Abstract
Over the centuries, man has been closely dependent on pollinators, whilst barely noticing them. It has taken their decline under man’s influence for us to better understand their benefits and envisage what their disappearance could cost us. It is in economic terms that the issue has been addressed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, as it was addressed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): they have highlighted the importance of “pollination services” and at the same time raised the problem of the payment of such services and the cost of maintaining them. In this case, the service is considered in mutualistic terms, the environmental service that man provides for pollinators, in order to ensure the eco-systemic service of certain pollinators for man. This necessary association with the “labor” of pollinators, once again calls into question the relationships between man and insects and obliges us to develop new legal instruments in order to manage them and ensure the production of these services. These means are mostly conventional: pollination agreements consequently allow bees to be assigned to the pollination of orchards and other crops in exchange for service remuneration. However, these agreements question the legitimacy of payment, just as they question ownership of the service by the beekeepers seeking payment for the service provided by their bees, vital for plant production, while this service remains uncertain and difficult to control. Moreover, a price is omitted from these contracts: the price which is “borne” by the pollinators made available, undermined by transhumance, not to mention the potential risks to biodiversity. “Protection” agreements complement “exploitation” agreements in order to ensure a coexistence between the human occupation of soils and pollinators, in the form of “floral fallow” or “late mowing”, or even “biodiversity” agreements, for the purpose of compensating the crop losses linked to the lack of or reduction in pesticide treatments on plants during the pollination period in order to avoid killing bees. The man-pollinator co-existence consequently organized must not be misleading however: it betrays the fact that the economy is firmly appropriating nature, an ownership which obliges us to place a value on a function which until now, has always been free of charge. It does however permit us to find a pretext to protect it.
In memory of Jacques Weber, A tireless communicator.
To our fruitful exchange of views
Interrupted all too soon
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“Wild pollinators have declined in occurrence and diversity (and abundance for certain species) at local and regional scales in North West Europe and North America. Although a lack of wild pollinator data (species identity, distribution and abundance) for Latin America, Africa, Asia and Oceania preclude any general statement on their regional status, local declines have been recorded. Long-term international or national monitoring of both pollinators and pollination is urgently required to provide information on status and trends for most species and most parts of the world” (IPBES 2016).
- 2.
Known under the name of IPI (International Pollinator Initiative) (decision V/5, section II). http://www.internationalpollinatorsinitiative.org
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
http://pollinator.org/nappc/index.html (NAPPC: North American Pollinator Protection Campaign).
- 6.
- 7.
The hypothesis described here is that of the simple livestock lease agreement of articles 1804 and following of the Civil Code, “contract by which we give to another cattle to keep, feed and take care of, provided that the leasee will benefit from half of any increases, and that he will also bear half of any losses”.
- 8.
V. infra.
- 9.
Carbohydrate intake by nectar and protein, lipid and vitamin intake, mainly by pollen.
- 10.
C. civ., art. 546.
- 11.
“Wintering in Florida to move on to California for almond trees and then to Oregon for fruit trees (apple, pear, cherry,...); then transhumance for small fruit such as blackberries, blueberries, strawberries, and then the production of vegetable seeds (carrots, onions, cabbage), leguminous plants (clovers...); finally, they go down south for wintering”.
- 12.
According to the pollination contract model made available to beekeepers by the Regional Directorate of Quebec Capital of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of Quebec (Revised Version of April 2016).
- 13.
“For tax purposes, this pollination activity can be regarded as exercised within the framework of a beekeeping operation. It is therefore accepted that the revenues derived from this activity should be taxed in the category of agricultural profits [CGI, art. 63, al. 3], the same way as other products from beekeeping” (Bull. officiel des impôts – BA-Champ 10-10-10-20140306 du 3 mars 2014. The site “Bulletin Officiel des Finances Publiques-Impôts” (BOFiP-taxes) brings together, in a single and consolidated database, the set of comments concerning tax legislation published by the Office of the General Directorate of Public Finance).
- 14.
Society that promotes the Bee “as a pollination agent”.
- 15.
We will use the term “labor” concerning the bees’ production activity in reference and equivalence to article L.211-10 of the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code that uses this term to refer to silkworms’ activity: “production animals” like bees, they “cannot be seized during their work”.
- 16.
European Parliament resolution of November 15, 2011 on honeybee health and the challenges of the beekeeping sector (2011/2108(INI)).
- 17.
V. supra.
- 18.
Council Regulation (EC) n° 1234/2007 of October 22, 2007 establishing a common organization of agricultural markets and specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation): OJEU n° L 299, 16 nov. 2007, p. 1. The latter rationalizes the common organizations of the previous market each covering different products or groups of products on the basis of a basic regulation proper thereto, and in particular the Council Regulation (EC) No 797/2004 of April 26, 2004 on measures improving general conditions for the production and marketing of apiculture products (EUYO No. L. 125, 28 April 2004, p.1).
