UK and elsewhere internationally, the second part of this literature review drew lessons

from other comparably diverse stakeholder groups regarding wider issues of plant and


95

animal health, disease prevention/control and biosecurity. More general lessons for

analyzing honey bee health stakeholders were drawn from theoretical and methodological

literature published in other environmental fields and where necessary non-environmental

disciplines e.g. business management. These lessons were used to help design a honey

bee health stakeholder mapping workshop in the UK, and are likely to be instructive for

others planning to identify, categorize and analyze relationships between stakeholders in an

environmental setting.

This part of the review started by highlighting the limitations of scientific evidence and top-

down, technocratic governance approaches in the management of disease risk. It

emphasizes, instead, the need to draw upon and where possible integrate a range of

knowledge sources including universal, scientific, expert knowledge and local, lay, generalist

knowledge, and to effectively engage stakeholders in the design of disease management

strategies from the outset. Managing pest and disease risks and improving honey bee health

depends as much upon what people do as it does on the science of how a pest or disease

spreads. It is therefore imperative to understand and take into account the knowledge,

attitudes and practices of stakeholders in the management of these risks. In this way, it may

be possible to anticipate how different stakeholder groups are likely to perceive risks to

honey bee health and the benefits of adopting new biosecurity practices. There is also

strong evidence that stakeholder representation is a key factor in the success of participatory

processes and can significantly influence outcomes, by providing (sometimes selective)

access to information and adapting outcomes to local contexts.

The current research on mapping stakeholders in honey bee health takes a “normative”

approach to stakeholder mapping, as it aims to both represent and empower the full range of

stakeholders to inform honey bee health strategies. This may involve developing specific

strategies for engaging with “hard to reach” groups and understanding their needs, so that

future knowledge exchange and communications work can meet the needs and priorities of

as many stakeholders as possible.

To this end, methods have been reviewed for identifying, categorizing and analysing

relationships between stakeholders (section 3.2.5). This led to the identification of

theoretically-informed questions that could help identify stakeholders (these questions were

provided to participants as part of the honey bee health stakeholder mapping workshop),

and a list of common stakeholder categories found in literature about stakeholders in plant

and animal health (which were used as prompts in the stakeholder mapping workshop).

Although the majority of stakeholder mapping exercises use pre-defined categories, based

on stakeholder theory, there is a growing literature suggesting that stakeholders can usefully

be engaged in this process themselves, to help derive categories. The approach proposed

for the workshop was a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches, working with

stakeholders to identify categories, whilst also collecting data about potential stakeholders

using a number of pre-defined criteria e.g. levels of interest and influence. Preliminary

information about key relationships the research team should be aware of was collected

during this workshop, however these relationships were investigated in greater depth during

subsequent empirical data collection and analysis.


96

Appendix 2: Stakeholder definitions

The definition of the term ‘stakeholder’ has become considerably broader over time.

Previously only those who had a financial stake and the ability to influence decisions would

be classified as a stakeholder (Carroll, 1993; March and Simon, 1958 cited in Hill and Jones,

1992; Charter, 1992 cited in Fieldhouse, 1999, Clarkson 1995). Jonker and Foster (2002)

and Mitchell et al. (1997) assert that despite the wide use of the term there is little consensus

of what exactly constitutes a stakeholder. However, Jonker and Foster (2002) believe that a

generally accepted definition of a stakeholder is “an entity with some form of claim on the

focal organisation and sufficient power to influence that organisation” (p.189). The most

common stakeholder groups listed in the literature are: shareholders, employees, customers,

competitors, community, special interest groups, society and the public at large (Carroll,

1993), local, national or international pressure groups (Scholes and Clutterbuck, 1998) and

managers, suppliers and creditors (Hill and Jones, 1992). Precisely who is meant by

‘stakeholder’ will need to be clearly noted within this project in order to set parameters for the

study. In addition, Stead and Stead (1992 in Fieldhouse, 1999) believe that the earth itself is

the ultimate stakeholder. Given the central notion of the environment within this study, and

how it relates to bee health, this stakeholder may also need to be considered in its own right.

Therefore for the purpose of this research, Freeman’s (1984) definition of a stakeholder as

“any group or individual who can affect or who is affected by the achievement of the firm’s

objectives” (p.25) is useful. This all-encompassing definition can therefore be applied to a

wide range of individuals, groups and organisations no matter their level of power, influence

or financial investment. The role of the stakeholder in relation to policy making will now be

discussed, including a summary of participation trends and also the difficulties faced.

In relation to policy making, there has been a move towards stakeholder engagement. For

example, Koontz (2005) notes a growing trend towards collaborative stakeholder

participation in environmental policy with the aim of producing meaningful contributions from

stakeholders. This is supported by Patel et al. (2007) who found that policy makers

(particularly in land use planning) have become increasingly aware of the need to widen the

decision-making community to include stakeholders not normally considered as ‘experts’ but

who have valuable knowledge and bring real life perspectives when tackling the complex

environmental problems affecting a locality. However, Stoll-Kleemann and Welp (2006)

believe that the increased number of private and public actors participating in policy making

process has led to ‘overcrowded policy making’. One of the difficulties of the broadening of

the definition of whom or what constitutes a stakeholder is that the number of people

potentially viewing themselves as a stakeholder and wishing to take part in policy-making

increases. Whilst there are clear benefits of this, there are also some practical difficulties that

would need to be overcome. The role of local knowledge versus scientific expertise in the

policy-making process is considered in the following section.

Definitions of stakeholder engagement include: a trust based relationship between individual

organisations and other groups; working together to achieve joint objectives (Andriof and

Waddock, 2002); an interactive process (Preston and Post, 1975); and dialogue between an

organisation and stakeholders (Scholes and Clutterbuck, 1998). Building on this literature,

Reed (2008: 2418) defines stakeholder participation as “a process where individuals, groups

and organisations choose to take an active role in making decisions that affect them”.


97

Reed et al. (2009) define stakeholder mapping as a process that: i) defines aspects of a

social and natural phenomenon affected by a decision or action; ii) identifies individuals,

groups and organisations who are affected by or can affect those parts of the phenomenon

(this may include non- human and non-living entities and future generations); and iii)

prioritises these individuals and groups for involvement in a decision-making process.


98

Appendix 3: Invitation List for Project Management Board and stakeholder mapping

workshop

Stakeholder Opportunity to advise project

Government

Richard Watkins Defra policy Attended meeting

Mike Brown National Bee Unit Attended meeting

Andy Wattam Bee Inspectorate – FERA Interviewed by telephone

Nick Ambrose Scottish Government Interviewed by telephone

Amy Byrne Welsh Government Attended meeting

Sonya Verschuur NI Government Agreed to be interviewed

Honey bee organizations

Margaret Ginman Bee Farmers Association Attended meeting

Julian Routh British Beekeepers’ Association Attended meeting

Dinah Sweet Welsh Beekeepers’ Association Interviewed by telephone

Phil McAnespie Scottish Beekeepers’ Association Attended meeting

Mervyn Eddie Ulster Beekeepers’ Association Attended meeting

Heidi Herrmann Natural Beekeepers Trust Attended meeting

Bernie Doeser Friends of The Bees Attended meeting

Dorian Pritchard SICAMM/APIMONDIA/BIBBA Interviewed by telephone

Education and Training

Bob Smith National Diploma of Beekeeping Attended meeting

Commercial Sector

Paul Smith EH Thornes Interviewed by telephone

Peter Kemble Commercial Queen Rearers’

Association No response

Bernard Diaper Bee Diseases Insurance Ltd Attended meeting

Growers/small holders


99

Chris Hartfield National Farmers’ Union Attended meeting

Tess Giles Marshall Smallholders Online No response

Voluntary sector/ interested public

Rachael Barber Women’s Institute Interviewed by telephone

Naomi Hayes The Co-operative Group Interviewed by telephone

Insect Pollinators Initiative/scientists

Adam Vanbergen IPI Co-ordinator Attended meeting

Jeri Wright Newcastle University / IPI Adam represented IPI scientists

David Evans Warwick University / IPI Adam represented IPI scientists


100

Appendix 4: Scoping the research

The initial stakeholder mapping workshop and subsequent scoping interviews asked

participants to identify opportunities and threats for the project. These are summarized in the

first sub-section below. A number of outstanding issues were identified in relation to the

categorization of stakeholders during the workshop, and these are summarized in the

second sub-section.

Opportunities and Threats to the Project

Responses to the project from the Project Management Board, and from those whose views

on the Draft Scoping Document were solicited by telephone (between 21 January and 1

February), were largely very positive, with a number of caveats. The project’s ambition to

include a diverse range of stakeholder perspectives in bee health was widely welcomed

because, for example, ‘we work in silos and don’t speak to each other.’ The perceived

benefits of involving generally disparate groups included capturing the views of ‘natural’

beekeepers and the potential for improving communications between local and national

beekeeping associations.

