Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52013DC0593

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the measures concerning the apiculture sector of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 /\* COM/2013/0593 final \*/**

  

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the
implementation of the measures concerning the apiculture sector of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007

1.           INTRODUCTION

Article 184 of Council Regulation (EC) No
1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on
specific provisions for certain agricultural products (single CMO Regulation)[1] states that a report is to be
submitted every three years to the European Parliament and the Council on the
implementation of the measures concerning the apiculture sector, as provided
for in Articles 105 and following of that Regulation.

This report meets that obligation, covering the
years 2009/2010, 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. They correspond to the last year of
the previous triennial apiculture programmes (2008-2010) and the first two
years of the current programme (2011-2013). This is the fifth report of the
Commission on the implementation of national apiculture programmes in the
Member States. The fourth report COM(2010)267 final[2] was adopted in May 2010 and
covered the previous three years of implementation of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1234/2007.

All Member States notified a national
apiculture programme in respect of the periods 2008-2010 and 2011-2013. This shows
the strong interest of Member States as well as the needs of European
apiculture, a small sector dominated by non-professional beekeepers that faces
serious challenges due in particular to bee colony losses, increased production
costs and cheap imports.

In 2012, the Commission asked for an external
evaluation of the measures for the apiculture sector. This report includes the main
outcomes of this evaluation.

2.           METHODOLOGY

This report is based on the following sources
of information:

–
The national apiculture programmes notified by
the 27 Member States to the Commission for the periods 2008-2010 and 2011-2013
as provided for under Article 105 of the single CMO Regulation and Article 1 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 917/2004[3]
on detailed rules to implement Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on measures
improving general conditions for the production and marketing of apiculture
products. National programmes include a study on the structure of the
apiculture sector as laid down by Articles 1 and 9 of Regulation (EC) No
917/2004.

–
The expenditures of the Member States relating
to the measures taken under the apiculture programmes as provided for under
Article 108 of the single CMO Regulation.

–
Data on honey production and international trade
extracted from EUROSTAT, COMEXT and FAO databases.

–
Contributions from Member States and the
European apiculture sector.

–
The study carried out by an external consultant
on the evaluation of measures for the apiculture sector[4].

Detailed figures and summary tables on the
honey market and on the apiculture programmes are available on the Commission
website[5].

3.           MARKET SITUATION OF THE
APICULTURE SECTOR

3.1.        The world market

3.1.1.     Production

In 2011, honey world production accounted for 1
636 000 tonnes according to the FAO. The production has been increasing slowly
but regularly in the last ten years with two exceptions in 2007 and 2009.

China is the
first honey producer with 446 000 tonnes accounting for 27.3 % of the world total,
followed by the EU with 217 000 tonnes (13.3 %). Other main honey producers are
Turkey with a steady output increase, Ukraine and the United States of America. The share of South and Central America has decreased due in
particular to a significant drop of production in Argentina since 2005.

3.1.2.     Trade

Around one fifth of honey world production is
traded on the international market according to data from the FAO and COMEXT.

World exports have been oscillating between 300
000 and 360 000 tonnes for several years; in 2011, they were around 335 000
tonnes. China has increased its exports and has been the world's biggest
exporter for the last four years with approximately 100 000 tonnes in
2011. Argentina is the second exporter but the quantities exported have been decreasing
and were approximately 72 000 tonnes in 2011.

EU and the US are the two main importers
of honey.

3.2.        EU market

3.2.1.     Production

According to EUROSTAT, honey production in the
EU was 217 366 tonnes in 2011. EU production has increased slightly in the last
ten years (+6% since 2010) with negative and positive annual variations
depending on weather conditions.

Honey sale price depends on the type and the
quality of honey and the commercial channel; table honey (85% of honey sold in
the EU) reaches higher prices than industrial honey and mono-floral honeys
fetch higher prices.

As for the commercial channel, beekeepers
receive the highest price when selling directly to consumers; the second best
option is selling conditioned honey to retailers and in the third place come
the sales to packers and distributors.

Most of EU honey is sold directly to consumers
by beekeepers; this is related also to the large non-professional nature of
beekeeping in most of Member States. However there is a certain disparity of commercial
channels in the EU; for example, in Spain, a preponderant part of the
production is sold to the processing/packing sector in line with the higher
professionalization of the sector there.

