POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
to a loss of cultural values associated with pollinators.
Native Americans have pursued legal challenges to this
appropriation, but the issues are not resolved and remain
controversial (Johansen, 2007; King, 2013).
5.4.2.8 Pollination governance deficits
The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC, 2009)
has identified governance deficit arising because the
threats to pollination and related risks are not adequately
taken into account in policies and regulations that may
affect pollinators and their services. Their review of the
current regulatory and governance context identified the
main deficit is that most regulations that affect pollinators
and pollination are not specific to pollination (IRGC,
2009). Their report then focuses on five particular aspects
of governance deficits: uncertainty of science; lack of
adequate economic schemes to internalise environmental
costs; absent or inadequate land use policies; inadequate
stakeholder participation and consultation; and difficulty of
medium- to long-term planning. Chapter 6, section 6.2.1.2,
summarises the progress towards reducing these barriers,
and additional responses.
Here we consider impacts that result from the overall deficit
in pollination risk governance, the lack of specificity to
pollination. Governance of pollination extends across many
sectors such as agriculture, trade, nature conservation, and
encompasses the complex roles of, and power relationships
between, for example, civil society, governments, the private
sector, indigenous peoples and local communities from
local to nation-state to global scales (IRGC, 2009). While
governance has many definitions and indicators (Ernstson
et al., 2010), in this context of lack of specificity, the Graham
et al. (2003) definition is useful, as it highlights interactions,
and these pose both risks and opportunities in pollination
governance (0). For example, Ernston et al.’s (2010)
empirical analysis of the governance of pollination and seed
dispersal services in Stockholm highlighted how interactions
lead to key risks including highly contested land use,
numerous, fragmented multi-level administrative units that
trigger under-valuing of pollination services, marginalization
of key actors oriented to protection of pollination, scale mismatches,
networks that cross scales but do not span (e.g.,
cemetery managers do not link with allotment gardeners),
and low levels of flexibility for adaptation.
Analysis of pollination governance within the European
Union identified problems from (horizontal) interplay across
sectors, e.g., contradictory goals between agricultural and
nature conservation that impact on pollination resources,
and from (vertical) interplay between fine-scale cultural
variation in motivations and practices that protect pollination
and the homogenizing effect to EU directives (Ratamäki et
al., 2015). Empirical analysis of the factors affecting farmers’
decisions to adopt pollination-friendly practices in coffee
plantations identified farmers’ perceptions and attitudes,
social-location factors, institutions, certification schemes,
and markets as powerful drivers across local, regional and
larger scales; a conceptual model of these interacting forces
was created to provide the foundation for future research
into interventions that would enhance pollination (Bravo-
Monroy et al., 2015).
5.4.3 Introduction to management
and mitigation options
As noted in the introduction, this chapter addresses
management and mitigation options as appropriate to
different visions, approaches and knowledge systems, of
impacts of the decline of diversity and/or populations of
pollinators. The concept of management and mitigation
options is very similar to Chapter 6 concepts of responses
to risks and opportunities associated with pollinators and
pollination, although perhaps with greater emphasis on
avoiding situations that create a need to “respond”. The
Chapter 6 responses focus on the drivers identified in
Chapter 2 (see Table 6.2.3). Again, many of the people’s
experiences of declines and associated drivers identified
through the assessment for this chapter are the same
as, or similar to, those in Chapter 2, but there are several
differences. Notable differences include the identification in
this chapter of drivers related to loss of access to traditional
lands, and changes to and loss of traditional knowledge,
tenure and governance systems that protect pollination
and pollination governance deficits Table 5-4. Chapter 6
does discuss pollination risk governance deficits, but as a
response rather than a driver.
Table 5-4 also presents the management and mitigation
options considered here in response to these drivers. These
options represent a range of integrated responses that focus
on minimizing impacts in ways that ensure protection of
the many contributions of pollinators as part of supporting
nature’s benefits to people and good quality of life. Chapter
6 also includes material that is relevant to minimizing such
impacts, for example in relation to options such as “diversify
farm systems”. To avoid repetition, we have included crossreferences
to relevant material in this chapter in the Chapter
6 text on responses.
As largely integrated responses, the ten options reviewed
here generally focus on protecting aspects of both nature’s
benefits and good quality of life, and address multiple
drivers. Nevertheless, there are some differences of
emphasis – for example, rights-based approaches respond
directly to the driver of lack of access to traditional lands,
and biocultural conservation explicitly recognizes ecosystem
dynamism and in some cases welcomes invasive species.
Table 5-4 indicates where particular management and
323
5. BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY, POLLINATORS AND
THEIR SOCIO-CULTURAL VALUES