A minority of respondents (two) expressed the view that the ‘natural’ beekeeping sector is a

small (and/or cross-over category), which may not need to be addressed separately.

One respondent (representing a public interest group) questioned the investment of

resources into mapping bee health stakeholders, as they expect that Defra will already

understand the relationships between the various parties, as will the stakeholders

themselves: ‘Why do this rather than crack on with putting plans in place to get groups acting

together?’

The majority of respondents warn that the sector is notable for being riven by conflicts of

opinion, and that differences exist within groups as well as between them. Mistrust of official

organizations, including government bodies, exists in some quarters, and might preclude

influential individuals within smaller-scale/independent organizations from contributing to the

research. In instances where stakeholders identified as ‘hard-to-reach’ do contribute, it will

be vital to show that their views are really being taken into account, and that their

engagement is not tokenistic, otherwise their mistrust will be reinforced.

A number of respondents recommend that, in involving a wide range of diverse and possibly

antagonistic perspectives, a productive approach will be to focus on what they share in

common, i.e. concern for bees and their health. If the project highlights their common

concerns, it may help to open new channels of communication between them for the future.

Respondents re-iterated the importance of engaging with a wide range of stakeholders and

the majority urged the project to ‘look at the picture as a whole’; to acknowledge the

importance of other insects (in terms of both pollination and bee health); and to recognise

the impact of ‘big’ factors, such as phenology and climate change. They have also strongly

recommended that the project includes the interests of the general public and perspectives

from mainstream media.

Consequently, the ‘wish list’ of interviews as shown on the current draft scoping document is

a long one and, even as they add to them, many contributors say that it will be a challenge to

fulfill them all. No respondents have offered suggestions for reducing the list. Although one

respondent did recommend narrowing the focus by excluding other pollinators, the majority


101

cautioned against losing the opportunity to hear from any stakeholder who wants to be

included.

Finally, respondents also saw this project as a valuable chance to look at the role and

potential for education and communications relating to beekeeping and bee health. One

urged that it should not reinforce the current image of beekeeping as sexy or romantic, but

should ‘promote a balanced coverage of bee health issues in the media’. Others asked that it

should produce ‘practical, quick-to-read, easy communications’ and not just ‘a theoretical

report that busy hobby beekeepers will have no time to read’; also that it should not be ‘just

another talking shop’ or abandoned ‘before action is agreed’.

Further queries

In scoping interviews (21 January – 1 February) respondents were asked for their views on

how best to address the following:

1. Wild insect pollinator groups

These groups may include expertise that is relevant to honey bee health and respondents

were asked how we can involve them without blurring our focus on honey bee health. Most

respondents thought that we should include a few key stakeholders from established

national organizations interested in wild insect pollinators. One of the opportunities of the

project identified at the stakeholder workshop and in scoping interviews is to bridge this

divergence of interest between wild and managed pollinator stakeholder groups. Advice

received was to focus on joint problems/look at challenges pollinators face in common, e.g.

lack of good quality flower habitats in the wider environment/impact of pesticides. One

respondent pointed out that the project should not forget about wild honey bees. Wild insect

pollinator stakeholders that were suggested included:

Insect Pollinators Initiative

Bug Life

FoE

Bumble Bee Conservation Trust

Bee Guardian’s Foundation (Stroud)

A range of knowledgeable individuals working within research institutions, e.g. Dr

Robert Paxton expert on pollination and cross-species infection.

2. Hard-to-reach groups

Respondents were asked for their thoughts on hard-to-reach groups and how best to include

them in this research. Interestingly, one respondent included Defra and other government

groups as ‘hard to reach’ because it is not always clear who to contact and ‘hard to reach’

depends on where you are positioned in the first place. Another respondent advised us to

include individuals or groups who were outspoken about various contested topics. Other

groups suggested including specialist interest groups whose agendas may conflict with the

mainstream. In addition advice received was to contact beekeepers who choose to stay

under the radar (e.g. by not joining associations or BeeBase) and that we could perhaps

reach these through local media. We should also include urban beekeepers and potential

beekeepers.


102

3. Conflicts of opinion/interests

All respondents advised that this was, as one person put it, ‘an extremely conflicting sector’,

and that conflicts can exist within groups as well as between them. Here are some of the key

conflicts identified by respondents:

The bumble bee interest groups are often concerned about the focus on honey bees,

because what is done for honey bees can be to the detriment of bumble bees

Between National Bee Unit and beekeepers who think NBU are interfering

Between natural and conventional beekeepers

Between BBKA and independent/local groups who do not feel heard and think that

the BBKA takes funding away from them

Between conservation organizations/beekeepers and agro-chemical companies

Between Defra and farmers on the ground

Between the BBKA and government, e.g. over government’s use of EU funds that

BBKA members believe were not given to beekeepers as designated

Over perceived lack of transparency in government’s allocation and expenditure of

EU funds destined for bee health/education/disease inspection

Some commercial beekeepers do not approve of methods used by commercial

beekeepers

Between beekeepers and conservationists, e.g. over Himalayan Balsam

The Scottish, Ulster, Welsh and Irish Beekeepers Associations may resent

assumptions that the BBKA speaks for them all

Between BIBBA and governance of imports and trade of queens and bees

Between beekeepers and farmers on the one hand and groups concerned with other

pollinators on the other about use of neo-nicotinoids

Between groups representing organic interests and farmers (e.g. conflict with NFU

over use of neo-nicotinoids)

Between those who don’t believe in the existence of a native British bee and those

who do

Between beekeepers and the conservationists who believe that honey bees are

having a detrimental effect on nature conservation., e.g. in competing with wild bees

for forage

Some beekeepers resent what they see as interference/intrusion from some Bee

Inspectors

Competition between beekeepers and/or associations at honey shows has

sometimes led to long-term resentments

Local associations sometimes question directives from the BBKA which do not

recognise regional differences (e.g. in climate) which may affect how bees need to be

managed throughout the year

4. Number of categories

Most respondents felt that, considering the complexities and the resource limitations of the

project, what is presented here is adequate for the task. There were no major objections to

these categories, or suggestions for reducing their number.


103

5. Number of stakeholders

Whilst all respondents agreed with the aim to be as inclusive as possible, there were some

concerns about ‘long lists of stakeholders’ and the capacity of the research to do justice to

the wide variety of interests. There was a recommendation by some respondents to focus on

‘key players’ rather than those whose impact on bee health is minimal, and this will be taken

into consideration. In this sense, ‘key players’ means those who have a significant potential

impact on bee health, including ‘hard to reach’ groups, like beekeepers not actively involved

in associations or signed up to BeeBase.


104

Appendix 5: Full methodology

The following text provides a detailed account of the methods used for this research, divided

up according to the Work Packages (WP) described in Figure 1 (main report).

Stakeholder mapping and categorization (WP2)

A stakeholder mapping workshop was held on 4 December 2012 in London with the Project

Management Board. The objectives of this meeting were to: welcome and thank participants

and introduce them to the project; answer any queries or concerns; allow the Project

Management Board to make suggestions to help shape the project; and work with them as

part of the stakeholder mapping process in order to identify, characterise and categorize

stakeholders in honey bee health.

The Project Management Board was identified through discussion with the formal steering

group for the project (composed of representatives from Defra, FERA and the research

team). A list of potential stakeholder groups was drawn up, identifying over 40 individuals

from 31 organizations, including government departments, beekeeping groups, education

and training organizations, growers’ associations, industry, public interest and environmental

campaign groups, science research and funding bodies. Attention was paid particularly to

those groups that are not usually engaged in policy processes, including representatives

from natural or apicentric9 beekeeping communities and public interest bodies. Each

individual/organization was graded by the steering group according to their perceived

relevance to the study, and the research team scrutinized the resulting list to avoid biasing

the composition of the group towards any particular group or interest. In cases where the

research team felt that lone voices might be at risk of marginalization, two people were

invited from those interest groups. This led to a shortlist of twenty-three people being invited

via email to be part of a Project Management Board. Expenses were offered to those who

were not funded through organizations. For those who objected to travel on environmental

grounds, arrangements were offered to join via video-link. Of those invited: eleven agreed to

attend the meeting and workshop, a further eight could not attend but agreed to help advise

the project as appropriate and four did not respond10.

The workshop used Reed et al.’s (2009) “extendable matrix” approach to stakeholder

mapping, to capture detailed information about the nature and level of interest and influence

of each stakeholder alongside other information that could inform future communications.

This included information about likely views of different groups, relationships between

groups, and advice about how best to approach/involve “hard to reach” groups.

9 We recognise through discussion with members of these groups that these terms are problematic and are

tolerated rather than promoted by some members. In the absence of a widely accepted term to describe a

growing movement of beekeepers which questions ‘conventional’ beekeeping methods we use the terms ‘natural’

and ‘apicentric’ guardedly whilst acknowledging the shortcomings of this terminology. However, by using these

terms to distinguish this movement from more ‘conventional’ approaches, we do not intend to imply that

beekeepers using more conventional methods are ‘un-natural’ or ‘anthropocentric’.