3.2.2.     Trade

The EU is a net importer of honey as the EU
production covers only 61.6 % of its consumption. The level of consumption has
been quite stable over the years with an average of around 0.70 kg/head.

The three main honey producers in the Union are
Spain, Germany and Romania with a respective output in 2011 of 34 000, 25 831
and 24 127 tonnes. Other important producing Member States are Hungary (19 800 tonnes), France (16 000 tonnes), Greece (14 300 tonnes), Poland (13 369 tonnes).

EU imports of honey range between 120 000 and
150 000 tonnes since 2000. In 2012, the European Union imported 149 248 tonnes
of honey, mainly from China with 63 961 tonnes (43 % of the total) followed by Argentina (22 344 tonnes). The share of Chinese imports has increased constantly since 2008
due to very low prices while, in parallel, the share of Argentinian imports
decreased. Mexico is the third supplier with 21 249 tonnes and Ukraine the fourth one with 8 949 tonnes.

Germany is the main importing
Member State with more than one third of the total in 2012.

Average honey import unit value in the EU
increased since 2010 and attained 2.08 €/kg in 2012. Chinese honey has the
lowest unit value at 1.44 €/kg. Average honey import unit values for other EU
main suppliers are: 1.83 €/kg for Ukraine, 2.23 €/kg for Argentina and 2.44 €/kg for Mexico.

Exports from the Union have increased since 2010
to reach 14 275 tonnes in 2012 (+ 33%). However, they are still limited to less
than 7 % of the production. The main destinations of EU exports have not
changed since 2010: Switzerland, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the United States of America.

Germany and Spain are the main EU exporters; these two Member States account together for more than
half of the Union exports.

Average honey export unit value from the Union constantly increased since 2010 and reached 5.14 €/kg in 2012. As a consequence, the
gap between import and export unit values has grown substantially broader and
is approximately of 3 €/kg. This value differential can be explained by the fact
that EU exports mainly consist of high quality packed honey while imports include
large volumes of cheaper honey in bigger containers used for blending and the
food industry.

4.           IMPLEMENTATION OF
NATIONAL APICULTURE PROGRAMMES

4.1.        Objectives and eligible
measures

The overall goal of the programme is to improve
the general conditions for the production and marketing of apiculture products
in the Union.

Six measures with specific objectives are eligible
for aid and can be included in the national apiculture programmes of the Member
States; they are listed in Article 106 of the single CMO Regulation and have not
changed since the last report.

Technical assistance is designed to enhance the efficiency of production and marketing
by introducing better techniques. It includes the organisation of basic courses for new entrants and continuing
education for experienced beekeepers and those responsible for groupings or
cooperatives; training courses relate in particular to areas such as breeding
and disease prevention, collection and packaging, storage and transport of
honey and marketing. Teaching apiaries and the network of beekeeping
consultants/technicians allow for the dissemination of practical technical
knowledge. The measure can also be used to support the modernisation of the
sector through the purchase of extraction equipment by beekeepers.

The aim of varroasis
prevention is to control the infestation of hives by this endemic parasite.
Varroasis is caused by a mite that is weakening the bees' immune system and
increases bees' secondary infections by viruses. Varroasis is severely
diminishing the honey yield in the EU, leading to the loss of bee colonies if
not treated. As varroasis cannot be completely eradicated, the only way to
avoid its consequences is to treat hives with approved methods and products. Some
financial contribution is necessary to help producers to afford the expenditure
incurred in treating hives appropriately (products, equipment such as covering
meshes).

Aid for the rationalisation
of transhumance is intended to assist with managing the movement of hives
in the Union and with providing locations for beekeepers during the flowering
season. Transhumance management can be facilitated by such measures as identification
of hives and frames, a transhumance register, investment in material facilitating
transhumance and mapping of honey varieties. In several Member States,
transhumance is crucial to meet the nutritional needs of bees and ensure
pollination of plants.

