POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
406
6. RESPONSES TO RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES ASSOCIATED
WITH POLLINATORS AND POLLINATION
knowledge there is no evidence for the efficacy of marketbuilding
responses.
In France, an agri-environment scheme under the European
Common Agricultural Policy provides economic support
directly to beekeepers who place hives in areas of high
biodiversity (le dispositif apiculture (API); see section 6.4c).
6.4.4.4 Social and behavioural responses
The two main social and behavioural responses for
managed pollinators are community engagement through
participatory processes, and voluntary codes of practice.
Community engagement could specifically include better
coordination of growers with beekeepers and other
managers of pollinators, especially in terms of pesticide
use (e.g., providers of Osmia spp. to orchards, and alfalfa
seed farmers who manage Nomia melanderii in the USA
and Canada). It could also include provision of forage for
managed bees at relatively large scales, including, for
example, along beekeeper migration routes.
An example of the benefits of communities working together
comes from Kenya (Rose et al., 2014). In 2009, the Kenyan
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries in partnership
with World Neighbours, a development organization,
began working with farmers to introduce beekeeping as
a way to diversify livelihoods. Women were provided with
new beehives and received training and technical support
from Ministry of Agriculture extension workers (Atakos
and Recha, 2013). Women’s groups formed to support
and empower each other and average honey yields
doubled from about 5 kg per beehive/year to 10 kg and
above (Macoloo et al., 2013). Some groups split earnings
among the group or reinvest them into group functions. In
addition to the economic benefits from honey production,
neighbouring farmers have also experienced improved yields
with their mango trees (Atakos and Recha, 2013). This case
study offers an example of a government programme that
not only promotes pollination, but also reduces poverty and
empowers rural women.
There are examples of community-based voluntary codes
of practice relating to managed pollinators. In the Mbulu
highlands (Tanzania), there is a general agreement that bees
and beehives should not be disturbed (Tengo & Belfrage,
2004). In the Kobo system in Ethiopia, families own groups
of trees in which they can place their bee hives. These trees
cannot be cut down and no one else can use these trees
for beekeeping (Abebe and Lowore, 2013). The community
tradition was recognized and strengthened by a forest
protection agreement developed as part of participatory forest
management, under the Ethiopian Government’s Non-Timber
Forest Product and Participatory Forest Management (NTFP-
PFM) project (Abebeand Lowore, 2013). Similar practices
could be enacted as part of a bio-cultural community protocol
in the future (Bavikatte and Jonas, 2009).
6.4.4.5 Knowledge responses
There are four primary knowledge responses associated
with managed pollinators. The first two are related to
improved data on general properties of managed pollinators,
first, monitoring and evaluation to give a big-picture idea of
threats at large scales, and second, work to quantify the
economic dimensions of managed pollinators, in particular
their benefits. Previous work has shown that large-scale
monitoring is very valuable in identifying threats at large
spatial and temporal scales (e.g., Genersch et al., 2010;
Pettis and Delaplane, 2010). Economic valuation efforts
have been helpful but have tended to give very large ranges
in valuation estimates, in part depending on the valuation
methodology used (see Chapter 4).
A third knowledge response is improvement in technical
knowledge transfer, in particular to farmers and beekeepers.
While there is significant agreement that such knowledge
transfer could improve pollinator management, there are few
if any data on the effects of, e.g., beekeeper education on
tangible outcomes such as large-scale colony health.
The fourth response is maintaining and documenting
traditional and indigenous knowledge surrounding managed
pollinators, including its application to modern pollinator
management practices and incorporation into global markets
(see Chapter 5, section 5.4.10). Such knowledge is focused
on management of social stingless bees (meliponines) and
honey bees (including both A. mellifera and A. cerana).
6.4.5 Urban and transport
infrastructure
This section considers responses that specifically take
place in urban or suburban contexts, or are associated with
built infrastructure such as roads, railways and powerlines.
The impacts of urbanization, and patterns of pollinator
diversity and abundance in urban areas are discussed in
section 6.2.1.1.
6.4.5.1 Technical responses
6.4.5.1.1 Conserving pollinators’ habitat
Urbanization has been demonstrated as a threat to
pollinator conservation by causing habitat loss and
fragmentation (McKinney, 2008). In a 2009 review,
Hernandez et al. suggested that conserving larger fragments