10 Details of the invitees and organizations can be found in Appendix 3.


105

The workshop started with a short presentation outlining the main aims of the research

project and what the team understood by a honey bee health stakeholder. The research

team stressed that the project would avoid making judgments about stakeholder involvement

or motivations regarding honey bee health issues, particularly in terms of different

beekeeping practices, and emphasized that the project should be as inclusive as possible.

This was followed by the activities listed below:

1) Group exercise and discussion to identify opportunities for and threats to the project.

2) A stakeholder analysis using an extendable matrix approach to identify and describe

relevant stakeholders. This was done first in plenary for organizations present in the

room, and then as individuals to identify stakeholders not present. This was designed

to collect the following information for each of the stakeholders identified:

Their perceived level of interest in and influence over honey bee health issues

The nature of their interest and influence and ways they may be able to help the

project or the project may be able to help them

Information about how best to approach groups and/or key contacts

Any other important coalitions/conflicts between stakeholders that the project

should be aware of.

3) Paired discussion where each pair was asked to devise one preferred option for

categorizing/grouping stakeholders, followed by a plenary discussion where pairs

reported their suggested categorization and these were recorded for later analysis.

4) Pairs were asked to suggest contacts from each of their proposed categories In order

to identify key informants for subsequent scoping interviews. Participants were then

given a number of votes to prioritize these named individuals for scoping interviews,

balancing the need to represent interests not present in the room with the need to

identify individuals whom it may be particularly important to communicate with early

on, to ensure the success of the project.

From the stakeholder mapping workshop, the research team collated all the suggestions for

categories from the paired discussions and rationalized them, examining similarities,

differences and gaps. To enable the research to be manageable within the time and

resource constraints, the aim was to arrive at around seven stakeholder categories, although

those categories could be further segmented if necessary. The following seven categories

were drafted for further discussion with a number of key informants in telephone scoping

interviews.

1. Beekeepers and bee farmers

2. Specialist beekeeping education, training, media

3. Public interest and media

4. Food chain

5. Land management

6. Government and government-funded bodies

7. Research and funding

The workshop also highlighted a number of additional questions to explore further during

scoping interviews, including:


106

Are some of the categories too diverse?

Have we covered all relevant stakeholder groups?

How do we include wild insect pollinator stakeholders without blurring our focus on

honey bee health?

Beekeeper nomenclature: many stakeholders used and/or objected to various terms

to describe and categorize beekeepers. For example, terms like ‘hobbyist’ or

‘amateur beekeeper’ can sound patronizing and undermine expertise of individuals.

Terms such as ‘natural’ or ‘apicentric’ beekeeping may suggest that more

‘conventional’ beekeepers are ‘unnatural’ or do not care about bees.

Where do we locate ‘wildcards’, i.e. organizations or groups that do not fit easily into

any category, e.g. vets or agri-business interests?

The choice of scoping interviewees was discussed at the stakeholder mapping workshop

and included representatives from stakeholder groups not already consulted at the

workshop. The aim of these interviews was to: a) triangulate the draft stakeholder categories

developed through consultation with the Project Management Board at the stakeholder

mapping workshop; and b) ensure that groups and individuals not already represented in

discussions had an opportunity to offer their views. Additional questions identified at the

stakeholder mapping workshop (listed above) were also discussed during these interviews.

A total of nine stakeholders were identified to take part in scoping interviews and were

interviewed via the telephone between 21 January and 1 February 201311. The interviewees

were sent a list of the draft categories in advance to comment on and were asked to provide

their views on the opportunities for and threats to the project and their views on the

stakeholder categorizations.

Semi structured interviews - sampling and data collection (WP3)

On the basis of the stakeholder categorization developed in the workshop (section 4.1), we

contacted a sample of representative individuals from each of the seven stakeholder

categories (see Figure 3) with a request to participate in semi-structured interviews to

explore their views, understandings and interests in honey bee health issues. Potential

sources for the sample were discussed at the inception meeting. One option was to include

registered (i.e. BeeBase-listed) beekeepers following a suitable ‘opt-in’ process to meet data

protection requirements. However, the aims of this study make it important to include

stakeholders who are not necessarily on BeeBase. These may include beekeepers that do

not opt in to regulatory frameworks, and stakeholders (e.g. land managers or researchers)

who might not be keepers themselves but whose roles impact on honeybee health. We

therefore used a multi-faceted approach of contacting key informants, including snowballing

methods and directly targeting individuals or organizations, in order to generate a sample

11

Interviews were conducted by Sue Bradley, researcher at Newcastle University’s Centre for Rural Economy. The following people took part in scoping interviews: Naomi Hayes (The Co-operative Group), Rachael Barber (Women’s Institute), Andy Wattam (National Bee Inspectorate/NBU FERA), Simon Potts (Reading University), Paul Thorne (Thornes Bee Supplies), Gareth John (Natural Beekeeping Trust), Dorian Pritchard (SICAMM), Dinah Sweet (Welsh Beekeepers’ Association /BIBBA) and Nick Ambrose (Scottish Government).


107

that would allow us to explore a wide range of different perspectives within each of the seven

stakeholder categories (see Figure 4). Analysis was conducted in parallel with the

interviewing process to identify when theoretical saturation was being reached within each

stakeholder category (i.e. no new ideas were being recorded). In instances where particular

stakeholder categories were clearly yielding homogeneous responses, we decided to ask

remaining individuals in that category to respond to Part 2 only of the survey (i.e. the

structured SNA questions) so we could direct resources to capture additional views from

more heterogeneous categories, for example beekeepers and land managers. We therefore

interviewed a higher number of individuals in the more diverse categories. The number of

people interviewed in each category is in brackets in the table below.

1. Beekeeper (11) 2. Beekeeping education/training and beekeeping media (8) 3. Public interest groups, campaigning groups, and mainstream media (6) 4. Beekeeping supplies, honey and other bee-related products (5) 5. Land and ecosystems management (8) 6. Government or government funded bodies (5) 7. Research and funding (7)

Figure 9. Stakeholder categories (with number of interviews)

The stakeholder categories were formulated in careful consultation with stakeholders in the

scoping phase of the project, and it was recognized that there would be cross-overs (most

evidently, beekeepers who are also engaged in education, or who work for government-

funded bodies). This anomaly has been addressed by asking respondents to identify a

primary category for themselves, and by our acknowledging that their responses will be

influenced by their experiences in other roles. However, the Bee Farmers Association

registered a strong view that the categorization did not include their members’ interests as

professionals represented by a trade association.12 It will be important to bear in mind when

assessing the findings that the stakeholder categories should be regarded neither as

mutually exclusive, nor as all-inclusive.

We completed 53 interviews. Preliminary discussions with the steering group and project

management board identified particular requests to interview ‘hard-to-reach’ beekeepers,

who were assumed to be members of the natural beekeeping community and/or those not

registered on BeeBase. We have interviewed four individuals meeting those criteria.

Interestingly, some respondents said that the hard-to-reach people were likely to be those in

senior government policy/research and funding roles. This has been borne out by our own

experience. Some key respondents with high level or high profile positions have been hard

to reach because of their work commitments and/or concerns about speaking in an official

capacity. Another category which has proved significantly difficult to reach includes public

interest groups/campaign groups/mainstream media. Feedback from those declining to

participate suggests that this is at least partly due to a view that too much public attention is

focused on honey bees at the expense of other pollinators.

12

In this study we use the term bee farmer to mean those members of the Bee Farmers Association which is a trade association that stipulates that a member must have more than 40 hives. We recognise that many beekeepers, including non-commercial ones, may have more than this number of hives but are not members of the BFA.


108

Participants have been interviewed by telephone, using a 2-part survey. Interviewees were

approached mostly via email but one beekeeper was contacted via post. Initially, potential

interviewees were sent a flyer about the research and a participant information sheet. If they

agreed to the interview they were then sent a copy of the interview schedules. Part 1 of the

survey consisted of a semi-structured interview designed to collect qualitative data. Part 2

was a structured questionnaire to collect quantitative data for Social Network Analysis

(SNA). Depending on individual responses, the calls took up to an hour and a half. In order

to accommodate the different circumstances of participants, we have adopted a flexible

approach whereby some interviews have been conducted over two sessions (one for each

part of the survey). In some instances, participants have volunteered to complete the data

for Part 2 themselves and return their form by email, after completing a sample with the

interviewer. This flexibility has made the interviewers’ task more complex and time-

consuming, but it has enabled the research to benefit from contributions it might otherwise

have lost. Although this posed some issues for consistency of data collection, having

discussed this we felt that the trade-off between consistency of data collection and

quality/quantity of data was acceptable.