- 19.
The measures financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) are excluded from the apiculture program: In conformity with the Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of September 20, 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJEU No. L. 277, 21 oct. 2005, p. 1), a same action may not be the subject of a payment under the framework of the apiculture program, and under the framework of another Community aid regime at the same time. This solution has been confirmed by Regulation (EU) n° 1305/2013 of December 17, 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) n° 1698/2005 (OJEU n° L. 347, 20 déc 2013, p. 487). As indicated in the decision of the Director General of France Agri-Mer of September 13, 2013, with regard to the implementation of the French three-year bee program 2014/2016 “The Community funding allocated to each Member State is determined on the basis of its relative share in the community bee census. In France, this proportion is fixed at 10.42% which generates 3.52 million euros per year the Community co-financing for 7.05 million euros of planned spending in the French program” (v. also D. No. 2013-820 of 12 seven. 2013 related to the national aid program of the beekeeping sector for the 2014 to 2016 receipts: JO 14 sept. 2013, p. 15485).
- 20.
The Council Directive of July 22, 1974 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to honey (OJEC No. L. 221, 12 August 1974, p. 10) is only interested in honey, without worrying about the conditions of its production. The following guidelines are heading the same direction (Council Directive N° 2001/110/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to honey: OJEU n° L. 10, 12 January 2002, p. 47 and Council Directive n° 2014/63/EU of 15 May 2014: OJEU n° L. 164, 3 June 2014, p. 1).
- 21.
Report from the Commission on the implementation of the measures concerning the apiculture sector of Council Regulation (EC) n° 1234/2007 (COM/2013/0593 final).
- 22.
Council Regulation (EEC) n° 2078/92 of June 30, 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside: OJEC n° L 215, July 30, 1992, p. 85. This regulation was repealed by Council Regulation (EEC) n° 1257/1999 of May 17, 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations: OJEC n° L.160, 26 June 1999, p. 80.
- 23.
For each DDT or DDTM, v. “Notice of information Amelioration of the pollinator potential of honeybees for the preservation of the biodiversity (API). Campaign 2015”.
- 24.
V. Instruction DGPE/SDPAC/2015-1070 of December 10, 2015 concerning the Technical Statement 2015 Agri-environmental and Climate measures (AECM) and subsidies for biological agriculture, p. 52 s.
- 25.
Amended order of August 11, 1980 concerning the health mechanisms to combat disease among bees: JONC 1st oct. 1980, p. 8684.
- 26.
Ruling December 9, 1997 concerning the execution of federal legislation epizootic diseases and the elimination of animal by-products, art. 27 (Canton of Jura – Switzerland).
- 27.
Ontario (Canada), Bees Act, RSO 1990, c. B.6, art. 12.
- 28.
European Parliament resolution of November 25, 2010 on the situation in the beekeeping sector (P7_TA(2010)0440).
- 29.
Regulation (EU) n° 1307/2013 of December 17, 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy: OJEU n° L 347, 20 Dec. 2013, p. 60.
- 30.
Regulation (EU) n° 1307/2013 of Dec. 17, 2013, appendix IX.
- 31.
“Parallel”, and not necessarily “complementary” as soon as farmers are not eligible to the actions listed in the framework of non-Agricultural – non-forestry. Natura 2000 contracts, and related to the maintenance of open environments by mowing: A mowed plot must be notified within the framework of the common agricultural policy and cannot therefore be the subject of a non-agricultural – non-forestry Natura 2000 contract. In addition, these actions are financed within the framework of the AECM (Instr. DGPAAT/SDDRC/C2012-3047 of April 27, 2012 relative to the contractual management of Natura 2000 sites largely terrestrials in application of articles R. 414-8 to 18 of the Environmental Code, § 3.1.2.2.2).
- 32.
OJEU n° L. 270 of oct. 21, 2003, p. 1.
- 33.
Rural and maritime fishing Code, art. D. 615-50-1; Ministerial order of July 13, 2010 related to rules of good agricultural and environmental conditions (GAEC): JO 17 July 2010, p. 13257, at last amended by Min. order of April 15, 2014 related to the eligibility of some surfaces: JO 20 of April 2014, p. 6974. See also technical instruction of June 3, 2014 with regard to surface payment for 1st pillar of CAP campaign 2014: for the floral fallow, 1 ha is declared equivalent to 1 ha of topographical elements while for the bee fallow, 1 ha is declared equivalent to 2 ha of topographical elements.
- 34.
For example, Order n° 164 DDAF of 25 April 2006, setting the rules related to the good functioning of agricultural and environmental lands, and the maintenance of fallows of Côte d’Or departement.