Support measures
for carrying out analyses of honey are intended to improve the marketing
of honey. Financing of analyses of honey allow beekeepers to ensure that honey
put on the market meets the physico-chemical characterictics laid down in Council
Directive 2001/110/EC relating to honey[6];
analyses on the botanical origin of honey provide beekeepers with precise
knowledge of the honey harvested, enabling them to get a higher price for their
product. The financial support for honey analysis is essential for making this
service accessible to a large number of beekeepers.

The restocking
of hives makes it possible to compensate for losses of bees, and therefore avoid
losses of production; this can include funding activities to promote queens'
production or purchasing of bee colonies.

The opportunity
provided by the Regulation for including specific applied research
projects for improving honey quality in the honey programmes, and dissemination
of the results of such projects, can help to increase producers' knowledge on specific
practices of beekeeping.

4.2.        Census of beehives and beekeepers

In accordance with Articles 1 and 9 of
Regulation (EC) No 917/2004, Member States provided information on the
structure of the apiculture sector in the context of the 2011-2013 programmes.

According to these, the total number of
beekeepers in the Union in 2010 was 506 038, of whom only 5.2% (26 318) were
considered to be professional beekeepers (over 150 hives).

In 2010, the total number of hives in the EU was
of some 14 million (13 985 091), around 6 million (5 659551) of
which belong to professional beekeepers who therefore have 40 % of hives. It
should be noted that since there is no legal obligation at EU level to register
beehives, the collection of data on the total number of hives is not harmonized
between Member States and can lack precision. Although the percentages of
professional beekeepers and the number of hives they manage have increased since
2007 (33% of hives), the sector still largely consists of non-professional beekeepers.
The professionalization rate is generally low in the EU but can vary greatly
between Member States; for instance, in Germany, more than 99% of beekeepers
are non-professional while in Spain 23% of beekeepers are professional.

The number of hives in the EU has increased by
3% (382 372) in 2010 compared to the 2007 census. According to beekeepers, this
increase is necessary in order to compensate for bee mortality. However, it
involved also an increase of honey production equivalent to 6% in the same
period.

The five Member States with the highest number
of hives are: Spain (19.3%), Greece (11.8%), France (10.5%), Romania (10%) and Italy (8.8%). However, countries with the higher number of hives are not always
countries with the higher honey production. This can be explained by environmental
differences (climate, nectar quantities, densities of bee colonies, etc.) as
well as by the lack of a harmonized method at EU level to monitor the number of
hives, which leads to dramatic differences in yield per hive between Member
States (between 9 to 51 kg in 2010 in the EU). As a result, Germany has a lower number of hives (5.6%) than Greece, Italy, France and Romania but produces more honey
than any of these countries due to higher yields (up to 37.2 kg per hive in
2011). Hungary has also high average yields per hive (27.4 kg in 2010) and is
therefore the fourth EU producer in the EU although it only has 7.1% of hives.

4.3.        Allocation of expenditure

4.3.1.     Budget per Member State

In line with Article 108 of the single CMO
Regulation, the Union provides part-financing for the apiculture programmes
equivalent to 50% of the expenditure borne by Member States.

It should be noted that the Union annual funds
dedicated to the apiculture sector have increased since 2007 in order to take
into account of the rising numbers of bee hives and the growing needs of the
apiculture sector. In 2011, the budget rose to € 32 million per year.

Member States notify their national apiculture
programmes to the Commission before 15 April once every three years as required
by Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 (the submission in 2010 related
to the programmes covering years 2011, 2012 and 2013).

On the basis of the Member States' expenditure
forecasts laid down in their national apiculture programmes, the Union funds
available (€ 32 million per year for the period 2011-2013) are distributed
according to each Member State's share in the total number of hives in the
Union but allocated funds cannot be higher than 50% of programmed expenditure
for each Member State. When half of expenditure in the national programme is
lower than the amount corresponding to the number of hives, the remaining
available funds are redistributed among Member States for which the expected
expenditure exceeds their proportional share of the budget (in accordance to
Art. 3 of Regulation (EC) No 917/2004).

The total numbers of hives in each Member State and in the Union are updated and published every three years in Annex I of
Regulation (EC) No 917/2004.

In 2011, six Member States (Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Finland and Sweden) forecasted expenditures below their respective
budget in function of the number of hives. The corresponding amount of EU funds
was redistributed among the rest of Member States.

