Technical ReportPDF Available

IPBES (2016) Summary for policymakers of the assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on pollinators, pollination and food production (2016).

Authors:

Abstract

The thematic assessment of pollinators, pollination and food production carried out under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services aims to assess animal pollination as a regulating ecosystem service underpinning food production in the context of its contribution to nature’s gifts to people and supporting a good quality of life. To achieve this, it focuses on the role of native and managed pollinators, the status and trends of pollinators and pollinator-plant networks and pollination, drivers of change, impacts on human well-being, food production in response to pollination declines and deficits and the effectiveness of responses. The chapters and their executive summaries of this assessment are available as document IPBES/4/INF/1/Rev.2 (www.ipbes.net). The present document is a summary for policymakers of the information presented in these chapters.
The assessment report on
POLLINATORS,
POLLINATION AND
FOOD PRODUCTION
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT OF THE
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SCIENCE-POLICY PLATFORM ON BIODIVERSITY AND
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (IPBES) ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD
PRODUCTION
Copyright © 2016, Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(IPBES)
ISBN: 978-92-807-3568-0
Job Number: DEW/1990/NA
Reproduction
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in
part and in any form for educational or non-profit
services without special permission from the
copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of
the source is made. The IPBES Secretariat would
appreciate receiving a copy of any publication
that uses this publication as a source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale
or any other commercial purpose whatsoever
without prior permission in writing from the IPBES
Secretariat. Applications for such permission,
with a statement of the purpose and extent of the
reproduction, should be addressed to the IPBES
Secretariat.
The use of information from this publication
concerning proprietary products for publicity or
advertising is not permitted.
The designations employed and the presentation
of material on maps do not imply the expression
of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services concerning
the legal status of any country, territory, city
or area or of its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Traceable accounts
The chapter references enclosed in curly brackets
(e.g. {2.3.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3}) are traceable
accounts and refer to sections of the chapters
of the IPBES assessment report on pollinators,
pollination and food production. A traceable
account is a description within the corresponding
texts of these chapters, reflecting the evaluation
of the type, amount, quality, and consistency of
evidence and the degree of agreement for that
particular statement or key finding.
For further information, please
contact:
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
IPBES Secretariat, UN Campus
Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1, D-53113 Bonn,
Germany
Phone: +49 (0) 228 815 0570
Email: secretariat@ipbes.net
Website: www.ipbes.net
Photo credits
Cover: Shutterstock_A Grycko / Shutterstock_A
Altair / Shutterstock_A M Allport / Shutterstock_
Grafvision / Shutterstock_A Havelaar
P.3: IISD_S Wu (Sir R T Watson)
P.4:UNEP (ESolheim) / UNESCO_M Ravassard
(I Bokova) / FAO (J Graziano da Silva) / UNDP
(Helen Clark)
P.7: Shutterstock_V Kisel
P.9: B Taubert / Shutterstock_Z Radojko /
Shutterstock_Ownzaa / Mola image: “The use of
this image is a collective right owned by the Guna
People, that has been authorized by the Guna
General Congress according to the Resolution
No. 1 of 22 November 2002 issued by the
Department of Industrial Property Registry of the
Ministry of Commerce and Industry.” / A Hendry
P.11: Shutterstock_4motion / Shutterstock_Artens
/ Shutterstock_J Tkaczuk / Shutterstock_G Gillies
P.12: Shutterstock_M Mecnarowski
Figure SPM 1: Rob White (Amegilla cingulate);
Anton Pawn (Bombus terrestris, Gerbillurus
paeba, Bombus dahlbomii); Giorgio Venturieri
(Melipona fasciculata, Epicharis rustica); Tom
Murray (Bombus impatiens, Bombus ternarius);
Dino Martins (Apis cerana, Meliponula ferruginea,
Junonia almanac, Xylocopa caerulea, Nephele
comma, Cinnyris mariquensis); Stephen D.
Hopper (Cercartetus concinnus); Francis L.