- 35.
V. Regulation (EU) n° 1107/2009 of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market: OJEU n° L 309, 24 Nov. 2009, p. 1.
- 36.
Order of 8 November 1999 on aid granted to holders of territorial farming contracts by the financing fund of territorial operating contracts, art. 3: JO 9 Nov. 1999, p. 16684.
- 37.
Order of October 30, 2003 related to the aid granted to holders of contracts for sustainable agriculture, art. 2: JO 7 Nov. 2003, p. 19043.
References
Abrol D-P (2011) Pollination biology: biodiversity conservation and agricultural production. Springer, New York, pp 25–26
Agricorp (2016) Fruit crops insuring agreement – part. III, (ed: Agricrop). Ontario
Angel M (1998) La nature a-t-elle un prix? Critique de l’évaluation monétaire des biens environnementaux. Les Presses de l’Ecole des mines de, Paris
Bastide P (1993) Production of cocoa hybrid seeds in the Cote-d’Ivoire. Various hand pollination trials. Cafe Cacao The. 37(4):295–302, annexe
Beaunier S (1806) Traité-pratique sur l’éducation des abeilles. Vendôme, p 18
Braat L, Ten Brink P (eds) (2008) The cost of policy inaction, the case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. Alterra, Bruxelles/Wageningen
Brittain Cl and co (2013) Synergistic effects of non-Apis bees and honey bees for pollination services. Proc R Soc B 280:20122767
Bruneau E, Burget M (2008) Le dépérissement en Europe et aux Etats-Unis, des approches différentes. Abeilles et Cie 127:25
Chagnon M (2008) Causes et effets du déclin mondial des pollinisateurs et les moyens d’y remédier, Fédération canadienne de la faune (publisher). Bureau régional du Québec, Québec, p 5 s
Chevassus-au-Louis B (dir.) (2009) Approche économique de la biodiversité et des services liés aux écosystèmes. La documentation française, Paris p 237 s
Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America (2007) Status of pollinators in North America, Board on Life Sciences, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Darwin C (1862) On the various contrivances by which British and foreign orchids are fertilised by insects, and on the good effects of intercrossing, 2nd edn. William Clowes and sons Limited, Londres. p 267
Decourtye A. and co (2007) Introduction de jachères florales en zones de grandes cultures: comment mieux concilier agriculture, biodiversité et apiculture? Courrier de l’environnement de l’INRA 54:33
Deffairi M (2015) La patrimonialisation en droit de l’environnement. IRJS Editions, Paris, T 61
Deguines N. and co (2014) Large-scale trade-off between agricultural intensification and crop pollination services. Front Ecol Environ. https://doi.org/10.1890/130054
Downing J (2007) On achève bien les abeilles. Le Courrier International n○ 851, Paris
European Court of Auditors (2008) “Is cross compliance an effective policy?”, report 8/2008, p 25
European Food Safety Authority (2013) EFSA guidance document on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). FSA J 11(7):3295, 268 p
Fanica PO (2006) Un exemple d’apiculture transhumante: le gâtinais, in P.-Y. Laffont (dir.), Transhumance et estivage en Occident. Des origines aux enjeux actuels, PU du Mirail, coll. Flaran, p 327 s
Farrar CL (1929) Bees & apple pollination. Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service, Amherst
Farrar CL (1947) More honey from bees, Yearbook of agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, p 680
Fournial E (1976) Les investissements urbains dans l’élevage: les baux à cheptel dans le Forez médiéval. Etudes foréziennes VIII:39
Gadar C-H (an VIII), Le nouveau Ferrière, ou Dictionnaire de droit et de pratique, Paris, T. 1, rubr. “Abeilles”, p 6
Gadoum S. and co (2007) Jachères apicoles et jachères fleuries: la biodiversité au menu de quelles abeilles? Courrier de l’environnement de l’INRA 54:57
Gallai N. and co. (2009) Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecol Econ 68(3):810 s
Gallai N, Vaissière BE (2009) Guidelines for the economic valuation of pollination services at a national scale. Pollination Services for Sustainable Agriculture, FAO, Rome
Gerster Fr (2012a) Plan de développement durable de l’apiculture, rapport CGAAER n° 11 174-01, p 22
Gerster Fr (2012b) Plan de développement durable de l’apiculture, rapport CGAAER n° 11 174-01, p 6
Government of Ireland (2008) The economic and social aspects of biodiversity. Benefits and costs of biodiversity in Ireland. Government of Ireland, Dublin, p 39 s
Guingand A. and co (2014) Les paiements pour préservation des services écosystémiques comme outil de conservation de la biodiversité. Cadres conceptuels et défis opérationnels pour l’action, Les cahiers de Biodiv’ 2050, févr 2014, p 2
Harissis V, Harissis AV (2009) Apiculture in the prehistoric Aegean. Minoan and Mycenaean symbols revisited. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford
Heidsieck H, Allier F (2013) Propositions pour une prise en compte des pollinisateurs dans les politiques agricoles nationales et européennes. ITSAP - Institut de l’Abeille, Cahier technique, Paris de
International Pollinators Initiative (1999) The Sao Paulo declaration on pollinators. Report on the recommendations of the workshop on the conservation and sustainable use of pollinators in agriculture with emphasis on bee
IPBES (2016) Summary for policymakers of the assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on pollinators, pollination and food production, p 3
Lemeunier G (2006) Aux origines de l’apiculture rationnelle: la transhumance des ruches (France et Espagne, V. 1750-V. 1850) in P.-Y. Laffont (dir.), Transhumance et estivage en Occident. Des origines aux enjeux actuels, PU du Mirail, coll. Flaran, p 263 s
MacGregor S-E (1976) Insect pollination of cultivated crop plants, agriculture handbook 496. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Washington
Maris V (2014) Nature à vendre. Les limites des services écosystémiques (ed: Versailles Q)
Mayrand K, Paquin M (2014) Le paiement pour les services environnementaux: Etude et évaluation des systèmes actuels, Unisféra International Centre, Montréal sept., p ii
MEDDTL (Ministère de l’écologie, du développement durable, des transports et du logement) (2009) Evaluation des services rendus par les écosystèmes en France: Etude exploratoire. Synthése, éd. MEDDTL, Paris
Michallet I (2013) L’existence des insectes pollinisateurs dans le droit, in V. Gratpain et I. Michallet, Protection des organismes pollinisateurs et des populations face aux incidences sanitaires et écologiques, Rapport EnvitéRA, p 84 s
Morse RA, Flottum K (eds) (1998) Honey bee pests, predators, and diseases, 3rd edn. Wicwas Press, Cheshire
Ost F (2003) La nature hors la loi. L’écologie à l’épreuve du droit, éd. La découverte, p 325
Parliament of Canada (2014) Proceedings of the standing senate committee on agriculture and forestry, Issue 8 – Evidence – Meeting of April 3, 2014
Pliny, Natural History, with an english translation in ten volumes, by H. Rackham, London, William Heineman Ltd, 1960, L. XVI, Chp. XXXIX-XL p 449
Prétot X (2011) L’essaim infidèle, le maître des ruches et le seigneur justicier. La propriété des abeilles dans l’ancien droit. Revue semestrielle de droit animalier 2:247 s
Pundyk G (2010) The honey trail. In pursuit of liquid gold and vanishing bees. St. Martin’s Press – Macmillan Publishers, New-York
Ransome HM (1937) The sacred bee in ancient times and folklore. George Allen & Unwin, London
Ruhl J-B et al (2007) The law and policy of ecosystem services. Island, Washington DC
Saddier M (2008) Pour une filière apicole durable. Les abeilles et les pollinisateurs sauvages, Rapport au Premier ministre, 64 p
Sagili RR, Burgett DM (2011) Evaluating honey bee colonies for pollination: a guide for commercial growers and beekeepers. Pacific Northwest Extension Publication, Oregon State University, Corvallis
Sébillotte M. and co. (1993) La jachère et ses fonctions agronomiques, économiques et environnementales. Diagnostic actuel. Le Courrier de l’Environnement de l’INRA 20:11–22
Skinner JA (n.d.) Making a pollination contract, The University of Tennessee, Agricultural Extension Service, BP1516
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) for Agriculture and Food (2014). Concept note, 27 febr 2014, p 10
UNEP (2010a) Emerging issues: global honey bee colony disorder and other threats to insect pollinators. UNEP, Nairobi
UNEP (2010b) Conservation and management of pollinators for sustainable agriculture, through an ecosystem approach. UNEP, Nairobi
United States Department of Agriculture (2013) Report on the National Stakeholders Conference on honey bee health
Washington State Department of Revenue (2013) Tax exemptions for honey beekeepers: special notice, 18 nov
Weber J (2012) Biodiversité et production de richesse, une érosion inéluctable, in J.-Fr. Toussaint et al. (dir.) L’homme peut-il s’adapter à lui-même?: Marges d’adaptation de l’espèce humaine face aux changements environnementaux, ed. Quae, p 150 s
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Billet, P. (2019). The Price of Coviability: Pollination at All Costs. Legal Approach to the New Relationship Between Man and Pollinators. In: Barrière, O., et al. Coviability of Social and Ecological Systems: Reconnecting Mankind to the Biosphere in an Era of Global Change. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78497-7_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78497-7_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78496-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78497-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)