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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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).
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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)
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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).
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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)
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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).
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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)
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
21
Council of National Beekeeping Associations (CONBA)
3. Public interest
groups, campaigning
groups, and mainstream
media
This category includes, for example:
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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:
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
23
from bee products
Manufacturers of bee-based
alternative health products, e.g.
using propolis, bee sting venom,
Manuka
5. Land and
Ecosystems
Management
This category includes, for example:
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)
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
24
6. Government and
government-funded
bodies
This category includes, for example:
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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)
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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:
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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/
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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)
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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)
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
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 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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
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. 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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health 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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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).
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health 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)
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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).
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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”.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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:
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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).
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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.
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
Understanding Honey Bee Health Stakeholders
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
[ ] Daily [ ] Weekly [ ] Monthly [ ] Twice a year [ ] Once a year or less
[ ] Very useful [ ] Quite useful [ ] Partly useful, partly not [ ] Not very useful [ ] Not useful
[ ] Daily [ ] Weekly [ ] Monthly [ ] Twice a year [ ] Once a year or less
[ ] Very useful [ ] Quite useful [ ] Partly useful, partly not [ ] Not very useful [ ] Not useful
[ ] Daily [ ] Weekly [ ] Monthly [ ] Twice a year [ ] Once a year or less
[ ] Very useful [ ] Quite useful [ ] Partly useful, partly not [ ] Not very useful [ ] Not useful
[ ] 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
[ ] 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
Draft for feedback
117
Category
(a) Name
(b) Frequency of Communication
(c) Length of time 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?
3. Public interest groups Campaigning groups Mainstream media
[ ] 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
4. Beekeeping supplies, honey and other bee-related products
[ ] 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
Draft for feedback
118
Category
(a) Name
(b) Frequency of Communication
(c) Length of time 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?
5. Land and eco-systems management
[ ] 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
6. Government or Govt-funded bodies
[ ] 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
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
(b) Frequency of Communication
(c) Length of time 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?
7. Research and Funding
[ ] 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
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
The Co-operative Group
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
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
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
Cluster 2 Research Questions (9):
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
Cluster 3 Research Questions (6):
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
Cluster 4 Research Questions (5):
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
Cluster 5 Research Questions (5):
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.)
Cluster 6 Research Questions (3):
How important are pollinators relative to other environmental issues (such as climate
change)?
How do actions for pollinators fit into broader environmental strategies?
Cluster 7 Research Questions (2):
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
Cluster 8 Research Questions (1):
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
The Co-operative Group
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