The semi-structured schedule (Part 1) was developed in collaboration with colleagues from

FERA and the steering group. It covered: i) respondents’ awareness and knowledge of

honey bee health, risks and related issues; ii) respondents’ beliefs, attitudes, motivations

and activities in relation to honey bee health, particularly with respect to maintaining good

pest and disease prevention practices; and iii) their views on how best to communicate with

the different categories of stakeholder set out in the schedule (as per categorization in WP2),

and specifically in terms of sharing information relating to honey bee health. This final topic

includes discussion about respondents’ experience of education or training in relation to

beekeeping/honey bee health, whether via formal channels (e.g. BBKA courses) or informal

channels (e.g. mentoring), and how useful they have found different forms of training. See

Appendix 6 for interview schedule. The in-depth qualitative research was governed by the

quality standards set out in the report by Spencer et al. (2003) to the Cabinet Office. The

design and analysis of the semi-structured part of the interviews was governed by

Framework Analysis for applied policy work, devised and described by Ritchie and Spencer

(2002). This is specifically devised to deal with qualitative data generated from research that

is time-bound, has a pre-designed sample, and has a priori questions that need a strategic

policy response. However, importantly for robust analysis, the method is flexible enough to

accommodate the themes and issues that emerge from the data. It results in a visual

display of data in a matrix, which is built on a hierarchy of themes and sub themes, which

then allows analysis by both case and theme.

The researchers Scott and Bradley used a coding system based on the research questions

in the project specification (these were formulated in response to issues arising from the

scoping work conducted by WP2). All transcripts were then entered into NVivo 10 and

coded according to 11 basic themes (with sub themes) as a first step. These coding reports

were then used to create a set of matrices to facilitate the mapping of issues across

individual interviews (with the option of classifying into stakeholder categories) and themes.

Matrices were populated by a systematic process of indexing and summarizing data.


109

Social Network Analysis (WP4)

4.4.1 SNA sampling

Network data was collected from respondents in two stages using a snow-ball sampling

approach (Table 5). Data was initially collected from individuals identified for interview in the

stakeholder mapping process (see Section 4.1; these respondents are subsequently referred

to as “tier one”). Interviews took place in two halves, with the first half being used to collect

qualitative data using a semi-structured interview schedule, and the second half being used

to collect Social Network Analysis data using a structured interview and questionnaire

(hereafter “SNA interview”).

During SNA interviews, respondents were asked to consider a list of stakeholder categories

derived from the stakeholder mapping process, and to recall the names of people with whom

they had communicated about bee health in the last 12 months from each stakeholder

category. Respondents were invited to give as many names as they wished and were

encouraged to think about contact they may have had with people across all categories as

well with stakeholders in their own category, in order to capture the diversity of

communication pathways that may exist, however weak. Respondents were then questioned

about their relationship with each contact (see questionnaire in Appendix 6), including the

frequency of communication with contacts and an evaluation of their interactions with the

following questions: a) how similar are your views on bee health?; and b) how useful was

you communication with this person? Questions were asked using a likert-type format where

respondents specified the degree of similarity and usefulness by selecting their answers

from the 5 point scales provided e.g. very similar to very different.

Efforts were made to make contact with as many as possible of the contacts mentioned by

the tier one respondents and repeat the SNA interview as detailed above with these contacts

(who are subsequently referred to as “tier two”). Of the 140 potential new contacts identified,

it was possible to interview 60. At the completion of the interviews, the rate at which new

contacts were being identified had slowed considerably in all the categories with the

exception of beekeepers, which is a significantly larger group than the others due to the

widespread nature of this activity. We therefore conclude that data was collected about a

high proportion of the individuals with a key role in the communication of information about

honey bee health in England and Wales.

Table 5. The number of tier one and tier two respondents to provide social network data in each

stakeholder category.

Category Tier 1 Tier 2 Total

Beekeepers 9 21 30

Education, training & bee media 8 12 20

Public interest groups 5 2 7

Beekeeping supplies and products 7 2 9

Ecosystem & land management 8 5 13

Government bodies 6 10 16

Research & funding 7 8 15


110

SNA analysis

Analysis was carried out using R (R version 3.0.1, R core team) and Ucinet 6. Network

diagrams were produced using yEd (version 3.11).

Network analysis

To derive network statistics, a matrix was constructed of relative communication frequencies

between all individuals in the dataset by converting the likert-type answers with a numeric

scale from 1 (once a year or less) to 5 (daily).

To investigate broad scale patterns between stakeholder categories, the communication

frequencies between individuals were pooled at the category level. Total communication

frequencies were weighted by the number of respondents interviewed in each category to

account for variation in category sample size. Relational contingency-table analysis was

used to compare within-group to between-group tie density, to test for homophily (the

tendency for individuals with similar attributes to have stronger relationships).

Similarly we pooled individuals at the organisational level to consider how institutional

affiliation influenced patterns of communication. However we did not have affiliation data for

all individuals in the network so had to exclude a subset of data from this analysis which

meant we were unable to calculate network statistics at this level. The results nonetheless

serve a useful purpose in showing the dominant inter-organisational relationships reported

by stakeholders in each category and form a basis for considering how future

communication strategies might be targeted.

Network measures were calculated for each interview respondent in the network. Three

measures were calculated as follows.

Connection strength (also known as “outdegree centrality”): The sum of interactions

between the respondent and those with whom they have reported discussions about

honey bee health i.e. self-reported connectedness to the social network

Receiver strength (also known as “indegree centrality”): The sum of interactions with

the respondent as reported by other individuals i.e. how connected they are to the

network, as reported by others.

Centrality: a measure of how central an individual is in the network. It infers the

overall influence of an individual according to the number of people in the network

that they connect to, both directly and indirectly. Betweeness centrality is the extent

to which an individual connects others in the network who would not otherwise be

connected. It is measured as the number of times the person acts as a bridge

between otherwise unconnected individuals. Eigenvector centrality accounts for both

the strength of interaction with other individuals and how well contacts are

themselves connected, calculated from the first eigenvector of the weighted

association matrix of individuals. It not only takes into account the number of contacts

that each person has (their “degree centrality”), but it also considers the number of

people their contacts are linked to, and the number of people these contacts they are

linked to, and so on throughout the network


111

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests implemented in Ucinet were used to test

differences between stakeholder category means. Standard errors for network statistics are

calculated using random replicated sampling of the data set rather than standard formula as

data points are based on relationships between actors and therefore are not independent.

Analysis of sources

To understand how different stakeholder groups access information about honey bee health,

respondents were asked to list up to five different sources of information from which they

had learned about honey bee health. They were presented with a list of examples (Appendix

6) but were able to add others if necessary. For each source, respondents were asked to

rate its usefulness on a likert-type scale from ‘not useful’ to ‘very useful’ and then explain a)

why they found it useful and b) the most important thing they learned from it (as specifically

as possible). The descriptive answers were thematically coded and the frequencies with

which themes were discussed across a) source types and b) the seven stakeholder

categories were analyzed using Pearson’s Chi-Square tests. This allowed us to assess

whether there were significant differences between source types in their usefulness and the

type of information taken from them and whether stakeholders in different categories were

picking up thematically different information. To understand these differences more

comprehensively, a multivariate approach for analysing categorical data, correspondence

analysis (CA), was used and the results displayed on ordination plots to visualise

associations between source types and stakeholder categories and the information content

of sources


112

Appendix 6: Semi-structured Interview Schedule

Please select one of the categories below to describe your role in relation to honey bee health. We realise that some people may fall into several categories, but for the purposes of this research we ask you to choose the one that in your view best fits your main area of activity and/or interest.

1. Beekeeper 2. Beekeeping education/training and beekeeping media 3. Public interest groups, campaigning groups, and mainstream media 4. Beekeeping supplies, honey and other bee-related products 5. Land and ecosystems management 6. Government or government funded bodies 7. Research and funding

1) What do you think are the main factors involved in honey bee health? (Prompt: e.g. Weather? Habitat? Land management? Husbandry? Diseases?)

2) What about other sorts of insect pollinators, like bumblebees and butterflies, do you have any interest in or thoughts about those?

3) Do you have any particular concerns about bee health?

3a) What do you think should be done?

3b) Who do you think should do this?

3c) How urgent do you think the problem is?

4) What do you believe you are able to do to help the situation?

4a) Is there anything you would like to do but find difficult? What would help? (prompt: e.g. more knowledge, resources, influence?)

4b) Is there anything other people are doing to try to help the situation, which you don’t agree with?

5) Are there any gaps in your knowledge that you would like support with? Do you have any problems getting hold of information? How do you choose which sources of information to use and trust?

6) How do you use information about bee health? (prompts: as personal knowledge, in better beekeeping, in training others)

7) Do you network in terms of honey bee health (prompt: e.g. attend conferences, workshops, association meetings?) Which aspects of these activities do you find most useful/least useful?

8) If you have accessed education or training, what was this? What did you find most useful from that in helping you deal with bee health issues/least useful?

9) In your experience, what are the most effective ways of sharing information about bee health?

10) What might get in the way of you sharing information with others about bee health? (Prompt: e.g. confidence in its reliability, your resources/time)

11) Looking back at the stakeholder categories on the first page, how do you think people from each of these groups could work better together?

