Appearance stakeholders in national newspapers + frequency:
Category Stakeholders Frequency
B1 D1 H3 A1 C1 A3 B1 H2 G1 H1 E1 B1 E1 A4 Imkers
Nederlandse bevolking, consumenten
Bijenexperts & deskundigen (i.e. Arie Koster, Telegraaf) EU (Europees Parl., Europese Commissie, Europese Raad) Sector land- en tuinbouw
Minister van Landbouw, staatssecretaris Ministerie van Landbouw
Nederlandse Bijenhouders Vereniging (NBV) Nederlands Parlement/Overheid
Nederlands Centrum voor Bijenonderzoek Verenigde Naties
Wageningen Universiteit Blacquiere Bayer
Universiteit Utrecht (Van der Sluijs, Tennekes) NGO‘s, milieuorganisaties
(Stop de Bijensterfte, Entomologische Vereniging) Imkerverenigingen
Bijenstichting
College van Toelating Gewasbeschermingsmiddelen (CTGB) FAO
IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIIII III IIIII II IIIII II II IIIII II IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII III III III IIII III II II I
Possible dead causes mentioned Frequency
Landbouwgif, pesticiden, insectieciden Specified: Neonicotinoide Varroa
Gebrek biodiversiteit
Nosema cerenae (parasite)/Parasieten Virussen, bacterien en schimmels Verstedelijking , Globalisering
Slecht kastonderhoud, verwaarloosde bijen Mobiele telefonie, zendmasten
Klimaatverandering Vervuild voedsel
IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII I IIIII IIII
IIIII IIIII IIII IIIII II IIIII I IIIII IIII IIII III III I
Appearance stakeholders in local newspapers + frequence C1 H1 A3 H2 H3 E1 D1 E1 A1 B1 H3 B1 G1 A4 C1
Imkers (opvallend: Kruidenberg, NH-dagblad) Sector land- en tuinbouw
Universiteit Utrecht (Van der Sluijs, Tennekes) Provincie & gemeenten
Minister van Landbouw, staatssecretaris Ministerie van Landbouw
Nederlands Parlement/Overheid(NH-dagblad) Wageningen Universiteit
Blacquiere
Wetenschappers (Algemeen, Gelderlander) NGO‘s, milieuorganisaties
(Greenpeece, Milieufederatie, CLM, IUCN, EIS Nederland, IVN Nederland, KNNV) Nederlandse bevolking, consumenten
Politici (Gelderse pvv etc.) Bijenstichting
EU (Europees Parl., Europese Commissie, Europese Raad)
Imkerverenigingen
Bijenexperts & deskundigen(Frans Jacobs, Gelderlander)
Nederlandse Bijenhouders Vereniging (NBV) Bayer (Noordhollandsch dagblad)
Nederlands Centrum voor Bijenonderzoek
College van Toelating van
Gewasmiddelenbescherming
LTO Nederland (gelooft utrecht niet, gelderlander)
IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII
IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII II IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII III IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII I IIIII
IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIIII IIII
IIIII IIIII IIIII II IIIII IIIII IIIII II
IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII III IIIII IIIII III IIIII IIIII II IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIIII IIII IIIII IIII IIII
Possible deadcauses mentioned Frequency
Landbouwgif, pesticiden, insectieciden Specified: Neonicotinoïds
Varroa
Gebrek/verlies biodiversiteit
Nosema cerenae (parasite)/ Parasieten Virussen, bacterien, schimmels Klimaatverandering
Verstedelijking/EHS Mobiele telefonie Slecht kastonderhoud Vervuild voedsel
IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII
IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII III IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII III
IIIII IIIII II IIIII III IIIII II I I I
APPENDIX I I: Explanation of all stakeholder‘s position in the matrices
Stakeholder A2-A4: NL department EZ + I&M + Dutch government + CTGB
Influence (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Importance (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Causality (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Economic (--, -) / Ecological (+, ++) Level + +/- -- -- INFLUENCE
NL department of economic affairs (EZ) (A2) is responsible for economic activity in the Netherlands, including agriculture. EZ has a higher degree of influence than the NL department of infrastructure and environment (I&M) (A3) because the problem is covered by EZ (personal communication, Eickhout April 5th 2013). They have conflicting interests; EZ tends to favour agricultural activities whereas I&M has a focus on biodiversity, nature conservation and protection of the environment. Since perspectives on the problem of both stakeholders are based on the same research conducted by Wageningen University they both perceive the problem as ‗low causality‘. I&M however approaches a potential ban on NBP from an ecological perspective. The NL government + CTGB (A4) can be compared to the functioning of the EU + EFSA but then on a national scale. In this case, policy is formed by the NL government based on advice given by CTGB.