In 2011, the five Member States with the
largest number of hives got a combined allocation for 55 % of the available EU
budget. The Member States with the largest number of hives are therefore the
largest users of the programme.

4.3.2.     Execution of the budget

According to the figures communicated by the
Member States on the implementation of the budget per type of measure, overall
usage rates in the 27 Member States are very high (93% in 2010, 89% in 2011 and
89% in 2012). The decrease in the execution rate from 2010 to 2011 can be
explained by the fact that the budget allocated to apiculture programme
increased from 26.3 million to 32 million between these 2 years. In general,
the rate tends to be lower the first year of the programme and increases
towards year three.

In 2010 and 2011, the greatest beneficiaries (Spain (93%, 84%), Greece (97%, 92%), France (90%, 88%), Italy (96%, 92%), and Romania (100%, 85%) were very effective in their use of the budgets. This was also
the case in 2012 (Greece (97%), France (92%), Italy (93%), and Romania (98%) with the exception of Spain where only 69% of budget was used.

4.4.        Expenses incurred by type
of action per Member State

The analysis of expenses incurred is based on
the figures provided by Member States each year as required by Article 6(2) of
Regulation (EC) No 917/2004. For the period 2010-2012, the two more widely
supported measures were control of varroasis and technical assistance. Expenses
for these 2 measures were systematically the largest and have been relatively
stable over the successive programmes, accounting on average for 27-30% for the
control of varroasis and 24-28% for technical assistance.

More in particular, varroasis control
measures have been used by all Member States in 2010; this reflects the
fact that varroasis is endemic in the Union and is perceived as the main threat
for bees' survival according to the answers to a questionnaire launched by the
EU Reference Laboratory for Bee Health[7].
It is also due to the relative high cost of treatments against varroa,
estimated to represent between 10 to 20% of production costs according to
beekeepers. Member States making the largest use of this measure were Spain, Hungary and Poland. However, it should be noted that Greece ceased to use this measure in
2011 and 2012 due to the inflation of treatment costs, the resistance of varroa
to treatments, the risk of residues' presence in apiculture products and the
hot climatic conditions which are favourable to the development of brood all
year around and the persistence of varroa.

Technical assistance measures are used by the vast majority of Member States. Considering the
number of non-professional beekeepers and the changing conditions of the sector,
there is a need for continuous action focused on dissemination of information.
Both the beekeeping sector and Member States consider the technical assistance
measures as having highly beneficial effects on production. The main users of
this measure in 2011 and 2012 were Italy, Greece, France, Germany, Czech Republic, Poland and Spain. It should be noted that there were changes in the
allocation per Member State of expenses for technical assistance between the
two apiculture programmes: in 2010, the Netherlands, Bulgaria and Romania did not use this measure at all, while in 2011 and 2012 Bulgaria and Romania started using it. Poland increased six times its expenses for technical assistance
between 2010 and 2011-2012. Spain almost doubled its expenses between 2010 and
2011-2012.

Measures designed to ensure rationalisation
of transhumance continues to be the third most common supported measures,
accounting for 16-20% of expenditure. Mostly Southern European countries such
as Greece, Spain and Romania with diversified vegetation and a long period of
flowering are using this measure. Other Member States such as Germany supports transhumance because of its importance for pollination.

Hive restocking measures came in fourth place. The use of this measure represented 19% of
expenditure in 2010 and decreased to 16% in 2012. Romania, Bulgaria and Poland are the main users. Beekeeping organisations, which are involved in the
preparation of the programmes, are very interested in these measures to offset
the loss of bee colonies and rising prices of swarms. Nevertheless the
beekeeping sector feels that supporting the restocking of hives is, to a
certain extent, only a short-term solution and that the causes of bee mortality
should be further researched and acted upon.

Measures on applied research came in the
fifth place (4-6 % expenditure). France continues to be the Member State allocating the largest budget to applied research, with approximately 1.4 million
in 2012; this represents more than half of the total sum allocated to this
measure in the Union. For example, applied research measures were used in France to carry out a study on exposure of honey bees to a neonicotinoid systemic pesticide[8].

