POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
336
5. BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY, POLLINATORS AND
THEIR SOCIO-CULTURAL VALUES
Knowledge co-production among ILK communities is
proving effective in recovery of stingless beekeeping in
Brazil (Jaffe et al., 2015). Horizontal networks that join
together interdependent producers to share traditional and
agro-ecological knowledge, cultivate alternate circuits of
exchange, and build urban-rural partnerships, are reshaping
the horizons of possibility both for peasant communities and
for the broader agri-food system in Chile (Aguayo and Latta,
2015). The Indonesian Forest Honey Network (Jaringan
Madu Hutan Indonesia, or JMHI) is bringing forest honey
harvesters together to exchange expertise in order to offer
honey harvested in a sustainable way (for the bees); their
honey was the first forest honey in Indonesia to get organic
certification, which leads to much better income potential
(Césard and Heri, 2015).
Knowledge co-production is vital in environmental impact
assessments (EIAs) (Athayde, 2015). Tūhoe Tuawhenuaare
in New Zealand through co-production with science have
identified that the pesticide ‘1080’ is taken up into their
medicinal plants, with unknown effects (Doherty and
Tumarae-Teka, 2015). In several Amazonian communities,
the role of the indigenous environmental monitors or
environmental agent has been increasingly recognized
and supported through specific projects that attempt to
integrate indigenous, academic and technical knowledge
for biodiversity management and conservation (Athayde,
2015). Support for community indicators is emerging as
an effective means of knowledge co-production to monitor
trends in biocultural diversity (Verschuuren et al., 2014).
Co-production of knowledge between beekeepers and
scientists in France and the European Union about the risks
posed by neonicotinoids to bees has led to the adoption
FIGURE 5-27
Youth Summit for Biodiversity
and Community Action
participants co-producing a
poster about pollination.
© Brendan Toews.
Reproduced with permission.
of moratoriums on their use, reflecting a false-positive
evidence-based policy, that prefers to bear the costs of
being wrong about the harm posed by these chemicals,
rather than overlooking that harm (Suryanarayanan and
Kleinman, 2014; Suryanarayanan, 2015). The processes
of co-production were complex, involving government
regulations to restrict pesticide usage, legal action, protests,
compilation of evidence by beekeeper organisations,
and consideration by an expert committee of scientists
who identified risks that were in agreement with field
observations of several beekeepers, stimulating additional
research (Suryanarayanan and Kleinman, 2014). The
co-produced knowledge thus formed part of collective
action by farmers, environmentalists and public actors that
shifted policy towards a precautionary approach in favour of
pollinator protection (Suryanarayanan and Kleinman, 2014).
In the United States, while beekeepers have been very
active in compiling and communicating their knowledge of
pesticide impacts, this on-the-ground evidence has been
dismissed as anecdotal by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), who adopt a false-negative evidence-based
policy, and will not restrict neonicotinoid use until a definitive
role for neonicotinoids in causing bee harm has been proven
(Suryanarayanan and Kleinman, 2011, 2013, 2014).
Emerging models for effective co-production between
science and ILK emphasize building respect, trust, cocapacity
and authentic relationships throughout the entire
research process, from conception, through design,
implementation and dissemination (Huntington et al., 2011;
Adams et al., 2014). Two-voices story-telling between a
scientist who moved towards understanding ILK and an
indigenous person who took up studying science, reveals
how their mutual interest in ethnobiology of bees allowed