IMPORTANCE
Like the European Commission the Dutch government seeks to implement policy it has made. The responsibility for pesticide policies lies with the ministry of economic affairs and the ministry of infrastructure and environment. The ministry of economic affairs in the Netherlands stands for: ―an enterprising country with an eye for sustainability.‖ .This ministry is responsible for agricultural policy in the Netherlands which includes policies regarding pesticides. In making this policy it has to weigh various interests. The largest pesticide producer in the world; BayerCropscience has establishments in the Netherlands and accounts for a revenue of 414 million euro‘s. Furthermore, Bayer provides around 894 jobs (BayerCropscience, 2013), which is a substantial economic interest. Despite this economic interest, the secretary of state (Sharon Dijksma) has announced that she seeks to limit certain
applications of neonicotinoïd based pesticides because of the risk the use of them poses for honey bees. (Dijksma, 2013). The ministry itself does not directly have much to gain or lose from a prohibition on the use of neonicotinoïd based pesticides.
CAUSALITY
On February the 17th 2011 there a parliamentary debate was held in the Netherlands concerning an amendment in the enactment on insecticides and biocides (Wet gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, dating February 17th 2007; Overheid, 2013). This happened chronologically succeeding the Zembla documentary (De Moord op de Honingbij II, 2011).The parliament (Tweede Kamer) requested the government (Regering) a reassessment on neonicotinoid based pesticides, formulated in a motion as following: ―de reeds toegelaten bestrijdingsmiddelen die behoren tot de klasse neonicotinoïden opnieuw te toetsen op de effecten op de gezondheid van bijen, en hierbij ook expliciet eventuele sublethale effecten mee te nemen‖ (CTGB, 2011). The Dutch authority on assessing insecticides and biocides (the CTGB) conducted this reassessment, of which they have written an extensive report (2011). Neonicotinoid based pesticides and its relation to bee mortality as described by various scientists, is mentioned in the report. However, the CTGB concludes that is cannot be stated that neonicotinoid based pesticides significantly contribute to the deterioration of bee colonies in the Netherlands, based on an analysis of the currently available open source scientific literature (2011, p.29). The CTGB refers to the UNEP (2010) report, where bee mortality and a causal relation with the pesticides is not assumed as scientifically proven. It was very interesting to note that during the Buzzing Toxicity symposium the CTGB representative could not give an answer when a student asked why solely scientific research from the EFSA and Wageningen University where used. Concluding, CTGB, thus Dutch government, have up until 2013 framed the policy problem with a low causality (--).
ECONOMIC/ ECOLOGICAL
Different from the EU, the agricultural interests play major roles on national scale. In the newspapers it is stated that The Netherlands is leader in the use of pesticides and moreover, economic interests surpass the need for policy regarding plant protection products
the CTGB, the Dutch version of the EFSA and independent advisor of the Dutch government. Representing the CTGB at the ―Buzzing Toxicity‖ symposium, Jacoba Wassenberg (2013) explained that risk assessment in principle is the same throughout the Union, but with nationally specific features. One of these features in The Netherlands is that the sources where the CTGB bases their policy recommendation on are not public available (personal communication, Bas Eickhout, April 5th 2013). Since the organisation is autonomous, it is imaginable that industries pay the CTGB in order to influence policy formation processes. Although this cannot be proven by open source literature, the short term framing of this stakeholder is obvious, which fits within economic (--).