Finally expenses for honey analysis are
the least used by the Member States and decreased. In 2010, they represented 6%
of the expenses then they decreased to 4% in 2011 and to 3% in 2012. Spain, which was one of the countries with the highest budget for honey analyses between 2007
and 2009, decreased its expenses in 2010 and again in 2011 and 2012. Poland also reduced its expenses between 2010 and 2011 while Bulgaria increased its expenses in 2011
and 2012 compared to 2010. These variations could be due to the fact that once a
network of laboratories is established, expenses are less important. It should
be noted that the support of laboratories' analyses is particularly appreciated
by honey packers and distributors as it enables beekeepers to internalise this
cost.

5.           EVALUATION OF MEASURES
FOR THE APICULTURE SECTOR

In 2012, the Commission charged an external
consultant to perform an evaluation of measures for the apiculture sector.

The study evaluated:

–
To what extent the six measures of the
apiculture programmes affected the production, marketing and trade of honey as
well as the keeping and trade of live bees.

–
To what extent the measures contributed to
support economic activity and the income of professional beekeepers.

–
To what extent the measures contributed to price
stability for honey.

The study was finalized in July 2013.

The study concluded that the national
apiculture programmes have contributed to stabilise honey production levels in
the EU in a context of rising production costs, threats to bee survival and
fierce international competition by honey imports from third countries.

The measures contributed to curbing the surge
in production costs (in particular for varroa treatments and restocking of
hives) and therefore limited the impact of these costs on the income of beekeepers.
The six measures are complementary to each other; conclusions on the effect of
each individual measure should be interpreted carefully and should take into
account the synergies existing between the measures.

Beekeeping activity was rendered more productive
by inducing structural improvements into the sector through technical
assistance, rationalisation of transhumance, control of varroasis, modernisation
and mechanisation of beekeeping activity, trainings and dissemination of
information.

The measures allowed for the support of the
production of EU high-quality of honey as well as ensure that lower-end
production remains competitive. The high-quality and added value of the honey
produced in the EU allows for the wide gap between average export unit value of
EU honey and the average import unit value of honey from third countries.

Furthermore the measures have had an indirect
positive impact on both rural development and the environment. By reducing
costs, inducing structural improvements and supporting the income of beekeepers
the measures have helped to maintain the beekeeping activity in rural areas
which is essential for pollination and hence for agriculture. The measures also
encouraged more sustainable beekeeping practices particularly for the control
of varroasis.

Finally, the study highlighted that the
beekeeping sector, the honey industry and Member States all agree to consider
that the national apiculture programmes are very useful to support the sector.

Nevertheless the study concluded that further
progress could be made by optimising the use of the existing measures in order
to promote honey, encourage further the cooperation between beekeepers, improve
the dissemination of information on applied research projects and diversify the
sources of income of beekeepers through the development of high value
apiculture products such as royal jelly, pollen and propolis.

In view of the sector's needs and the national disparities
among the Member States, the contractor recommended also a clearer direction
from the Union on apiculture programmes since the choice of the concrete
measures is currently made at national or even regional level. Synergies
between the Union research programmes and national applied research should also
be found to ensure a better link between fundamental and applied research and
also avoid potential overlaps.

6.           SUGGESTIONS BY MEMBER STATES AND THE SECTOR

In October 2012, the Commission required Member States and the sector representatives to provide their views on the apiculture programmes
for the purpose of preparing this report.

Overall, as shown by the evaluation study, Member
States expressed their satisfaction with the way the programmes are run and pleaded
for their continuation as they consider these measures a great help for
beekeeping and honey production.

The following suggestions for adjusting the
measures were expressed by Member States:

- Germany and Luxemburg suggested aligning the
apiculture year with the calendar year. Currently, the annual exercises of the
apiculture programmes are established from 16 October each year to 15 October
of the following year (Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 917/2004) while the measures
eligible for co-financing must have been implemented by 31 August of the year
in question (Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 917/2004); it is therefore
difficult to finance actions implemented during the month of September and
first half of October. For the 2014-2016 apiculture programmes, the Commission intends
to address this issue by proposing to amend the dates of the implementation of
the measures in Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 in order to ensure that apiculture
measures can be implemented all year round.

