This spring, the issue of bees and agricultural chemicals was a hot topic of discussion. Is this a matter of concern for Latvia, Europe, or on a wider scale?

For Europe! Although problems with agricultural chemicals can be observed everywhere in the world. If we look at bee mortality, the first to speak about it more seriously and with alarm were the Americans. Scientists on that continent observed a very high rate of colony collapse.

Are the problems in America (USA) linked to the very extensive use of chemicals in agriculture specifically?

The situation for the Americans is more severe than in Europe! We recently participated in a Beekeeping Congress in Canada, shortly after a ban on the use of neonicotinoid-group preparations had come into force in Europe, which were (and are) undoubtedly dangerous to bees. During the congress, American scientists clearly pointed out that the situation in Europe is undoubtedly better!

How is that evaluated? Is the situation in the USA compared with Europe's highly intensive agricultural lands, or is the European average used?

In Europe, a project (COLOSS) is being implemented in which Latvia is also involved. We have been conducting surveys on bee colony mortality for 7-8 years, while in other parts of Europe it has been going on for slightly longer, and data for at least 10 years has been obtained! As I said before, bee colony mortality rates in Europe, compared to the USA, are lower. COLOSS analyses bee colony mortality in winter, while in America data is collected for both winter and summer periods. In Europe, bee colonies die most frequently in winter, and the causes for this are various. Winter is the most difficult time for a bee and a bee colony; these difficulties can combine, and several negative factors affecting the bee can exist. Data from the 2017-2018 winter in Europe showed that about 16% of colonies had perished, which is a relatively high rate. But, as I mentioned, here we have a combination of several circumstances (unfavourable factors) and – if we talk about the chemicals used – it must be understood how significant pesticides specifically are. No one can give the exact figures for the impact of pesticides; it is known that they affect bees negatively and compound with other negative factors!

Experience shows that we see fewer bees. But! In an urban environment, there is an immediate answer – for example – two or three neighbours who kept bees in the 80s and 90s no longer do so!

Bees are called commercial insects, and they are very often 'used' as an indicator of what is happening in the environment because, to a certain extent, humans 'look after' bees. In Latvia, the average bee colony mortality over seven years is 15%: that is quite a lot! We have about 100,000 bee colonies; if about 15,000 perish... One cannot say that is very many, nor can one say it is few! The situation is cause for caution! What is happening? Beekeepers replenish the colonies – it is summer, the colony recovers! If we look only at the statistics, the number of bee colonies does not change! But – humans are constantly artificially replenishing (reproducing) them. With wild bees, bumblebees and wild pollinators, the situation is different, because there is no one to replenish these colonies or populations, or working towards that goal!

By the way, in a recent study on three chemical seed treatments, it was clearly understood that their negative impact on wild pollinators is greater than on honey bees! A study in Sweden concluded that certain chemical substances affect wild bees and bumblebees, and they are no longer able to reproduce. If a species cannot reproduce, then… there are no questions… As I said, the honey bee is an indicator of what is also happening to wild pollinators, which are studied relatively less.

Pesticides and their use have been discussed for 20 years. Can they be 'cancelled' or replaced? As is known, in any type of agriculture, there are protection agents. How to be? What to do?

One must look at the European Union's common policy, which is 'moving' towards reducing the use of pesticides. Latvia's situation is interesting: in 20 years, the Latvian agricultural system has changed significantly and become intensified. That has also changed my work as a beekeeper and my production process. The environment in the mid-to-late 90s is very different from today. The volume of pesticide use has increased significantly in the last 5-6 years: about 1600-1700 tonnes of active substance per year! The EU's common policy is to reduce, but for us, it has gone the opposite way! There is, of course, an explanation for this – after the restoration of independence in the early 90s, there was a certain decline in agriculture, which slowly turned into a boom.

Is the use of pesticides applicable to all agriculture, or only specific crops?

It largely applies to the intensive agricultural sector: crop farming and grain production, and rapeseed cultivation. These crops are grown intensively, and there is no way without the use of plant protection products! If we look at the use of plant protection products, the situation in Latvia can be improved! Definitely! Our stance as beekeepers (we are, for the most part, graduates of the LLU Faculty of Agronomy): surely farmers will not be able to do without agricultural chemicals entirely, but the system must be improved!

For example, we talk a lot about the integrated agricultural system, which was introduced five years ago, and there has been enough time for its real implementation in practice. At the moment, it looks like the system 'works at the government level' – in theory, but practically the situation is different. It can be seen! An integrated system means: plant protection products are used only in cases of extreme necessity. Therefore: the farmer carefully monitors their fields and only in cases where critical thresholds have been exceeded do they use plant protection products. In practice, that does not always happen!

So it is about a flexible approach, monitoring and thinking. If it is not needed – we do not use it!

Exactly! The integrated system is like a 'transition' between organic and intensive agriculture. A person (farmer, crop grower, user of plant protection products) decides – I will use it because I must save the harvest! At the same time, they act so that the negative impact on the environment is minimised as much as possible! For example, an incident in the spring, when flowering rapeseed was sprayed during the day. It was a fungicide which, from the point of view of the state administration (State Plant Protection Service), 'counts' as permitted. From the point of view of the integrated agriculture system, the crop grower had an alternative: spraying could have been done in the evening hours, when bees are no longer flying. It is clear that during the day the field was full of pollinators, which, unfortunately, received the active substance!