Appendix 7: SNA Interview Schedule

Understanding Bee Health Stakeholders We appreciate the time you have given to help with this survey. Thank you very much.

Section 1 Please list up to five different sources of information where you learn about bee health. Here are examples of sources you might use – and there may be others.

Your responses to the questions below will be entered into the chart on the following page. The questions correspond to the chart’s column headings. Questions (a) and (b) are multiple choice (See next page). For each source listed: (a) How often do you use it? (b) How useful do you find it? (c) Why? (d) What do you feel is the most important thing you have learned from it? (Please focus on one thing, and be as specific as you can.)

Examples of sources

1. Personal contacts

2. Magazines

3. Books

4. Reports

5. Newsletters

6. Scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals

7. Websites of organisations/associations/societies

8. Internet search engines

9. Online resources e.g. Wikipedia

10. Radio/TV broadcasts

11. Meetings

12. Talks by experts

13. Newspapers

14. Press release

15. Blog

16. Other (please describe)

Draft for feedback

114

Source (a) How often used? (b) How useful? (c) Why useful? (d) Most important thing you learned from it

[ ] Daily [ ] Weekly [ ] Monthly [ ] Twice a year [ ] Once a year or less

[ ] Very useful [ ] Quite useful [ ] Partly useful, partly not [ ] Not very useful [ ] Not useful









Section 2: Communication Networks (to be completed with interviewer, or independently after completing one sample with interviewer)

Draft for feedback

115

All details about individuals will be treated in the strictest confidence. The purpose of this section is NOT to gather and store information about individuals, but to build an overall picture that will provide insights into the different ways that information is communicated between the diverse groups with an interest in honeybee health. Please look at the categories in the box below and choose one which best describes your role in relation to bee health..………………………………………………….. Next, choose one person from each of these categories you have communicated with in the last 12 months. (If there are particular categories where you communicate with many people, we will ask you to reflect this later by including details on the supplementary pages (pp. 6-12).

1. Beekeepers 5. Land and eco-systems management 2. Beekeeping education/ training and beekeeping media 6. Government or government-funded bodies 3. Public interest groups, campaigning groups and mainstream media 7. Research and funding 4. Beekeeping supplies, honey and other bee-related products

Taking one person at a time, please enter your responses to the following into the appropriate boxes in the chart that follows (pp. 4-7). a) Are you happy to provide the person’s name? If so, please enter it in the first box. b) How often do you normally communicate with this person?

c) How long have you known this person?

d) Which of the options in the box best describes the relationship?

e) Which of the options in the box best describes the means by which you communicate with this person?

f) Which of the options in the box best describes how your views on bee health compare?

g) Which of the options in the box best describes the type of communication you have with this person?

h) Which of the options in the box best describes how useful your communication with this person has been/is?

Draft for feedback

116

Category

(a) Name

(b) Frequency of Communication

(c) How long known (in years)

(d) Type of relationship

(e) How do you communicate?

(f) Our views on bee health are:

(g) Type of communication

(h) How useful was/is this communication to you?

1 Beekeepers

[ ] Daily [ ] Weekly [ ] Monthly [ ] Twice a year [ ] Once a year

[ ] Friend [ ] Easy working relationship [ ] Challenging [ ] Distant acquaintance [ ] Other

[ ] In person [ ] Phone [ ] Email [ ] Mail

[ ] Very similar [ ] Generally similar [ ] In some ways similar, in some ways different [ ] Generally different [ ] Very different

[ ] Learning from [ ] Imparting knowledge to [ ] Both of the above [ ] Other

[ ] Very useful [ ] Useful [ ] Slightly useful [ ] Of no use [ ] Of no use and had a negative impact

2. Beekeeping education or training and beekeeping media



[ ] In person [ ] Phone [] Email [ ] Mail




Draft for feedback

117

Category

(a) Name


(c) Length of time known (in years)






3. Public interest groups Campaigning groups Mainstream media







4. Beekeeping supplies, honey and other bee-related products







Draft for feedback

118

Category

(a) Name








5. Land and eco-systems management







6. Government or Govt-funded bodies







Draft for feedback

119

Do you communicate with a large number of people in any of the categories above? If so, please will you reflect this by adding their details on the supplementary pages below (pp. 8-14)?

Category

(a) Name








7. Research and Funding







Appendix 8: Mapping Pollinator Stakeholders: Scoping Study Report (October 2013)

Summary

This report provides an initial analysis of stakeholders in pollinators and pollination services

in England and Wales. It identifies 134 organisations likely to have a stake in what happens

to pollinators and pollination services, which have been categorised as: Government policy,

regulatory and advisory bodies (UK and EU); growers; those providing pollination services;

retailers and marketing associations; public interest groups; research, monitoring and

funding; land management; trade associations; media; consumers/public; education, skills

and training; and agri-industries. Out of 87 organisations that participants felt able to assign

levels of interest and influence, 15 (17%) were considered to have both high interest in and

influence on pollinators and pollinator services. Out of 77 organisations whose awareness

levels were rated, 59 (77%) were perceived by workshop participants to have medium or

high levels of awareness, understanding and knowledge in relation to pollinators and

pollination services. A number of barriers were preventing stakeholder organisations doing

more for pollinators and pollination services, notably linked to a lack of (or cuts in) funding

and a lack of capacity. A wide range of current actions are being undertaken by these

organisations, notably conservation projects, public awareness raising and campaigns,

funding research and monitoring, engagement with policy processes, and engagement with

networks and other collaborations. A number of additional actions were identified that could

be performed by stakeholders for pollinators and pollination services, notably: conducting

more research and monitoring; educating/advising land managers and other stakeholders

more effectively, disseminate information/advice about pollinators and their habitats as

widely as possible; doing more conservation work on the ground, and collaborating more

effectively on conservation projects, especially at a landscape-scale. Research and

collaboration at landscape scales was a theme running through current and future actions,

and it was perceived that funding and capacity barriers may prevent this from happening. A

number of future research questions and associated methods were identified in relation to

pollinator and pollination service stakeholders. Notably, these clustered around questions

about facilitating more effective collaboration between stakeholders, and mobilising

stakeholders to take actions to protect and enhance pollinators and pollination services.

Draft for feedback

121

1 Introduction

The purpose of this scoping study is to develop a better understanding of who has a stake in

pollinators and pollination services in England and Wales, their likely role and influence, and

how best to facilitate their contribution to an integrated National Pollinators Strategy. A

stakeholder mapping exercise was used to identify, categorise and further analyse the range

of stakeholders involved with pollinators in England and Wales, assessing the relative

importance of different groups in terms of their potential to take action to support pollinators

and their influence and linkages to other stakeholders. The work also described the range of

activities being undertaken by stakeholders on pollinators, identifying where there might be

potential for stakeholders to do more. The work also considered barriers to action, and how

these barriers may be addressed.

2 Methods

A stakeholder mapping workshop was held in London on 16th October, followed by scoping

interviews with other key stakeholders identified at the workshop to triangulate and add to

the workshop findings.

2.1 Stakeholder mapping workshop

The workshop was held with a small number of stakeholders representing a cross-section of

interests in pollinators and pollination services, based on previous research and the prior

knowledge of the project’s steering group. Workshop attendees are provided in Appendix 1.

During the workshop, relevant stakeholders were identified and analysed using Reed et al.’s

(2009) “extendable matrix” approach to stakeholder mapping. This approach builds on the

widely used interest-influence matrices, capturing more detailed information about the nature

and level of interest and influence than is normally possible, whilst capturing a wealth of

additional information about each stakeholder that can inform future interactions to a far

greater extent than is normally possible in traditional interest-influence matrices. For each

stakeholder, where possible the following information was collected:

Stakeholder

Interest in pollinators and pollination services (Low/Medium/High plus comments)

Influence on the future of pollinators and pollination services (L/M/H plus comments)

Levels of awareness, understanding and knowledge in relation to pollinators and

pollination services (L/M/H plus comments)

Actions currently being performed re: pollinators

What more this stakeholder could be doing?

Best ways to raise awareness, communicate, educate, mobilise support and

involvement, and to positively influence the attitudes and behaviours

Other comments

Next, there was an exercise where participants split into groups to devise their favoured way

of categorizing the stakeholders that had been identified. The rationale for each

categorization was presented by each group and used to identify an initial categorization for

discussion in scoping interviews. The list of interviewees was drawn from suggestions made

by workshop participants. The workshop concluded with a discussion of future research

needs as they pertain to stakeholders in pollinators and pollination services.

Draft for feedback

122

The workshop ended by asking participants to identify research questions relating to

stakeholders in pollination and pollination services. The goal was to identify whether future

work was needed in this area, and prioritise the questions that any such work should

address. Questions were grouped by participants according to their similarity. Where

possible, participants were then asked to identify methods that could be used to answer the

research questions. Participants were then each given 5 sticky red dots that they could

allocate to prioritise individual research questions or clusters of research questions.

