I just watched this and thought it was reasonable. It dealt more with possible causes of colony loss than solutions.
Three main areas discussed:
Varroa mites, and the impact of viruses carried by varroa. They looked at some on going research to see if the mites might be having more insidious impacts, for example by messing with
bees navigation.
Neonicotinoids clear research that shows that low concentrations of neonics prevent
bees from being able to navigate their way home. Evidence is unclear about whether those dosages are actually reached in practice in the field. More on going research was discussed looking at bumblebee populations to see if they were accumulating neonics in they honey, pollen and wax and connecting it to colony growth rates. Results won't be in until next year.
Changing farming practices leading to loss of forage - massive areas of monoculture crops with no bee forage, linked to declining wild be popultations over tha past 80 years. Contrasted with urban honey production which has not declined and is consistently greater than rural areas. This was put down to the much wider variety of flowering species in urban areas. Small trials of planting wild flower strips along side convertional crops
led to greater wild honeybee populations, and better pollination of test plots.
What i didn't ike about the program:
There was no talk, at all, about selecting bees for varroa tolerance by looking at survivor colonies.
The discussion on neonics revolved around a chemical arms race - ultimately futile. The line was we cant grow conventional crops without pesticides, so we need to keep making better pesticides or developing gm pest resistant crops.
Current beekeeping practices were not criticised or even suggested as playing a part - frame based systems, commercial pollinators, importing bees etc...
No discussion at all about mitigating varroa impact - natural cell sizes etc... The line was basically that if you have any mites at all then your bees are doomed.
I guess it did quite a good job of raising awareness of the scale of the issue, but the scope of the program was limited. It would have been nice to see at least recognition that there are other paths to follow when caring for bees.
Mike