- Germany asked for the simplification of the
administration and control measures as the control effort required seems
disproportionate. Member States are responsible to monitor and assess the
programmes. Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 obliges Member States to notify these
measures according to a precise timeframe but leaves a lot of flexibility to the
Member States to implement the controls in accordance with the general
principle of subsidiarity and risk assessment. For the apiculture programmes
2014-2016, the notifications to the Commission are simplified and entered directly
through the Information System for Agricultural Market Management and
Monitoring.

- Germany suggested supporting additional
measures relating to beekeeping, improving bee health, controlling the damage
resulting from varroasis, honey marketing and honey flora. All these measures
can already be supported to a certain extent by the current apiculture
programmes. Additional specific measures to improve bee health[9] are funded by the EU outside
the apiculture programmes.

- Regarding technical assistance, Germany asked for a clearer description of the eligibility for support of equipment for beekeepers,
e.g. in the form of a Commission list of goods eligible for support. The
Commission considers that a fixed list of goods would remove some of the
flexibility necessary to take into account the variability of the structures of
the sector across Member. Moreover, investments by beekeepers can be financed
already within rural development programmes containing measures for
modernisation and innovation of agricultural holdings.

Finally, Lithuania suggested providing support
to enable small beekeepers to renew their equipment for extraction of honey and
making combs. Such support can already be provided under the measure for
technical assistance.

The Commission did not receive any written
comments from the sector following its request in October 2012. However, the external
evaluator consulted the sector comprehensively via case studies carried out in four
Member States[10],
interviews and web-based surveys, and concluded that the support provided by
the measures was highly appreciated by the beekeepers and beekeepers'
associations as it allowed to reduce production costs in a sector under
pressure. However, beekeepers and their associations highlighted the need to
develop more effective treatments to fight varroa and to curb their costs. They
also noted that although the measure for restocking of hives allow to
compensate partly for bee colonies'' loss, this is only a short term solution
and the causes of bee mortality should be researched and acted upon.

7.           CONCLUSION

The national apiculture programmes aim to
improve the production and marketing of honey in the European Union. In all
Member States, they provide direct support to apiculture, one small sector in
terms of output but essential for agriculture through pollination.

Both from the point of view of the Member States and the operators, the national apiculture programmes have been beneficial
for the beekeeping sector. The measures allow for the maintenance of the
production of high quality honey in the EU despite a difficult context with
rising production costs, threats to bee survival and fierce international
competition by cheap honey imports from third countries.

In light of the information presented in this
report and the outcomes of the evaluation of the apiculture measures, the
Commission does not envisage to modify the list of measures eligible for
apiculture in Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007. However, the Commission will
propose to amend the implementing Regulation (EC) No 917/2004 in order to
ensure that apiculture measures can be applied and funded all year round and to
improve their management.

In addition, the Commission will work towards a
better coordination between the national applied research projects and the
Union research projects in order to optimize the use of their results and to
improve their dissemination to the beekeeping sector.

Finally, the Commission will seek to improve
further the efficiency of the existing measures by looking for potential synergies
between the apiculture measures and the rural development programmes. This
could involve rural development measures such as supporting young beekeepers'
installation and modernisation of holdings as well as the use of agro-environmental
measures to increase the availability of melliferous plants for honey bees.

[1]               OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

[2]               http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0267:FIN:EN:PDF.

[3]               OJ L 163, 30.4.2004, p. 83.

[4]               http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/evaluation/market-and-income-reports/index\_en.htm.

[5]               http://wcmcom-ec-europa-eu-wip.wcm3vue.cec.eu.int:8080/agriculture/honey/index\_en.htm

[6]               OJ L 10, 12.1.2002, p. 47.

[7]               http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/liveanimals/bees/eu\_ref\_lab\_bee\_health\_en.htm.

[8]               "A common pesticide decreases foraging success
and survival in honey bees" in
Sciencexpress/http://sciencemag.org/content/early/recent/ 29March 2012/ Page 1/
10.1126/science.1215039.

[9]               http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/liveanimals/bees/bee\_health\_en.htm.

[10]             Spain, Germany, Hungary and Greece.

[Top](#document1)