POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
connections and co-production of knowledge about “beecultural”
diversity (Rosso-Londoño and Estrada, 2015).
Knowledge co-production activities have highlighted the
importance of boundary objects in communication across
social groups. Boundary objects have the attributes of being
plastic enough to adapt to local needs and the constraints
of several parties employing them, yet robust enough to
maintain a common identity across social groups. The
objects may be concrete, such as a painting (Figure 5-27)
or abstract (Star and Griesemer, 1989). The monarch
butterfly is a key such boundary object for linking with
diverse socio-cultural values of pollination in North America:
its migration has reached an iconic status, becoming a
symbol of nature; environmental health; safe migrations
across national borders; spiritual metamorphosis and
renewal; and the souls returning to Michoacán on the Day
of the Dead. These meanings have yielded a powerful story
line that connects the conservation and management of the
monarch butterfly to the credibility, status, and trust enjoyed
by a diverse range of actors (Gustafsson et al., 2015).
5.4.7.4 Collaborative governance
Collaborative governance arrangements that support
effort alignment, inclusion of local actors, scale-dependent
responsibilities for all actor groups, nurturing mid-scale
managers and scale-crossing brokers to link multiple
actors in the network and support social learning have
been identified as key to improving governance of
pollinators and pollination in Sweden (Ernstson et al., 2010).
Collaborative governance or co-governance is a process
that articulates the context, knowledge, process, and vision
of governance, linking multiple stakeholders together, and
thereby connecting with their multiple socio-cultural values.
Landscape and continental-scale efforts at creating habitat
corridors, recognized as important to a diverse suite of
pollinators, particularly migratory birds, have highlighted the
need, potential and challenges in co-productive governance
(Perfecto et al., 2014; Wyborn 2015). Rather than a
tension between top-down and bottom-up processes,
co-productive governance mobilizes institutions with scaledependent
comparative advantage for landscape-scale
conservation (Hill et al., 2015a). Collaborative governance
supports cross-node, cross-level linkages in polycentric
systems (Brondizio et al., 2009).
In managing and mitigating impacts from pollinator
decline, collaborative governance approaches offer the
advantages of forging linkages across sectors (e.g.,
agriculture and nature conservation), across jurisdictions
(e.g., private, government, not-for-profit) and among levels
(e.g., local, provincial and national governments. This
linkage capability overcomes many risks arising from the
pollination governance deficits identified above (5.4.2.8),
such as contested land use, numerous, fragmented
multi-level administrative units that trigger under-valuing
of pollination, marginalization of key actors oriented to
protection of pollination, scale mis-matches, and networks
that cross scales but do not span and low levels of flexibility
for adaptation. Collaborative governance also addresses
impediments such as delayed feedbacks and insufficient
information flows that have recently been identified as
barriers to delivery of the Aichi Targets under the Convention
on Biological Diversity (Secretariat of the Convention on
Biological Diversity, 2011; Hill et al., 2015b).
A number of initiatives are now underway globally, for
example, the Pollinator Partnership that links corporations,
universities, local, regional and national governments and
communities into their collaboration across the globe. While
results from this initiative are difficult to discern, analysis
in the EU context suggests that social norms, habits, and
motivation are the key to effective governance outcomes
(Ratamäki et al., 2015). Maturation into broad social norms
requires engagement of people into over long time periods,
and involves several stages, including roles for social actors
to challenge current practices, suggesting more time and
engagement are needed for effective pollination governance
to be leverage from these initiatives (Hill et al., 2013).
5.5 METHODS
5.5.1 Review protocols
This review and analysis of the biocultural diversity and
socio-cultural values associated with pollinators combined
the strengths of systematic review (Collaboration for
Environmental Evidence, 2013) with those of historical and
social research methods aimed at sourcing the best and
richest sources for the topic under investigation (Carr, 1961;
Liamputtong, 2008). The review and analysis occurred
through four main phases in the lead-up to the Second
Order Draft:
• Initial scoping literature review: screening, selection
and development of First Order Draft (FOD)
• ILK scoping literature review: screening, selection,
review of FOD and provision of advice for the Second
Order Draft (SOD)
• ILK global and community dialogue: selection of
material from the proceedings (Lyver et al., 2015)
• Gap-filling literature review: response to analytical
framework for SOD, review comments on the FOD and
advice from the ILK scoping review
337
5. BIOCULTURAL DIVERSITY, POLLINATORS AND
THEIR SOCIO-CULTURAL VALUES