If one needs to spray, where is the problem in doing it in the evenings or at night?

During a meeting with State Plant Protection Service employees, we discussed this and mentioned the argument included in the question. The answer was: the agricultural sector will not switch to working during night hours! For night work, an employee must be paid more than during the day!

Bees stop flying around 8-9 pm, and that would be the time to start. Using plant protection products during the day is the personal decision of the crop grower, which provides a personal benefit to them alone but causes a certain amount of harm to the environment, bees, beekeepers and a portion of society.

There is a possibility for an employee not to work during the day, but to operate at a specific time for a few hours in the early evening.

There is another thing here – agriculture is largely maintained by society, which subsidises it in various ways through different support mechanisms. This subsidy money is not mystical – it is tax money that society, in various ways, transfers to crop growers so that they work in accordance with the interests and established requirements of society. I think we have the right to ask why this is not being followed!

Speaking about large farms, in many of them, plant protection products are used by following a scheme. The scheme envisages that spraying happens! I assume buying chemicals and spraying them is cheaper than monitoring.

There is probably an alternative to plant protection products…

I would not be an expert; one needs to consult with crop farming specialists here!

For example, glyphosate (a broad-spectrum herbicide), which can be used at any time in spring-summer. Glyphosate does not fit the integrated system, as that requires the use of a protection agent only by restricting that specific pest, weed or species whose spread exceeds a critical threshold! Glyphosate 'finishes off' everything green! So…

It should be mentioned that in Europe, there is much debate about the necessity of using glyphosate. The EU allowed its use for only five years (the permit expires in 2022). For example, in Belgium and France, they are talking about a complete ban on glyphosate. Views in Europe are quite different!

Is the environmental situation in France and Belgium worse?

It is! The volume of chemical use there is substantial!

An important thing: people who have enough for their livelihood often participate in environmental discussions. Decisions – to ban or not to ban – are made cautiously because – at least in Latvia there are quite a lot of people (by the way – voters), for whom small or medium price fluctuations will be very noticeable! That would be an important reason for the caution of political decision-makers!

Of course! The question is: can we fully transition to organic farming? It would be good, but hardly… However, speaking about the integrated system, it would be good if it were put into practice! Moreover, practically! It is an alternative! …that allows the use of plant protection products only in situations of extreme necessity! That is the most important thing! At the moment, that is not happening! State administration institutions can talk as they wish, but it is known that protection agents are also used prophylactically! In the integrated system, nothing happens prophylactically, and that should have been the case for five years already. Unfortunately, it is not!

Returning to what was mentioned before: is 'buying chemicals' and using them truly cheaper than monitoring – whether they need to be used…

I have not calculated it precisely! Chemicals are not cheap. It is known that monitoring (supervision) is also expensive! Furthermore, it requires a high-level professional who is well-versed in plant diseases and pests, understands their spread, and is able to decide and evaluate – what to do! An unanswered question: what is cheaper? It seems it is cheaper to purchase canisters and spray than to hire a top-class agronomist. One must also talk about the workload, because in large farms – 1000 or 2000 ha – the agronomist must be able to inspect all the fields and be knowledgeable about everything. The essence of the integrated system – the decision – whether needed or not – arises in the field! If there are many fields, the areas are large, there could be problems.

Here one could draw parallels with spruce forests and bark beetles, which regularly need to be 'looked after', because large problems! can form

Yes, indeed! For example, if the population of some agricultural pest is low at a certain moment, and the agronomist is familiar with meteorological forecasts that do not show favourable conditions for the pest to multiply, one should not spray. The critical threshold of the pest must be evaluated; if it has been reached, then spraying work with plant protection products must be carried out. A professional person's far-sighted assessment.

Agricultural chemistry is one circumstance affecting natural pollinators. What else? The climate is becoming warmer. For example, the ptarmigan is 'moving' northwards…

The climate is changing, the flora and diversity are changing. The environment is changing, the food base is changing. Plant diversity is very important to bees; it is known from studies that a monotonous diet creates problems for bees. Here, of course, I am talking about monocultures! Large monoculture fields, for example in spring when winter rapeseed is blooming, make it difficult for bees to find anything else! One must think about not depleting the environment. By the way, speaking about plant protection products, bees come into contact with active substances, they are carried to nests and hives, where the microflora changes! For a bee, just like for a human, when the microflora changes, the immune system changes!

It is known that in private homes, people often mow the grass later, because clover that is full of bees is blooming in the yard. Saying, let us wait for a day!

That is very good! I have been to Copenhagen, to a beekeeping farm that only deals with beekeeping in the city (urban beekeeping). Their motto: to work with people in the city and demonstrate how nature can be preserved in the city. There they talk about plants in gardens, bees in cities, etc. Since the human movement towards urban environments will only intensify, it is important that in the city, people do not distance themselves from nature and understand it. The link must be maintained!

Speaking about similar activities in Riga: beehives on the roof of the Riga Latvian Society House, on the roof of the Dailes Theatre, on the roof of the Television building. Beekeeping in Riga is also present elsewhere! As far as is known, the honey obtained in an urban environment is of high enough quality to be consumed!

Photographs by Valters Brusbārdis and zemeunvalsts.lv used. Thanks to Ilze Vainovska for her advice in the preparation of this interview!