2.2 Scoping interviews and follow-up work

A total of six telephone interviews were conducted by Sue Bradley, from Newcastle

University, between 30 September and 8 October 2013. The interviewees were chosen

following recommendations from workshop participants for interviewees who could provide a

good overview and also who represented groups not present at the workshop. The research

team chose from a long list to ensure a wide range of different interests were represented.

Of seven interviewees invited to contribute, five accepted and two were unable to contribute

due to time pressure but referred us to colleagues (in one instance their colleagues were

also too busy to help within the timeframe that was set). In advance of the interview they

received copies of the interview schedule with draft stakeholder categories and the

stakeholder matrix (transcribed from wall charts that were filled in during the workshop).

Interviews lasted between 30 and 40 minutes (including one conducted over two sessions).

Names and affiliations of interviewees are provided in Appendix 1.

Interviewees were asked to check and discuss the categorization that emerged from the

workshop, adding, subtracting, sub-dividing and merging categories where they could

provide a clear rationale for doing so. They were also asked to check and add to the

extendable matrix where possible. A number of specific questions were asked about the

categorization, where differences of opinion or uncertainty had been expressed about

categories during the workshop. In addition to this, interviewees were asked to comment

more generally on barriers that stakeholders face in supporting pollinators and pollination

services, and to identify areas where further action may be taken.

The stakeholder matrix was also sent electronically to all workshop participants, the project

steering group and the Project Board for the original Honey Bee Health Project Board. Two

responses were received, from Bumblebee Conservation Trust (adding additional missing

stakeholders, but not providing any further information about them) and from Dorian

Pritchard (Bee Improvement and Bee Breeder's Association). Where there the same

organisations appear, it may be relevant to compare the matrix produced for pollinators and

pollination services with the matrix produced at the stakeholder mapping workshop for the

Honey Bee Health project in December 2012. However, it should be noted that participants

were asked to consider these organisations in a very different context (pollinators and

pollination services), and so such a comparison may be of limited relevance.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Stakeholder organisations

A total of 134 organisations were identified that are likely to have a stake in what happens to

pollinators and pollination services (Appendix 2). Out of 87 organisations that participants felt

Draft for feedback

123

able to assign levels of interest and influence, 15 (17%) were considered to have both high

interest in and influence on pollinators and pollinator services. These “key players” were

perceived to be:

Bayer

BBKA

Bumblebee Conservation Trust

Buglife

Butterfly Conservation


Defra

Devolved Administrations

National Bee Unit/Fera

National Farmers Union

Natural England and equivalent bodies in Devolved Administrations

Pollinator Conservation Delivery Group

Record Centres

Syngenta

Wildlife Trusts

It is important to note that these were subjective assessments of likely interest and influence

by a limited sample of stakeholders, with varying levels of familiarity with the organisations in

question. It was not possible to check these assessments with all of the organisations

identified, and it is likely that some may take issue with the assessments that were made.

Due to the subjectivity of such assessments, comments were sought about the reasons why

participants perceived organisations to have high, medium or low levels of interest and/or

influence, and the contexts in which these levels may vary. These details are likely to be

more useful for decision-making purposes than the relatively crude assessment of “key

players” presented here. Given that it was not possible to check these assessments with all

organisations, it is not possible to publish the full matrix. Appendix 2 therefore only provides

a list of stakeholder organisations. However, the full (unpublished) matrix is available upon

request from the authors.

The key messages is that it is important to try and be as inclusive as possible, engaging as

many as possible of the organisations listed in Appendix 2, where possible noting those who

have high levels of interest in pollinators and pollination services, but who may have low

levels of influence, and who may typically be marginalised and excluded from discussions

and decisions relating to their interests.

Out of 77 organisations whose awareness levels were rated, 59 (77%) were perceived by

workshop participants to have medium or high levels of awareness, understanding and

knowledge in relation to pollinators and pollination services.

3.2 Barriers and current/future actions

A number of barriers were identified that may prevent these organisations from engaging in

activities to support pollinators and pollination services. The following list of barriers has

been extracted from the full (unpublished) stakeholder matrix (see Appendix 2 for an

abbreviated version) and supplemented with material from scoping interviews, and is listed

Draft for feedback

124

in order of frequency, with the most frequently cited barriers listed first (the number of times

a barrier was mentioned is included in parentheses):

Cuts in funding and lack of sufficient funding (12)

o For some organisations, cuts have led to a loss of expertise at local levels

o This may be, for example, linked to reduced funding via the Common

Agricultural Policy, or via local authorities

o The future of some organisations was perceived to be at risk due to funding

cuts

o Limits ability to increase knowledge

o Limits capacity to engage in landscape-scale initiatives

Lack of capacity (6)

o Small size and lack of human resources means some organisations are

unable to perform the actions they would like to perform for pollinators and

pollination services

o One organisation said it would find it hard to cope with an increase in

volunteer numbers due to lack of capacity

o One organisation felt there were unrealistic expectations about what it could

do as a voluntary organisation

Policy barriers (unspecified) (1)

Organisational remit e.g. limited to working with landowners (1)

Resources being diverted to other issues in response to public

perceptions/campaigns (1)

Trends towards intensification of agriculture (1)

The following current actions were identified during in the stakeholder matrix, that are

currently being undertaken by stakeholders to support pollinators and pollination services

(the number of times an action was mentioned is included in parentheses):

Conservation projects (20), for example:

o Buglife’s B-Lines project and National Stepping Stones project

o Managing road verges for biodiversity

o Wildflower meadow creation

o Campaign for the Farmed Environment's work to encourage the uptake of

agri-environment measures that benefit pollinators

Public awareness raising and campaigns (16), for example:

o Neal’s Yard Remedies Bee Lovely campaign

o The Soil Association’s Keep Britain Buzzing campaign

o Media e.g. BBC’s 2013 Summer of Wildlife

o Marketing e.g. B&Q’s in-store awareness campaign

Funding research and monitoring (and funding the generation of impacts from

research) (13)

Engagement with policy processes (12), for example:

o Partners is Nature Improvement Areas

o Membership of advisory and stakeholder groups e.g. England Biodiversity

Stakeholder group and Bee Health Advisory Farm

o Contribution towards policy targets e.g. Bio2020 habitat outcomes

http://www.buglife.org.uk/campaigns-and-our-work/habitat-projects/b-lines

http://www.buglife.org.uk/campaigns-and-our-work/habitat-projects/national-stepping-stones

http://www.nealsyardremedies.com/bee-lovely

http://www.soilassociation.org/supportus/keepbritainbuzzing

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/22370883

Draft for feedback

125

o Attendance at events e.g. Bee Summit

Networks and collaborations (11), for example:

o Partnerships e.g. around Biodiversity Action Plans, Welsh Biodiversity

Partnership

o Networks e.g. Bulmers Foundation network of cider apple growers

o Collaborations e.g. between the Co-operative Group and Buglife

Raising awareness among stakeholders via magazines and newsletters (9), for

example, British Beekeepers Association Newsletter

Gathering data and conducting research (8)

Lobbying (7)

Provision of advice (5), for example:

o Advice to developers on incorporating biodiversity and ecosystem services

into new developments

o Advice to farmers to boost pollinators e.g. management of margins

Training/education (5), for example:

o Training and education of beekeepers

o Offering apprenticeships into bee farming

Supporting amateur and citizen science (4), for example:

o Big Butterfly Count

o Supporting amateur entomologists who may be recording pollinator species

o Dipterist Society supporting recorders of fly species in UK

o Bees Wasps & Ants Recording Society monitoring wild pollinators via their

network of volunteers

Funding conservation projects (including funding agri-environment schemes) (3)

Regulation and licencing (3), for example the work of Environment Agency, Natural

England and equivalents in Devolved Administrations

Provision of information (1), for example publication of identification guides on the

Bees Wasps & Ants Recording Society website

A number of additional actions were identified that could be performed by stakeholders for

pollinators and pollination services, including:

Conducting more research and monitoring (10), for example:

o On the effects of agri-environment schemes at a landscape scale, new

scheme options, varroa, effects of husbandry on disease, or to investigate

how important butterflies and moths are as pollinators in relation to other

pollinators

o Fund a long-term National Pollinator Monitoring scheme

Educating/advising land managers and other stakeholders more effectively (8), for

example:

o Taking more of a systems approach so changes are made on a broader scale

o Promotion of pollinator strips

o Showcasing good practice where it exists and providing simple steps farmers

and growers can take to benefit pollinators

http://www.bigbutterflycount.org/

Draft for feedback

126

Disseminate information/advice about pollinators and their habitats as widely as

possible (7), for example, e.g. including pollinators/pollination in the ecoschools

programme

More conservation work on the ground (6), for example wildflower planting along

highways and rail tracks

Collaborate more effectively on conservation projects, especially at landscape-scale

(6)

More co-ordinated funding for research and practice (5), for example:

o Investigate potential synergy between Environment Agency funding (e.g.

linked Water Framework Directive) and other funding streams (e.g. via

Natural England)

o Encourage more collaboration between Research Councils for research on

pollinators and pollination services (akin to Insect Pollinators Programme)

Increase awareness among customers and suppliers (4)

More funding to generate impacts from research (2), for example via the Research

Councils

Continued policy development (2), for example:

o Linked to National Pollinator Strategy, Health Bees Plan, agri-environment

scheme, Nature Improvement Areas

o Introduce Beekeeping medication legislation

More lobbying capacity in EU, where a lot of the legislation comes from (2)

Enhance agri-environment scheme options for pollinators (1)

Extend existing recording/monitoring schemes to cover more species of pollinators

(1)

Raise the profile of stakeholder organisations working for pollinators and pollinator

services (1)

Make research more accessible/available (1)

Controls on movement of pollinators (1)

Draft for feedback

127

3.3 Categorising stakeholders

Participants at the stakeholder mapping workshop on 16th October were divided into three

groups to discuss how they might categorise the stakeholders that had been identified in the

workshop. They were instructed to try and create as few categories as possible to explain

the rationale for their categorisation. Each group’s categorisation is provided in Appendix 3.

