POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
their medicinal plants, with unknown effects (Doherty and
Tumarae-Teka, 2015).
5.4.2.3 Changes to and loss of bee
management practices and knowledge
A recent global review across Mexico, Costa Rica, Brazil,
Africa, Australia and Asia found that stingless beekeeping is
disappearing in some areas, such as the Yucatan. In other
places, such as Brazil, meliponiculture is increasing as an
important secondary economic activity (Cortopassi-Laurino
et al., 2006). The traditional use of stingless bee products
in medicine and handcraft is also declining (Sterman et
al., 2008; Roig Alsina et al., 2013). In Colombia, stingless
beekeeping practices are being challenged by loss of local
names, abandonment of hives due to mismanagement,
and homogenization and standardization of bee species
and beekeeping techniques (Rosso-Londoño, 2013). The
disappearance of stingless beekeeping from indigenous
communities is problematic (Villanueva-Gutiérrez et al.,
2013), as it may represent a threat to the survival not only
of various native bee species but also to the sustainability
of the ecosystems due to their contribution as pollinators
and also to ancient medicinal and cosmological traditions,
and other cultural aspects (González-Acereto et al., 2006).
Some species of stingless bees like Melipona beecheii in the
Yucatan find their most important populations in the hands
of Mayan farmers, as large trees from the central Yucatan
have disappeared, resulting in the absence of feral colonies
of this species in such areas (González-Acereto et al., 2006).
The survival of M. beecheii in the Yucatan strongly depends
on the continuity of stingless beekeeping.
Stingless beekeeping decline is affected by multifactorial
trends, involving ecological, social and economic drivers,
such as the greater commercial returns from the introduced
honey bee (Apis mellifera) (Cortopassi-Laurino et al., 2006).
Loss and decline of the stingless bees in also linked with
a loss of traditional knowledge and practices, including
cosmogony and ethnomedicine, and associated loss
of biocultural diversity (Joshi and Gurung, 2005; Ngima
Mawoung, 2006; Freitas et al., 2009; Corlett, 2011; Césard
and Heri, 2015; Samorai Lengoisa, 2015; Villas-Bôas,
2015). Key bottlenecks to increasing stingless beekeeping
include how to collect and conserve their honey, how to
rear them in large quantities, how to prevent impacts from
pesticides and maintain the bees, and how to provide
qualified information and training in all levels (Cortopassi-
Laurino et al., 2006). Co-production between ILK and
science is proving effective in overcoming some of these
challenges (Case example 5-12).
Traditional beekeeping knowledge and practices are also
declining in Europe. For example, in Sicily the “férula”
hive is known to be strong and not expensive, but was
progressively replaced with frame hives, and traditional
knowledge such as the “partitura” used by Sicilian
beekeepers to recognize an artificial swarming is also
declining (Roussel, 2009).
Honey hunting among forest-dwelling communities who
hunt at low levels in Kenya, Indonesia, Nepal, India, Brazil
and Cameroon and practice non-destructive methods
supports protection of pollinators and pollination resources
(Joshi and Gurung, 2005; Ngima Mawoung, 2006;
Rosso-Londoño, 2013; Césard and Heri, 2015; Samorai
Lengoisa, 2015; Villas-Bôas, 2015). However a large rise
in unsustainable honey hunting is now posing a significant
threat to stingless bees in Asia (Corlett, 2011) and the neotropics
(Freitas et al., 2009). The demand for wild nests to
deliver honey, resins and cerumen for food, medicines and
other products has led to honey hunters now being targeted
as one of the main causes of loss of bee colonies and of
destruction of habitat trees. However, Rosso-Londoño’s
(2013) socio-environmental analysis identified that there
are now many other stakeholders, including stingless
beekeepers, research and government institutions, and
industry, because markets and new projects (for production,
education, hobby and even research) are part of the context
that is driving the demand for wild nests. Among Indonesian
honey hunters, changes are occurring at the social-cultural
level and interacting with environmental change. For
instance, Anak Dalam people in Sumatra are using honey as
an exchange value (non-monetary) to buy other necessities,
such as food, that are not available in the forest (Ibrahim et
al., 2013) (see also 4 7.1). Local knowledge guarded by the
indigenous communities is disappearing, or beginning to
be ignored. Natural habitat that used to be preserved (i.e.
sialang trees as an indicator for preservation of habitat) and
is believed to be the source of life, is now being replaced
by widespread plantation and development (Césard and
Heri, 2015).
5.4.2.4 Invasive species
Invasion by Africanized bees is perceived as a particular
risk for Guna people in Panama, as they killed a number
of people since they arrived more than twenty years ago.
Elephant grass (paja canalera, Saccharum spontaneum)
is an aggressive alien grass also causing problems; it is
the main cause of the degradation of the soil due to the
fires and the decline of forested and agricultural landscape
(López et al., 2015). Among the Kayapo in Brazil, the
invasive Apis mellifera scutellata (African bee subspecies)
was initially considered highly problematic due to its
aggressiveness and competition with native bees, but after
two decades it came to be recognised as the strongest bee
who takes care of other bees (Posey, 1983a). Mbya Guaraní,
peoples from the Paraná State of Brazil, have noted that
the exploitation of the introduced Western honey bee (Apis
321
5. BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY, POLLINATORS AND
THEIR SOCIO-CULTURAL VALUES