Stakeholder B1: Beekeepers Influence (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Importance (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Causality (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Economic (--, -) / Ecological (+, ++) Level +/- + + + INFLUENCE
Bee keepers themselves do not play a decisive role in the policy formation process. To a larger extend they fulfill the role of raising awareness. However, since they are well united in the Dutch bee keeper association (NBV) they form a stakeholder witch is taken into account. The influence of bee keepers and their association can therefore be categorized as moderate.
IMPORTANCE
The mission of the NBV is: ―to create optimal conditions for beekeepers so that they can keep bees in a professional manner‖ (NBV 2013). The NBV serves as an interest group for beekeepers in the Netherlands. The current position of the NBV on neonicotinoïds is that they advise the Dutch governments to put a moratorium on the use of neonicotinoïds due to the lack of scientific consensus on the harmfulness. If the pesticides are indeed harmful to bees the NBV has a large interest in this discussion. The beekeepers are the ones experiencing bee mortality so in that case a prohibition would be favorable to them.
CAUSALITY
Beekeepers do not agree on the topic of causality. At the symposium, several beekeepers indicated that it cannot be proved it is NBP‘s causing increased bee mortality. However, they do propose the precautionary principle to be taken into account. Hence, causality is indicated medium high (+).
ECONOMIC/ ECOLOGICAL:
Remarkably, among bee keepers there is also no consensus regarding bee mortality. Based on the newspaper analysis the majority of the bee keepers have ecological worries about the bee mortality rates (Appendix III: §B1). However, in the same newspapers sound noises from mainly industrial bee keepers who are concerned to lose benefits (Ibid.). Moreover, there are bee keepers who do not even recognize non-natural bee mortality (personal communication, Jan van de Waerdt, April 5th 2013). Typical is this case is the role of the NBV, the association representing a large group of bee keepers. In 2012 they again created awareness in Dutch politics, but to the surprise of members and NGO‘s without mentioning the relation between pesticides and bee mortality (Appendix III: §B1). Again it might be that different interests appear, without evidence due to a lack of open source information. Yet on the base of the open source information, the stakeholder is categorised as moderate ecological (+).
Stakeholder C1: LTO Influence (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Importance (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Causality (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Economic (--, -) / Ecological (+, ++) Level + ++ -- -- INFLUENCE
The farmers are well organized by an association too, but in contrast to the NBV the Dutch agricultural and horticultural organization has significant more political influence. The agricultural sector is an important economic industry causing that interest of farmers has a heavy weigh.
IMPORTANCE
LTO is an employers‘ organization that promotes a strong economic and social position of entrepreneurs in the agricultural sector (LTO, 2013). Around 50.000 agricultural entrepreneurs are member of LTO Netherlands; this makes it one of the most important representatives of Dutch farmers. Farmers are the ones using neonicotinoïd based pesticides. That is why they will be affected the most if a moratorium is accepted. If the use of these pesticides is prohibited the farmers will have to look for alternatives to protect their crops. It is expected that this will result in substantial losses of yield. Therefore, their interest is very large.
CAUSALITY
LTO has published a report which entails their vision on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), (LTO‘s Nederland view on agricultural and rural areas policy, 2013). Improving Dutch competitiveness is number one in this vision. Environmental risks of NBP‘s are not mentioned in the vision. This stakeholder thus frames the problem low causality (--).
ECONOMIC/ ECOLOGICAL
All the sources point in the direction of an economic framing of the farmers and growers. Not surprisingly since a lack of pollination is directly noticeable through their income, and thus short term welfare. Remarkable is the opinion of this stakeholder on pesticides, especially neonicotinoid based pesticides (NBP‘s). LTO, the organisation representing farmers and growers, does not see correlation between NBP and bee mortality (see section ‗correlation‘, Appendix III: §C1). This can be declared by the economic interest farmers have. The usage of treated seeds is very labour- and cost efficient. A moratorium on NBP‘s will simply mean: more effort for the same profit (Ritz Herald, 2013).