The first two groups identified seven categories, and the third group identified nine

categories of stakeholder. The first group categorised stakeholders in relation to their “mode

of action”, i.e. how they influence pollinators and pollination services, and at what scale. The

second two groups categorised their stakeholders in relation to their reason for being

interested in pollinators and pollination services. These categorisations were merged into a

joint categorisation, combining categories that overlapped, to arrive at a total of eleven draft

stakeholder categories (see Appendix 3). Workshop participants were asked to identify

interviewees for scoping interviews that represented interests not present at the workshop,

and a priority list was finalised with feedback from the project’s steering group (Appendix 1).

Draft stakeholder categories were discussed during six scoping interviews, with particular

attention paid to categories that had only been proposed by one group during the workshop.

These interviews confirmed the need for separate categories in each of these cases, and

identified the need for one additional category:

It was suggested that agri-industries should be given a category of their own, given

their distinctive interests in and influence over pollinators and pollination services,

compared to other commercial stakeholders such as growers and retailers (who they

had been included with by one of the workshop groups, Appendix 3)

Although two of the workshop groups had included the media as part of another

category of stakeholder, five out of the six scoping interviewees felt that media

should not be combined with “public interest” or any other category, and should have

a category of its own. One interviewee argued for this distinction on the basis that the

media “lead rather than represent” public interests, and this was supported by

another interviewee who distinguished their role as “conveying information and

messages to the public”

The public and consumers were only identified as a category of stakeholders in their

own right by one out of the three groups during the workshop. Four out of six

interviewees agreed that they should have their own category, distinct from “public

interest” stakeholders. One interviewee argued that the key difference between these

two groups was that public interest stakeholders typically aimed to change rather

than represent the views of the public and consumers

NGOs that represent consumers then logically fitted with the new “public and

consumers” category for most scoping interviewees (with the exception of one who

had previously argued that the public should be combined with the public interest

category)

Trade associations was only proposed as a separate category by one of the groups

during the workshop, and opinion was split among scoping interviewees about

whether they warranted their own category, or whether they could be integrated with

the category of stakeholders they represented. Three out of six argued for a separate

category, with two of these interviewees arguing that this should be done because

these associations do not always effectively represent the views of all their members.

Draft for feedback

128

Two interviewees suggested they should be integrated with the categories of

stakeholder they represent and one had no strong views

Table 1 shows the final stakeholder categorisation that was reached after workshop findings

were triangulated and supplemented via scoping interviews. A number of alternatives were

suggested for categorising those who hold a stake in pollinators and pollination services, and

it is important to note that there is no single “right” categorisation. There is a degree of

overlap between some of the categories, but the list provides a useful way of grouping the

many organisations and interest groups who hold a stake in what happens to pollinators and

pollination services.

Table 1: Categories of stakeholder in pollinator and pollination services, derived from a stakeholder

mapping workshop and scoping interviews (for details of how these relate to data collected during the

workshop, see Appendix 3)

Category Examples

Government policy, regulatory and advisory

bodies (UK and EU)

Defra, welsh Government, Fera, Veterinary Medicines Directorate

Growers Farmers, smallholders

Those providing pollination services Beekeepers, bee farmers, bee importers and suppliers, beekeeping support industries

Retailers and marketing associations Supermarkets

Public interest groups Conservation NGOs, Women’s Institute

Research, monitoring and funding University departments, Records Centres

Land management National Trust, local authorities, RHS (gardeners)

Trade associations Bee Farmers Association, National Farmers Union

Media BBC, environment correspondents for major newspapers

Consumers/public Individual members of the public and those who consume fruit, vegetables, honey and other products reliant upon pollinators and pollination, and organisations representing consumers

Education, skills and training

Agri-industries Syngenta, Bayer, Glaxo Smith Kline

Draft for feedback

129

3.4 Future stakeholder research

The workshop concluded with a session to identify future research needs in relation to

stakeholders in pollinators and pollination services. Questions were clustered according to

their similarity, and where possible, methods were identified that could help answer these

questions. Eight clusters of research questions emerged with associated methods. There

were two additional research questions that did not comfortably fit into any of these clusters,

and two additional methods not linked to research questions, that participants thought should

be considered in any future research into pollination stakeholders.

Verbatim research questions and associated methods are listed below in priority order (the

number of votes each cluster received are given in parentheses):

Cluster 1 Research Questions (10):

How well do farmers and growers understand their reliance on pollination? Are they

willing to act?

How can different groups interact to better understand the various pressures on

pollination services and view their management as an input [that contributes towards

pollination services]?

How best can we mobilise the stakeholder community to take action to support

pollinators?

Methods:

Survey followed by semi-structured interviews with farmers to investigate level of

knowledge and willingness to act

Methods have been developed as part of the IPI Crops project, however they need to

be applied across different crops and cultivars but ideally this should be assessed

and reported at the cultivar trial stage

Communicate science in clear way to farmers ( e.g. importance of wild pollinators),

but to incentivise action, this needs to be combined with practical advice on what to

do


Where do different stakeholder groups AGREE? Where do they DISAGREE?

How to get various protagonists to accept the role of the various pollinators i.e. all

pollinators are important

Entrenched views-how to change these positively to work together

Key organizations need to agree on evidence base for future actions. There is too

much selective use of evidence to meet different aims.

Methods:

Key organizations to endorse ‘Pollinator Expert Groups’ (set up in June 2013) and

conduct review of current knowledge

Defra has role in clear communications of science e.g. from IPI and other

independent research


Draft for feedback

130

What is in it for the stakeholder? i.e. How can they benefit from the National

Pollinator Strategy?

How can measures to protect and maintain pollinators be made attractive and

effective?

Who are the key influencers?

Methods:

Cost-benefit analysis of yield impacts arising from pollination services produced by

Agri-Environment Scheme measures


How can research better translate into influence on stakeholder action?

Methods:

Media need educating so they can present more balanced picture for benefit of

pollinators/influencing public


How can stakeholders feed into place-based initiatives? Is there a need for a

strategic role at the local level?

How can locally-based stakeholders find out what is going on in their area? (so they

can join up, not duplicate, etc.)


How important are pollinators relative to other environmental issues (such as climate

change)?

How do actions for pollinators fit into broader environmental strategies?


Is there a way of engaging individual farmers e.g. through retailer supplier groups?

How to draw out useful feedback from small stakeholders-Small/Local groups etc?

How do you best reach ‘the public and local communities’, e.g. by holding regional

events? Which stakeholders are best placed to help with this?

Is there enough representation for urban pollination?

Methods:

Regional pollinator road show events co-hosted by stakeholders

Retailers could have a role in raising public awareness and ‘crowd sourcing’ the NPS


What scope is there for supermarkets/retailers to work together, e.g. towards an

industry-wide scheme of classification of products beneficial to pollinators? Would

this be realistic? Is there an association which could help?

Methods:

Draft for feedback

131

Contact supermarkets/trade associations to gauge worth of bee issue to

supermarkets

Find out if there are any existing schemes which could act as a model

Other Research Questions:

How do we ensure that UK-wide stakeholders are involved in producing a UK-wide

NPS (National Pollinator Strategy)?

How can stakeholders find out what is going on in their area/place-based initiatives?

Other Methods:

Explore potential of Natural England’s Biodiversity Action Recording System for

recording pollination activity

Ideally there would be some level of engagement on a regional level-helps to involve

more local groups/views/issues etc.

