Revitalising Bee Science

VIEWS FROM OUTSIDE THE APIARY: IAN FLETCHER 

Offering ideas on how the apiculture industry might improve its appeal to potential funders, on August 28 Ian Fletcher called on his experience and expertise in high-level government departments to present to the 6^th New Zealand Honey Bee Research Symposium in Wellington on the topic of ‘Research partnerships in a dynamic and political environment’. He extends his thinking here.

By Ian Fletcher

Ian Fletcher believes the beekeeping industry must refocus government attention on its role in pollination, not honey, and do a better job of explaining the challenges it faces if it is to effect significant change in funding decisions.      

While I was only able to join part of the day-long Honey Bee Research Symposium recently, I was struck by the care and commitment to bee research reflected in the material I did see, and in the commentary and conversation that flowed through the event.

It has been suggested that I use this month’s column to capture the comments I made. I’m always hesitant to tell beekeepers about beekeeping (you all know more than me). But my topic was Research Partnerships in a Dynamic and Political Environment. That means looking at how to get more money, more reliably, for bee-related research.

The case for bee-related research seems obvious to beekeepers, and to anyone who looks at the role bees play in both our economy and our environment. Yet, bee-related science struggles for attention and funding. The problem isn’t that bees are unimportant, but that the way science and politics work in New Zealand often sidelines smaller, less glamorous sectors.

Politicians, government agencies, and organisations like the Royal Society Te Apirangi (which is both our national science academy and acts as the funding body for a lot of science work) tend to give priority to issues of the moment, or just bigger industries and high-prestige research topics. The result of this is bee science is crowded out and marginalised.

This political environment means researchers must be aware not only of the science, but also of the culture of decision-making around science. In New Zealand, researchers are often told to chase fashionable areas that look impressive internationally. Yet the local needs of agriculture, pollination, and rural livelihoods may not fit neatly into global fashions.

For bee research, this has led to chronic underfunding and an absence of long-term strategy. I’m in no place to judge, but from my perspective we have a small number of good and dedicated scientists tackling urgent and important work without the simple scale needed to make headway quickly enough to really help beekeepers, or to position New Zealand science to help prepare for future diseases, or market opportunities. For example, we are still doing what looks like vital, but fundamentally foundational research on varroa twenty-five years after the incursion.

At the same time, beekeepers themselves are geographically dispersed, and have a low level of trust and engagement with institutions (many of which are over-centralised anyway, as I’ve said previously). This hasn’t been helped by the gold-rush atmosphere that surrounded beekeeping during the years when mānuka prices were very high.

This means that outsiders – and politicians – can be impatient with the real difficulties the industry faces, not recognising that the challenges are real, and need to be taken seriously. In that environment, it’s hard to make the case for more science funding when it’s overshadowed by institutional prejudices. I also think that beekeeping is still coming to terms with the impact of varroa – something I call “post-varroa stress disorder”. This mix of stress and low trust makes collective action hard.

What can be done to get a better hearing for our scientists? The first step is to change the story. Too often bees are thought of simply in terms of honey. Instead, the narrative needs to emphasise pollination, which is vital not only to agriculture but to ecosystems and food security. Including native pollinators broadens the story beyond just honeybees. A striking example came from Bavaria in 2019, where a “Save the Bees” referendum proposal on protecting pollinators gained huge public support and was enacted. New Zealand could learn from that success by framing bee science as part of beekeepers’ work protecting biodiversity and food supply for everyone.

To shift the culture, researchers need to work not only with scientists but also with economists and social scientists. Understanding beekeeping as an economic activity, and a human activity dating back thousands of years is legitimately relevant to bee science. Beekeeping is part of the ecology and the biology of bees and should be seen as such.

Economists can help explain the value of pollination in clear financial and process terms. This would help show others the value being created by pollination, and underpin the case for more research money. It might also mean beekeepers can charge more for pollination services – a market that is certainly wildly underpriced at present. If I was providing pollination services, I’d want a royalty, not a fee – a percentage of the value of the crop. That would incentivise me to provide an excellent service. Say, five percent of the retail value? Just a thought.

Social scientists can help too. They can shed light on the culture of beekeeping itself – why trust is so low, why people feel alienated, and how “islands of trust” can be built. Rather than getting criticised for lack of “unity” by successive governments, it’s would be good to be able to properly understand and explain why beekeeping is hard, and what can be done to actually help.

Practical steps include hosting research-focused events where beekeepers and scientists can meet, even before funding is in place, to make sure every scrap of knowledge is shared. Keeping communication simple, transparent, and collegial can help confidence.

Ultimately, culture is upstream of politics, and the cultures of beekeeping and of science both undervalue what everyone does. Without a new narrative, bee science will remain peripheral. With a bit of thought and some creative thinking, researchers and beekeepers together can create a compelling case for investment that not only strengthens science, but also revitalises our share of New Zealand’s rural future.

Ian Fletcher is a former head of New Zealand’s security agency, the GCSB, chief executive of the UK Patents Office, free trade negotiator with the European Commission and biosecurity expert for the Queensland government. These days he is a commercial flower grower in the Wairarapa and consultant to the apiculture industry with NZ Beekeeping Inc.