W. Ratnieks (Apis mellifera); Jilian Li (Bombus
rufofasciatus); Kim Wormald www.lirralirra.
com (Trichoglossus moluccanus); Hajnalka
Szentgyorgyi (Bombus lapidarius); Jason
Gibbs (Anthidium manicatum); Mick Talbot
(Helophilus pendulus); David Inouye (Selasphorus
platycercus); J. Scott Altenbach (Leptonycteris
yerbabuenae); Ivan Sazima (Euphonia pectorallis,
Trachylepsis atlantica)
P.32: Shutterstock_ N Nachiangmai
Graphic design
MH DESIGN / Maro Haas
Yuka Estrada
Ralph Percival / Ralph Design
This report in the form of a PDF can be viewed
and downloaded at www.ipbes.net
The assessment report on
POLLINATORS,
POLLINATION AND
FOOD PRODUCTION
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS
DRAFTING AUTHORS:
Simon G. Potts, Vera Imperatriz-Fonseca, Hien T. Ngo, Jacobus C. Biesmeijer, Thomas D. Breeze,
LynnV.Dicks, Lucas A. Garibaldi, Rosemary Hill, Josef Settele and Adam J. Vanbergen
SUGGESTED CITATION:
IPBES (2016): Summary for policymakers of the assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on pollinators, pollination and food production.
S.G.Potts, V. L. Imperatriz-Fonseca, H. T. Ngo, J. C. Biesmeijer, T. D. Breeze, L. V. Dicks, L. A. Garibaldi,
R. Hill, J.Settele, A. J. Vanbergen, M. A. Aizen, S. A. Cunningham, C. Eardley, B. M. Freitas, N. Gallai,
P.G.Kevan, A. Kovács-Hostyánszki, P. K. Kwapong, J. Li, X. Li, D. J. Martins, G. Nates-Parra, J.S.Pettis,
R. Rader, and B. F. Viana (eds.). Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 36 pages.
MEMBERS OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
WHO PROVIDED GUIDANCE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF THIS ASSESSMENT:
A. Báldi, A. Bartuska (Multidisciplinary Expert Panel); I. A. Baste, A. Oteng-Yeboah, R. T. Watson (Bureau).
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
2
The thematic assessment of pollinators, pollination
and food production carried out under the auspices
of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services aims to assess
animal pollination as a regulating ecosystem service
underpinning food production in the context of its
contribution to nature’s gifts to people and supporting
a good quality of life. To achieve this, it focuses
on the role of native and managed pollinators, the
status and trends of pollinators and pollinator-plant
networks and pollination, drivers of change, impacts
on human well-being, food production in response to
pollination declines and deficits and the effectiveness
of responses.
The chapters and their executive summaries of this
assessment are available as document IPBES/4/
INF/1/Rev.2 (www.ipbes.net). The present document
is a summary for policymakers of the information
presented in these chapters.
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
3
FOREWORD
FOREWORD
The objective of the Intergovernmental Science-
Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services is to provide Governments, private
sector, and civil society with scientifically credible
and independent up-to-date assessments of
available knowledge to make informed decisions
at the local, national and international level.
This assessment on pollinators, pollination and food
production has been carried out by experts from all regions
of the world, who have analysed a large body of knowledge,
including about 3,000 scientific publications. It represents
the state of our knowledge on this issue. Its chapters and
their executive summaries were accepted, and its summary
for policymakers was approved, by the Plenary of IPBES at
its fourth session (22-28 February 2016, Kuala Lumpur).
This report provides a critical assessment of the full range of
issues facing decision-makers, including the value of pollination
and pollinators, status, trends and threats to pollinators and
pollination, and policy and management response options.
It concludes that pollinators, which are economically and
socially important, are increasingly under threat from human
activities, including climate change, with observed decreases
in the abundance and diversity of wild pollinators. However,
the report also outlines a wide range of management and
response options that are available to halt the further decline of
pollinators. The assessment concludes that 75% of our food
crops and nearly 90% of wild flowering plants depend at least
to some extent on animal pollination and that a high diversity
of wild pollinators is critical to pollination even when managed
bees are present in high numbers.