Stakeholder D1: Consumers, public Influence (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Importance (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Causality (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Economic (--, -) / Ecological (+, ++) Level - - +/- +/- INFLUENCE
The influence of consumers is determined as very low. Although some consumers raise concerns regarding bee mortality, their direct influence on policy formation regarding this problem is negligible. Possible cause is that consumers tend to lose or gain significant from a moratorium on NBP.
IMPORTANCE
Opinions within society regarding the use of these pesticides differ. The main interest of consumers is the availability of safe and affordable food. Consumers use neonicotinoïd based pesticides for gardening purposes. However, neonicotinoïd based pesticides are not the only option when combating unwanted insects. Therefore, the Dutch consumer does not have a substantial interest in this discussion. A prohibition on the use of NBP leaves them with enough other choices.
CAUSALITY
The group of consumers represent a very varied group. Consumers of course have a great interest in food security, on the long run this would implicate a high causality framing and proposing the precautionary principle to be taken into account. However, on short term, consumers want cheap and abundant food, with good quality; since NBP‘s are very cost- efficient food prices are kept low (HFFA, 2010) this would indicate that consumers frame low causality and propose a non-ban on NBP‘s. Concluding, since it is a very varied group, it is marked +/-.
ECONOMIC/ ECOLOGICAL
Telling anything about the framing of consumers is hard on the base of the studied sources. However, conclusions that can be drawn on the base of the newspaper analysis point
consumers are not likely to lose (monetary) value in case of a moratorium of NBP‘s. Due to a lack of conviction of this framing the stakeholder is categorised as +/-.
Stakeholder E1: NGO‘s; NL Bijenstichting, Beemonitoring.org, Avaaz.org, Greenpeace
Influence (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Importance (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Causality (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Economic (--, -) / Ecological (+, ++) Level + ++ ++ ++ INFLUENCE
As the problem definition phase of a problem reaches a certain level, it is picked up by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Their ability to raise public concerns makes it a stakeholder to take into account. It can be said that the lack of influence consumers have, is outweighed by NGOs.
IMPORTANCE
Different NGO‘s are specifically established to protect bees and improve living conditions of bees. The most important Dutch NGO is the ‗bijenstichting‘. Their goal is: ―...to inspire and help local organizations in developing bee-friendly initiatives.‖ (Bijenlint, 2013). There are also initiatives on an international scale; Greenpeace and avaaz.org both have started petitions which must lead to the prohibition of NBP. Because these projects of NGO‘s are specifically established to combat bee mortality and to advocate a moratorium on NBP, the interest of these NGO‘s is determined as very high.
CAUSALITY
It could be stated that NL bijenstichting wouldn‘t exists if they would not see any harm in NBP‘s. Avaaz‘ campaign as well as Greenpeace‘s campaign is built upon the belief that bee mortality is due to NBP‘s. Or, and that is very determinant in this matter; this stakeholder assumes a lack of data (a data gap) to determine whether NBP‘s are or are not responsible for increased bee mortality and thus proposes the precautionary principle to be put into action. In a letter to Sharon Dijksma (Economic Affairs) sent March 15 2013 by inter alia Greenpeace, Milieudefensie and NL Bijenstichting, is literally plead for a moratorium: ―Wij vragen u om op grond van het voorzorgsbeginsel een verbod in te stellen voor het
gebruik van, handel in en productie van alle neonicotinoïden voor alle teelten en alle toepassingen in Nederland, totdat duidelijk is dat er geen schadelijke effecten voor dier, mens en milieu zijn.‖ (Foodwatch, 2013).
ECONOMIC/ ECOLOGICAL
The Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) such as Greenpeace, ‗Bijenstichting‘ and ‗Milieufederatie‘ frame the problem of bee mortality as highly ecological. In the section ‗Correlation‘ it has been shown that they presume a high correlation between NBP‘s and bee mortality. This is underlined by the newspaper analysis. Furthermore, they assume a long term impact on biodiversity and ecosystems when the problem is not addressed (Appendix III: §E1). The classification in the group ecological ++ is obvious: the NGOs are all non-profit organisations hence they fear no short term (monetary) losses. They are purely focused on the long term benefits.
