From: Pywell, Richard F. Sent: 19 June 2013 11:50 To: @syngenta.com; @syngenta.com Cc: ; Bullock, James M. Subject: RE: Landscape study and bee health - CEH comments and costs Dear , Below are some comments on the proposed NNI landscape-scale study and an indication of our costs. 1. Overall impression A very timely study with a strong scientific basis. We agree this should be undertaken by five independent research organisations across Europe as this adds power to the study. CEH would be very keen to be involved in this. A minor comment on the presentation. Would be best to make the project outcomes (slide 2) more objective, i.e. don’t say ‘Demonstrate NNIs have no impacts on bees…’ say something like ‘Measure/quantify the effects of NNIs on wild bees and honeybees in real farming situations etc…’ 2. Project management One of the five partner countries needs to take on an overall leadership and co-ordination role to ensure consistency of design and data collection. It would also be worth involving a qualified statistician in the design to add validity. 3. Experimental design You may not need a fully factorial design to answer your research questions (i.e. all combinations of +/- NNI with +/- BMP). The following might suffice and importantly would allow more replication (within each country): a) -NNI with -BMP (current situation with the EU ban) b) +NNI with -BMP (previous situation before the ban) c) +NNI with +BMP (research treatment) Comparison of a) with b) will tell you what effect NNI has Comparison of b) with c) will tell you if you can mitigate the effects of NNI (if there are any) A treatment of –NNI with +BMP is telling you about mitigation without NNIs so might not be needed. We would recommend some limited replication of these treatments within each country (such that each country could report separately if required and to provide a margin for loss of sites etc). Five replicates of the three treatments per country would seem reasonable. (Total 15 sites/plots per country) Each treatment ‘plot’ should comprise a radius of 1 km of arable land containing a high proportion of oilseed rape to which the treatment is applied. This size is a compromise between mean foraging range of pollinators and cost/practical ability to apply good quality BMP to large areas of farmland. There should be separation between treatment plots such that bees cannot fly between them (say 5km). Blocking of the treatment plots should be by region/landscape to take account of landscape structure etc. It is recommended that the structure / composition of each landscape is quantified using earth observation data at the design stage. CEH could undertake this using the approaches developed for the UK oilseed rape study. 4. Response variables (standard measures across countries) Pollinators – aim to cover response of all major pollinator groups: Honeybee colony health/productivity etc. CEH would need to go into partnership with FERA in the UK as they are the experts in this. Bombus terrestris commercially produced colonies (large number per site as response is variable) – productivity, reproductives etc Osmia rufa commercially produced / or country-specific solitary bees e.g. consider using Andreana sp. For the UK currently cultured by ? Secondary measures – abundance counts, traps nests for solitary bees etc 5. Practical issues Ironically we think the European ban on NNIs makes this project more feasible because we are asking selected farmers to use NNI which will benefit their yield (as opposed to the pre-Ban situation where we would ask some farmers to not use NNI at a major cost to their yield). Syngenta should consider supplying all the seed to each farmer as this will ensure a consistent variety of OSR is grown in each country. It will also encourage the no NNI farmers to join the project. BMP should be a similar concept for each country but may need to be tweaked. Operation Pollinator is a good starting point. Syngenta should consider supplying the seed for this. It is important to ensure all the BMP measures (either habitat or honeybee husbandry) are done to a consistently high standard. This would mean advice and visits to the participating farms and should be costed in. In the UK we would use Wildlife Farming Company to do this as a subcontractor. 