Draft for feedback

132

4 Conclusions

The National Pollinator Strategy (NPS) aims to bring together all the pollinator-friendly

initiatives already underway and provide an umbrella for new action. It builds on research

into the “Status and Value of Pollinators and Pollination Services in the UK” by Dr Adam

Vanbergen and co-authors, summarising: current knowledge on the current state of insect

pollinators, the pollination services they provide, and the main pressures on pollinators and

pollination across England. To successfully unite the wide range of stakeholders in

pollinators and pollination services, it is first necessary to understand the range of

stakeholders currently active in this area, and their levels of interest, influence and

awareness about the issues the NPS intends to tackle. To provide a foundation for future

action under the NPS, it is necessary to have an initial understanding of the range of actions

currently being undertaken, the sorts of future actions that it may be possible for

stakeholders to undertake, and the barriers to effective action.

This report therefore provides an initial analysis of stakeholders in pollinators and pollination

services in England and Wales. It identifies 134 stakeholders (mainly organisations), and

groups these into 12 categories, to aid efficient engagement across the stakeholder

landscape in the National Pollinator Strategy. The study was conducted over a short period

in October 2013, through a stakeholder mapping workshop with 8 stakeholders, followed by

scoping interviews with 6 stakeholders, intended to represent a broad cross-section of

interests in pollinators and pollination services. The findings of this study represent their

perceptions, and it was not possible to triangulate these perceptions with all organisations

identified.

Levels of interest in and influence on pollinators and pollination services were perceived to

vary considerably across the organisations identified, with a relatively small proportion

considered to have both high interest in and influence on pollinators and pollinator services.

However, the majority of stakeholders identified were perceived by research participants to

have medium or high levels of awareness, understanding and knowledge in relation to

pollinators and pollination services.

Facilitating research and collaboration at a landscape scale was a common theme running

through current and future actions. However, it was perceived that a lack of (or cuts in)

funding and limited capacity among stakeholder organisations may prevent this from

happening. More research is required to understand how collaboration between

stakeholders could be facilitated more effectively across spatial scales, and to mobilise

stakeholders to take actions to protect and enhance pollinators and pollination services.

Such research could usefully underpin actions developed as part of the National Pollinator

Strategy.

Draft for feedback

133

Appendix 1: Details of participants in stakeholder mapping workshop and scoping

interviews

The following attended the stakeholder mapping workshop in London on 16th October 2013:

Bell, Sandra (FoE)

Breeze, Tom (Reading University)

Bradley, Sue (Newcastle University) - facilitator

Brown, Mike (NBU)

Deol, Andrea (Defra)

Dicks, Lynn (Cambridge University)

Hartfield, Chris (NFU)

Lynch, Sinead (Bumblebee Conservation)

Phillipson, Belinda (Defra)

Reed, Mark (Birmingham City University) - facilitator

Scott, Karen (Newcastle University) - facilitator

The following took part in scoping interviews between 30 September and 8 October 2013:

Harding, Tony (Worldwide Fruit)

Hockridge, Emma (Soil Association)

Little, Julian (Bayer)

Parsons, Mark (Butterfly Conservation)

Paxton, Robert (Insect Pollinators Initiative)

Roberts, Stuart (BWARS)

Draft for feedback

134

Appendix 2: List of stakeholders in pollinators and pollination services in England &

Wales

An additional unpublished matrix is available upon request from the authors, detailing the

opinions of (primarily) workshop participants about each organisation’s:

Interest in pollinators and pollination services (Low/Medium/High plus comments)

Influence on the future of pollinators and pollination services (L/M/H plus comments)

Levels of awareness, understanding and knowledge in relation to pollinators and

pollination services (L/M/H plus comments)

Actions currently being performed re: pollinators

What more this stakeholder could be doing?

Best ways to raise awareness, communicate, educate, mobilise support and

involvement, and to positively influence the attitudes and behaviours

Other comments

A total of 134 stakeholders were identified as follows:

Amateur Entomological Society

Agricultural press

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (including Horticulture Development

Company)

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

ASDA

Association of Cidermakers

Association of Local Environmental Records Centres (ALERC)

B & Q

Bayer

BCP Certis

BCW Agriculture Ltd (Crop Production and Animal Health specialists)

Bee Farmers Association

Bee Guardian Foundation

Bee Improvement and Bee Breeders' Association

Bee Vital (Hive cleanser) Honeybees

Beecraft Magazine

Bees Abroad

Bees and Trees

Bees for Development

Bees Wasps & Ants Recording Society

Berry Gardens

Berry World

Biodiversity by Design

Biological Records Centres

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

British Beekeepers Association

British Dragonfly Society

Draft for feedback

135

British Entomology and Natural History Society

British Retail Consortium

British Trust for Ornithology

Buglife

Bumblebee Conservation Trust

Bumblebee Free Suppliers

Butterfly Conservation

Campaign for the Farmed Environment

Capital Growth

Caring for God’s Acre

Chemical Regulatory Directorate

Christian Ecology

Church of England (landowners)

Cidermakers

Coloss

Conservation Grade

Council of National Beekeeping Associations

Country and Land Business Association

Crown Estate

Defra

Department for Communities and Local Government

Dipterist Society

Eco Schools

Economic and Social Research Council

Environment Agency

European Union and Members of European Parliament

Farmers Union of Wales

Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group

Floral Locale

Food Standard Agency

Forestry Commission

Forum for the Future

Friends of the Earth

Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust

Glaxo Smith Kline

Greenpeace

Growers Associations

Habitat Aid (supply feeds and native plants)

Heritage Lottery Fund

Highways Agency (including Trunk Road Agency)

Honey Association

Horticultural Trades Association

Hymettus

Importers of honey, e.g. Rowse, etc

Individual journalists with an interest in pollinators e.g. Sarah Raven

Draft for feedback

136

Insect Pollinators Initiative

Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

Keep Britain Tidy (Green Flag Awards)

Keep Wales Tidy, Keep England Tidy and Scotland

Knowledge Transfer Network Bioscience

Koppert

Landlife

Leaf Grazing Animals Project

Local Farmers

Local Government (e.g. Newcastle City Council Bee Aware initiative)

Marketing Associations e.g. Worldwide Fruit

Marks & Spencer

Mass Media

Ministry of Defence (as a landowner)

National Allotment Society

National Bee Unit/Fera

National Farmers Union

National Federation of Women’s Institutes

National Park Authorities

National Trust

Natural Beekeeping Trust

Natural England

Natural Environment Research Council

Natural Resource Wales

Nature Improvement Areas and Local Nature Partnerships

Neal’s Yard

Parliamentary Interest Group/MPs

Pesticides Action Network

Plantlife

Pollinator Conservation Delivery Group

PONT (Welsh Grazing Animals project)

RailTrack

Record Centres

RHS

Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

Royal Entomological Society

RSPB

Sainsbury’s

Smallholders

Social Bee Suppliers

Soil Association

Stakeholder name

STEP (Status and Trends of European Pollinators)

Syngenta

Tesco

Draft for feedback

137


Thornes Ltd (+other beekeeping suppliers)

Trading Standards

Veterinary Laboratories Agency (research arm of Veterinary Medicines Directorate)

Veterinary Medicines Directorate

Vita (Basingstoke)

Waitrose

Wales Wildlife and Countryside Link

Waterways/canals and Internal Drainage Boards

Wellcome Trust

Welsh Beekeepers Association

Welsh Government

Wildlife and Countryside Links

Wildlife Farming Company

Wildlife Trusts

Woodland Trust

Worldwide Fruit

Appendix 3: Stakeholder categories from stakeholder mapping workshop, 16th October

The following table shows categorisations proposed by three groups at a workshop held on 16th September, and how these correspond to the

proposed cateogorisation that were discussed in scoping interviews.

GROUP A GROUP B GROUP C Suggested categories

Government Agencies

Government

Shaping Policy Retailers Government Departments Advisory

Government Policy, Regulatory and Advisory Bodies. UK and EU.

Agricultural Groups Industry Retailers Growers Supporting Industries (Beekeeping equipment/Bumblebee colonies)

Influencing Behaviours Retailers Media

Growers

Beekeeping Groups Secondary industrial groups (e.g. insecticide companies/Beekeeping supply)

Implementing Measures to benefit pollinator (practitioners) Farmers Landscape scale partnerships Beekeepers Landowners

Pollination services (beekeepers, bee farmers, bee importers and suppliers, beekeeping supporting industries). This includes bumblebees and solitary bees.

Retailers (Inc. Marketing association)

Retailers and Marketing Associations

Public Interest (e.g. Press/Conservation/Environmental/Consumer NGOs/The Public)

Environmental NGOs

National Societies

Public Interest (Conservation/Environmental/Consumer NGOs)

Research Institutes (Inc. Research Councils)

Funders Research

Research and other funding Monitoring/Surveillance Local Record Centres

Research, Monitoring and Funding

Other Land Managers (Active NGOs, etc.)

Landowners

Land Management Strategies Pollinator Initiatives Nature Improvement Areas

Land Management

Trade Associations

Trade Associations

Media

Influencing Behaviours Retailers Media

Media

Consumers Consumers/public

Education/Skills/Training Education/Skills/Training

understanding honey bee - gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/document.aspx?document=13360_ph0512... ·...

Documents