Stakeholder F1: Zembla Influence (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Importance (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Causality (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Economic (--, -) / Ecological (+, ++) Level + -/+ ++ ++ INFLUENCE
The influence of Zembla can be described as significant. By the broadcast of two documentaries, the discussion in Dutch government was established. The contribution of Zembla can thus be seen as a part of agenda setting.
IMPORTANCE
Their main interest of Zembla is researching developments in society. As stated on their website: ―Zembla wants to be controversial and make news, it tries to trigger something, put changes in motion.‖ (Zembla, 2013). In this sense Zembla has something to gain in this discussion. If a moratorium is set on NBP they can claim to have contributed to this change in policy. This interest is clearly not as direct as the interests of other stakeholders. F2,
CAUSALITY
The documentary is named: ―de moord op de honingbij‖, whereas the big question of the documentary can be captured as: ―who Killed the honeybee?‖. Zembla states very explicitly that bees are killed by NBP‘s and thus blames the pesticides industry in general and Bayer CropScience, producer number one worldwide in NBP‘s in particular. Hence, causality is identified at the highest score (++).
ECONOMIC/ ECOLOGICAL
As defined by themselves, Zembla is a television program which ―aims to inform a broad public with opinionated journalism‖ (Zembla, 2013). The documentary ―Moord op de Honingbij‖ (2011) is a critical representation of current relations between stakeholders. The documentary is focussed on the long term effect of bee mortality. They cannot ignore the role NBP‘s has in this problem and tried to identify the influence of industrial stakeholders. With the broadcast they raised awareness in the Dutch political system (Appendix III: §F1). However, Zembla might have underlying interests; therefore they are not categorised in the highest ecological framing group, but in the moderate ecological +.
Stakeholder F2 + F3: Newspapers Influence (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Importance (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Causality (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Economic (--, -) / Ecological (+, ++) Level +/- -- +/- +/- INFLUENCE
The national and local newspapers fulfill their task as news bringing actor. The absolute influence they have regarding the bee mortality problem is comparable with the influence Zembla has: it appears newspapers fulfill the same agenda setting task.
IMPORTANCE
The main interest of newspapers is to report interesting stories to reach a wide audience. They strive to be an independent and reliable source of information. Newspapers are not directly affected by a moratorium on NBP except for the fact that it could be the subject of an article.
CAUSALITY
Newspapers frame stakeholder‘s statements and (by selecting the topics, drawing attention upon certain issues etc.) hence frame the problem. Since they represent all sides of the debate (as content analysis has demonstrated) this stakeholder is framed +/-.
ECONOMIC/ ECOLOGICAL
National and local newspapers are just fulfilling their news bringing task. Since they do not reflect their articles with an opinion, it cannot be said whether this stakeholder frames the problem economic or ecological. The most obvious classification in this case is therefore ―neutral‖.
Stakeholder G1: Bayer Cropscience
Influence (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Importance (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Causality (--, -, +/-, +, ++) Economic (--, -) / Ecological (+, ++) Level + ++ -- -- INFLUENCE
Although hard to prove with open source data, from multiple sources can be extracted due to high monetary interests BayerCropscience strives for a high degree of influence. Given the lack policy regarding NBP in the years this product is available on the market, the influence of this stakeholder can be characterized as high.
IMPORTANCE
The pesticide industry is producing neonicotinoïd based pesticides that are the subject of this discussion. BayerCropscience and Syngenta are two of the largest producers of these insecticides. Bayer‘s total sales of insecticides equaled 1.290 million dollars in 2011 (Bayer, 2011) while Syngenta‘s total sales of insecticides equaled 1.841 million dollars in 2012 (Syngenta, 2012). It is estimated that in 2006, neonicotinoïds accounted for around 17% of the global insecticide market (Jeschke & Nauen, 2008). This shows that the pesticide industry has substantial financial interests in keeping their neonicotinoïd based products on the market. On the other hand, these companies also have an interest in keeping bee colonies
alive. Without bees there would be no pollination of crops and no sales of crop protectors. Therefore, the pesticide industry has great interests in this discussion.
CAUSALITY
The website of BayerCropscience has a distinct tab leading a special website entirely