6. Costs If CEH were to take on the lead for this project it would require a senior scientist full time (in addition to the time of the field teams, CEH statistician, FERA subcontract, WFC subcontract etc). A ball park estimate for this would be in the region of total for the 3 years. This is a very exciting project and I would be happy to discuss further with you both Best wishes Richard From: @syngenta.com [mailto: @syngenta.com] Sent: 17 June 2013 15:17 To: Pywell, Richard F.; @syngenta.com Subject: Fw: Landscape study and bee health 5.pptx Fyi From: To: Sent: Mon Jun 17 12:58:46 2013 Subject: Landscape study and bee health 5.pptx , Here are a few thoughts, mainly to confirm alignment with your points. We are planning to have a combination of a scientific study with a wider demonstration initiative. This provides a platform to interact with national institutes and supports communication of scientific data to a wider (non- scientific) community, in a credible way. While the statistical robustness is critical for the design of the study and the acceptability of data, this doesn’t imply a regulatory study. Having on board some local institutes should support a direct dialogue with the Commission and EFSA and a blessing on the methodology. We are planning just one single crop, as this would be a great simplification. We may need to check this with the local institutes. Also, other companies will be made aware of the project and have the possibility to join, if interested. CRO capacity, and costs are the real issues. We are waiting for news from our procurement that is currently understanding the availability of few CROs for the demonstration part. I will continue to keep you updated and ask your advice. Best regards, Syngenta UK Limited, Registered in England No 00849037 Registered Office : CPC 4, Capital Park, Fulbourn, Cambridge, CB21 5XE, United Kingdom This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the designated recipient, please notify the sender immediately, and delete the original and any copies. Any use of the message by you is prohibited. From: @syngenta.com Sent: 19 June 2013 12:13 To: Pywell, Richard F.; @syngenta.com Cc: Bullock, James M. Subject: Re: Landscape study and bee health - CEH comments and costs Dear Richard, Thank you for this comprehensive answer. I have a review with out top management tonight. I expect to be able to come back to you soon, with some comments. Best regards, From: Pywell, Richard F. <[email protected]> To: Cc: @ceh.ac.uk>; Bullock, James M. <[email protected]> Sent: Wed Jun 19 12:50:10 2013 Subject: RE: Landscape study and bee health - CEH comments and costs Dear Below are some comments on the proposed NNI landscape-scale study and an indication of our costs. 1. Overall impression A very timely study with a strong scientific basis. We agree this should be undertaken by five independent research organisations across Europe as this adds power to the study. CEH would be very keen to be involved in this. A minor comment on the presentation. Would be best to make the project outcomes (slide 2) more objective, i.e. don’t say ‘Demonstrate NNIs have no impacts on bees…’ say something like ‘Measure/quantify the effects of NNIs on wild bees and honeybees in real farming situations etc…’ 2. Project management One of the five partner countries needs to take on an overall leadership and co-ordination role to ensure consistency of design and data collection. It would also be worth involving a qualified statistician in the design to add validity. 3. Experimental design You may not need a fully factorial design to answer your research questions (i.e. all combinations of +/- NNI with +/- BMP). The following might suffice and importantly would allow more replication (within each country): a) -NNI with -BMP (current situation with the EU ban) b) +NNI with -BMP (previous situation before the ban) c) +NNI with +BMP (research treatment) Comparison of a) with b) will tell you what effect NNI has Comparison of b) with c) will tell you if you can mitigate the effects of NNI (if there are any) A treatment of –NNI with +BMP is telling you about mitigation without NNIs so might not be needed. We would recommend some limited replication of these treatments within each country (such that each country could report separately if required and to provide a margin for loss of sites etc). Five replicates of the three treatments per country would seem reasonable. (Total 15 sites/plots per country) Each treatment ‘plot’ should comprise a radius of 1 km of arable land containing a high proportion of oilseed rape to which the treatment is applied. This size is a compromise between mean foraging range of pollinators and cost/practical ability to apply good quality BMP to large areas of farmland. There should be separation between treatment plots such that bees cannot fly between them (say 5km). Blocking of the treatment plots should be by region/landscape to take account of landscape structure etc. It is recommended that the structure / composition of each landscape is quantified using earth observation data at the design stage. CEH could undertake this using the approaches developed for the UK oilseed rape study.