> These breeders are interesting in marketing "breeds." That can hardly be justification for the prohibition of other "breeds."
> If you are trying to keep pure sub-species then surely you must try eliminate other sub-species from your breeding programme.  Is that not logical?

A breeder is certainly entitled to attempt to maintain the unique characters of his/her stock. But to move to the next step -- outlawing of other breeds -- seems unwarranted and extreme. In Italy:

> A 2017 resolution adopted by the Chamber of Deputies included not only prohibitions but also protective actions: “(omissis) commits the Government: to take initiatives to safeguard the subspecies A. m. ligustica, limiting or banning different subspecies, including hybrids (if not natural), in the Italian territory, through new agreements within the European Union, also implementing a strategy for the protection of biodiversity of this subspecies, providing for sufficiently extensive mating areas (at least 200 square kilometres) in areas where all natural or cultivated hives are inhabited by A. m. ligustica”

> In 1992 the Emilia Romagna Region provided for a total ban for the whole regional territory: “it is forbidden to introduce and breed honeybees of strains other than A. m. ligustica, as well as interracial hybrids, within the regional territory”

> An Italian law issued in 1992 protects A. m. ligustica as a form of wildlife: “wildlife is a public asset of the State and is protected in the interest of the national and international community”.

> The Umbria Region’s regulations on beekeeping, establish in article 93 that: “the Region can set up buffer zones around queen bee producers included in the national register of A. mellifera breeders and around mating station situated in the region. Nomadic beekeeping is also prohibited in these areas”.

As a matter of fact, on the one hand they extol beekeeping and on the other, seek to prohibit normal beekeeping practices, such as migratory beekeeping, sale of queens across borders, etc.

For example, they say:
> The 2004 Framework Law on Beekeeping: “recognises beekeeping as an activity of national interest useful for the conservation of the natural environment, the ecosystem and agriculture in general ... 

But then:
> “the choice of the strain to be used in apiculture must favour native subspecies according to their natural geographical distribution: A. m. ligustica, A. m. siciliana (limited to Sicily) and, limited to border areas, hybrids resulting from free crossing with subspecies from neighbouring countries”

And the penalty:
> In 2015, an addition to the Criminal Law provided for imprisonment and financial penalties for crimes against the environment: “Anyone who unlawfully compromises or causes a significant and measurable deterioration to the following shall be punished with imprisonment from 2 months to 6 years and with a fine of from 10,000 to 100,000 Euro: 1. Water, air, and extensive or significant portions of the soil or subsoil; 2. An ecosystem, biodiversity of flora or fauna, also agricultural.

Moving bees from one county to another becomes a "crime against the environment." But the most galling part is again the emphasis on color:

> In the map presented by Anita Vecchi, the hollow circles represent places where there are only yellow honeybees (typical of A. m. ligustica), while the black circles correspond with locations marked exclusively by the presence of black honeybees, which could also represent populations of A. m. mellifera, A. m. carnica and A. m. siciliana, variously crossbred with A. m. ligustica, and circles with dots in central areas, where there are populations with intermediate colours. 

Here is the quandary:
> This document sets forth the scientific arguments in support of this vision, on the basis of which we can proceed with concrete actions aimed to protect the honeybee, also as a biological entity, according to various operating methods. This document does not intend to oppose the actions of the beekeeping sector, but rather to contribute to a more global vision of the very serious problem of honeybee decline.

The fact is, it puts constraints on many aspects of "the beekeeping sector." While it's true that we don't have native honey bees in the US, I can just imagine folks banding together and outlawing the introduction of "non-local" bees and prohibiting migratory beekeeping. As a local beekeeper, I feel strongly that migratory beekeeping brings pests and parasites into my locale, but I support their right to carry on their livelihood and would not support restricting their right to do so (excepting creating a nuisance, etc). In regard to the Italian situation, they want protection for their region but what if the rest of the world outlawed the Italian bee? Beekeepers engaged in raising Italian queens for sale would have their livelihoods extinguished. Such laws redefine beekeeping in a capricious manner without a clear imperative. 

Peter L Borst

SOURCE: 
Appeal for Biodiversity Protection of Native Honeybee Subspecies of Apis mellifera Linnaeus, 1758 in Italy
Fondazione Edmund Mach, San Michele all’Adige, Italy, 12 June 2018

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html