This assessment addresses two highly contentious and political
issues: (i) the lethal and sub-lethal effects of pesticides, including
neonicotinoids, on wild and managed bees; and (ii)the direct
and indirect effects of genetically modified crops on a range of
pollinators. The assessment concludes that recent evidence
shows impacts of neonicotinoids on wild pollinator survival and
reproduction at actual field exposure, but that the effects on
managed honey bee colonies are conflicting. The assessment
concludes that more research is needed to assess the impact
of genetically modified crops on pollinators. The fact that
the assessment could address such contentious issues in a
balanced and credible manner demonstrates the value of an
independent assessment of the evidence.
While much is known about pollinators and pollination,
there are still significant scientific uncertainties that need to
be addressed through national and international research
programs.
IPBES is pleased that the Subsidiary Body on Scientific,
Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) of the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD) has already considered the
implication of this assessment for the work under the
Convention, noting the importance of pollinators and pollination
for all terrestrial ecosystems, including those beyond agricultural
and food production systems, and recognizing pollination as a
key ecosystem function that is central to the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity. The Conference of the Parties
of the Convention is expected at its thirteenth meeting later this
year to adopt a decision on pollinators and pollination based on
SBSTTAs recommendation and IPBES’ assessment, which will
also be relevant to a broader decision on further mainstreaming
biodiversity in the agriculture sector’s policies, plans, programs
and economic tools.
Accordingly, the assessment is expected to play a significant
role in informing decision making at national and international
levels, including in the context of the further implementation of
the Strategic Plan on Biodiversity 2011-2020 and of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development.
I would like to recognize the excellent work of the co-chairs,
Simon G. Potts and Vera Imperatriz-Fonseca, and of the
coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors,
contributing authors and reviewers, and warmly thank them for
their commitment. I would also like to warmly thank Hien T. Ngo
for providing excellent technical support. Without their passion
and dedication, this report would not have been possible.
There can be no doubt that this first IPBES thematic
assessment has reached or exceeded the standard set
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for
a credible, high quality, policy-relevant, but not policy
prescriptive assessment. This sets the bar for the current
ongoing IPBES thematic (land degradation and restoration),
regional and global assessments.
Sir Robert T. Watson
Chair of IPBES
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
4
STATEMENTS FROM KEY PARTNERS
The growing threat to
pollinators, which play an
important role in food
security, provides another
compelling example of how
connected people are to our
environment, and how deeply
entwined our fate is with that of the
natural world. As we work towards
food security, it is important to
approach the challenge with a
consideration of the environmental
impacts that drive the issue.
Sustainable development, including
improving food security for the
world’s population, necessitates an
approach that embraces the
environment.
Erik Solheim
Executive Director,
United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP)
In the context of the IPBES
report on pollinators,
pollination and food
production, for the first
time, science and indigenous
knowledge have been brought
together to assess an important
biodiversity-dependent service -
pollination - in support of food
security and its contribution to the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. UNESCO is pleased
to have contributed directly to this
effort.
Irina Bokova
Director-General,
United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO)
Pollination services are an
‘agricultural input’ that
ensure the production of
crops. All farmers,
especially family farmers and
smallholders around the world,
benefit from these services.
Improving pollinator density and
diversity has a direct positive impact
on crop yields, consequently
promoting food and nutrition
security. Hence, enhancing pollinator
services is important for achieving
the Sustainable Development Goals,
as well as for helping family farmers’
adaptation to climate change.
José Graziano da Silva
Director-General,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO)
STATEMENTS FROM
KEY PARTNERS
page 3
FOREWORD
page 4
STATEMENTS FROM KEY
PARTNERS
page 8
KEY MESSAGES
A. Values of pollinators and pollination
B. Status and trends in pollinators and pollination
C. Drivers of change, risks and opportunities, and
policy and management options
page 12
BACKGROUND TO
POLLINATORS, POLLINATION
AND FOOD PRODUCTION
A. Values of pollinators and pollination
B. Status and trends in pollinators, pollination and
pollinator-dependent crops and wild plants
C. Drivers of change, risks and opportunities and
policy and management options
page 32
APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1
Terms that are central to understanding the
summary for policymakers
Key elements of the Platform’s conceptual
framework
APPENDIX 2
Communication of the degree of condence
The complex and
integrated development
challenges we face today
demand that decision-
making be based on sound science
and takes into account indigenous
and local knowledge. Embracing
science in areas such as pollination
will contribute to better informed
policy choices that will protect
ecosystem services that are
important for both food security and
poverty eradication. UNDP is
proactively contributing to promoting
dialogue between scientists,
policy-makers and practitioners on
this and related topics, supporting
countries in the implementation of
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development.
