POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
primarily targeting voluntary actions by government and
industry to reduce risks for human health and environment
from pesticide use. However, only a few countries (61%
of those surveyed, or 31 countries) appear to be using
the code, based on a survey in 2004 and 2005 (Ekström
and Ekbom, 2010), possibly because it had not been
well promoted internationally. Ekström and Ekbom (2010)
suggest that the Code could be used as a vehicle to
promote non-chemical pest management options and the
use of pesticides with low toxicity and exposure, and to
phase out the use of highly hazardous pesticides as ranked
by researchers, NGOs and governmental organisations
(Kovach et al., 1992; WHO, 2009; PAN, 2013).
6.4.2.2.7 National risk reduction programmes
Several national pesticide risk-reduction programs have
been implemented since the 1980s; examples include those
in Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, France, Sweden (e.g., Barzman
and Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, 2011; Rusch et al., 2013). The
efficiency of these programmes is generally evaluated
based on risk indicators to health and environment, but not
considering pollinators specifically (see section 6.4.2.4.1).
Development of specific risk indicators from exposure of
pesticides to pollinators would be useful for evaluating
possible impacts of such programmes on pollinators.
6.4.2.2.8 Promoting pollinator-friendly farming
and forestry practices
Promoting reduced pesticide or non-chemical pest
management practices depends not only on a technical or
knowledge response, but a willingness to provide resources
that give continuous support to pollinator-friendly pest
management research, extension and practices. It entails
enacting agricultural policies that promote agricultural
methods that reduce pesticide use, adopt IPM strategies,
and low- or no-pesticide crop production systems (e.g.,
organic farming). As an example, the EU has decided that
member states develop an Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) action plan by 2014 (91/414 EEC).
6.4.2.3 Economic responses
There are many subsidy programs aimed to support
biodiversity in agricultural landscapes that include the nonuse
of agrochemicals. Available evidence on the efficacy
of these actions provides a mixed and complex picture
of the effects of reducing agrichemical impacts on wildlife
(Dicks et al., 2014b; http://www.conservationevidence.
com/actions/139), but was unanimously characterised as
beneficial in an expert assessment (Dicks et al., 2014c).
been proposed to discourage pesticide use, and have
been implemented in some European countries (Skevas et
al., 2013). Important knowledge gaps remain with respect
to introducing such policies broadly, e.g., related to actual
efficiency in reducing risks depending on pesticide use,
toxicity and productivity in a region (Skevas et al., 2013).
Pedersen et al. (2012) further show that the uptake efficiency
when implementing these instruments will vary depending on
the farmers’ motivation to maximise profits or increase the
yield, implying that it is necessary to adopt an array of policy
instruments to match the rationales of many farmers.
The cost and crop damage risk of an IPM approach can
be minimized by a yield insurance scheme. A promising
example of this is in Italy, where the program is managed as
a mutual fund by participating farmer associations (Furlan
and Kreuzweiser, 2015).
6.4.2.4 Knowledge responses
6.4.2.4.1 Monitoring and evaluations
Monitoring of environmental risks from pesticides is
performed in many countries. It can be based on health and
environmental risk indicators based on pesticide sales and
use estimates, toxicity, and of measurements of residues in
the environment (e.g., Labite et al., 2011, http://www.oecd.
org/env/ehs/pesticides-biocides/pesticidesriskindicators.
htm).
Little monitoring assesses risks on pollinators specifically.
However, there is some evidence that restrictions have
reduced the risk to pollinators in the UK. Based on risk
indicators, Cross and colleagues found a decrease in the
average environmental risk of pesticides per hectare for fruit
and arable crops between the first introduction of risk-based
regulations in 2002, and 2009 (Cross and Edwards-Jones,
2011; Cross, 2013). They combined pesticide usage
data with a measure of hazard (toxicity) for each specific
chemical, including simple scores for bee and beneficial
insect toxicity. Reduced risks were largely due to removal of
specific chemicals from the market, but were not consistent
across crops as the risk score increased for, e.g., cider
apples and pears (Cross, 2013).
There has been continuous, or time-limited, monitoring of
poisoning incidents of mainly honey bees in some countries.
In some EU countries and the US (http://www.npic.orst.
edu/incidents.html) authorities maintain intoxication incident
surveillance. No environmental monitoring of pesticide
impacts on wild bees is documented except for bumble
bees in the UK and in the US.
387
6. RESPONSES TO RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES ASSOCIATED
WITH POLLINATORS AND POLLINATION
Another economic response is to introduce pesticide taxes
and fees. These are market-based instruments that have
Evaluations of such monitoring programmes published in
the scientific literature include incidents of honey bee and