POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
288
5. BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY, POLLINATORS AND
THEIR SOCIO-CULTURAL VALUES
The second feature is the ongoing stories and life-ways
through which relationships are forever alive and dynamic,
continuously weaving together and co-creating the world
(Ingold, 2011; Jackson and Palmer, 2015). Socio-cultural
valuation methods typically are based on concepts of a
place, such as a wetland, being perceived and hence valued
in different ways by multiple stakeholders, rather than being
co-created manifestations (Martin-López et al., 2014).
Holistic valuation methods are oriented to indigenous
peoples’ and local communities’ own logics; particular
examples include the Māori Wetland Indicators (Harmsworth
et al., 2011) and the Salish environmental health indicators
(Harmsworth et al., 2011). Jackson and Palmer (2015) argue
that valuing practices and ethics enables the “possibility
of understanding ecosystem services in ways which make
legible and enhance the possibility of recognizing, building
and expanding upon the reality of indigenous social tenures
and reciprocal social relations” (pg. 18). Holistic valuation
approaches are used here to give the special emphasis
on the experience of indigenous and local communities
required by the chapter scope, through a focus on relevant
practices based on ILK.
TABLE 5-1
Nature’s benefits to people and categories of value in this assessment
5.2 POLLINATORS,
POLLINATION AND
NATURE’S BENEFITS TO
PEOPLE
5.2.1 Natures’s benefits to people,
good quality of life and categories
of values
While typologies of values are always somewhat artificial
— values can be categorized in many different ways in
response to dynamic human cultures, and social-ecological
interactions — they are useful to valuation (MEA, 2005;
Tengberg et al., 2012). From the socio-cultural valuation
perspective, pollination and pollination-dependent products
contribute to the delivery of provisioning services, such
as food, medicine, construction materials and items of
technology (e.g., musical instruments); and provide cultural
services such as recreational and educational activities
with and for pollinators (gardening, ornamentals, learning
from beekeeping), and as a source of inspiration, including
through the use of natural motives of artefacts in art,
folklore, sacred, religious, technological and other forms of
inspiration (Table 5-1).
Category Type of values Focus of values Categories used in this assessment
Nature’s
benefits to
people
Instrumental
Ecosystem goods and services
(socio-cultural valuation)
Nature’s gifts (holistic valuation)
Provisioning services: Food, medicine, construction materials,
technology (e.g musical instruments)
Cultural services: Recreational and education (activities with and
for pollinators); inspirational (use of natural motives or artefacts
in art, folklore, sacred, religious, technological and other forms of
inspiration)
Practices gifted to indigenous peoples and local communities: the
practices of valuing diversity and fostering biocultural diversity;
landscape management practices; diverse farming systems; innovation
TABLE 5-2
Good quality of life and categories of value in this assessment
Category Type of values Focus of values Categories used in this assessment
Good quality
of life
Relational Heritage (socio-cultural valuation) Both tangible and intangible relationships between people,
pollinators and good quality of life
Aesthetics (socio-cultural valuation)
Identity (socio-cultural valuation)
Livelihoods (holistic valuation)
Social Relations (holistic valuation)
Governance (holistic valuation)
Appreciation of natural and cultivated landscapes and species
Group and individual identity linkages with pollinators
Derived from relationships between ILK-holders, pollinators and
pollinator-dependent products
Song, dance, art, story, rituals and sacred knowledge associated
with pollinators and pollination
Governance by, with and for pollinators