Helen Clark
Administrator,
United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
6
KEY MESSAGES
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
7
KEY MESSAGES
KEY
MESSAGES
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
8
KEY MESSAGES
KEY
MESSAGES
A. VALUES OF POLLINATORS AND
POLLINATION
_______
1Animal pollination plays a vital role as a
regulating ecosystem service in nature. Globally,
nearly 90 per cent of wild flowering plant species depend, at
least in part, on the transfer of pollen by animals. These
plants are critical for the continued functioning of
ecosystems as they provide food, form habitats and provide
other resources for a wide range of other species.
2More than three quarters of the leading types
of global food crops rely to some extent on animal
pollination for yield and/or quality. Pollinator-
dependent crops contribute to 35 per cent of global crop
production volume.
3Given that pollinator-dependent crops rely on
animal pollination to varying degrees, it is
estimated that 5-8 per cent of current global crop
production, with an annual market value of $235
billion-$577 billion (in 2015, United States dollars1)
worldwide, is directly attributable to animal
pollination.
4The importance of animal pollination varies
substantially among crops, and therefore among
regional crop economies. Many of the world’s most
important cash crops benefit from animal pollination in terms
of yield and/or quality and are leading export products in
developing countries (e.g., coffee and cocoa) and developed
countries (e.g., almonds), providing employment and income
for millions of people.
5Pollinator-dependent food products are
important contributors to healthy human diets and
nutrition. Pollinator-dependent species encompass many
fruit, vegetable, seed, nut and oil crops, which supply major
proportions of micronutrients, vitamins and minerals in the
human diet.
1. Value adjusted to 2015 United States dollars taking into account
inflation only.
6The vast majority of pollinator species are
wild, including more than 20,000 species of bees,
some species of flies, butterflies, moths, wasps,
beetles, thrips, birds, bats and other vertebrates. A
few species of bees are widely managed, including
the western honey bee (Apis mellifera)2, the
eastern honey bee (Apis cerana), some bumble
bees, some stingless bees and a few solitary bees.
Beekeeping provides an important source of income for
many rural livelihoods. The western honey bee is the most
widespread managed pollinator in the world, and globally
there are about 81 million hives producing an estimated 1.6
million tonnes of honey annually.
7Both wild and managed pollinators have
globally significant roles in crop pollination,
although their relative contributions differ
according to crop and location. Crop yield and/or
quality depend on both the abundance and
diversity of pollinators. A diverse community of
pollinators generally provides more effective and stable crop
pollination than any single species. Pollinator diversity
contributes to crop pollination even when managed species
(e.g., honey bees) are present in high abundance. The
contribution of wild pollinators to crop production is
undervalued.
8Pollinators are a source of multiple benefits to
people, beyond food provisioning, contributing
directly to medicines, biofuels (e.g. canola3 and
palm oil), fibres (e.g., cotton and linen) construction
materials (timbers), musical instruments, arts and
crafts, recreational activities and as sources of
inspiration for art, music, literature, religion,
traditions, technology and education. Pollinators
serve as important spiritual symbols in many cultures.
Sacred passages about bees in all the worlds’ major
religions highlight their significance to human societies over
millennia.
9A good quality of life for many people relies on
ongoing roles of pollinators in globally significant
heritage, as symbols of identity, as aesthetically
significant landscapes and animals, in social
relations, for education and recreation and in
governance interactions. Pollinators and pollination are
critical to the implementation of the Convention for the
Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage; the
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
and Natural Heritage; and the Globally Important Agricultural
Heritage Systems Initiative.
2. Also called the European honey bee, native to Africa, Europe and
Western Asia, but spread around the globe by beekeepers and queen
breeders.
3. Also called oilseed rape.
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
9
KEY MESSAGES
B. STATUS AND TRENDS IN
POLLINATORS AND POLLINATION
_______
10 Wild pollinators have declined in occurrence
and diversity (and abundance for certain species)
at local and regional scales in North West Europe
and North America. Although a lack of wild pollinator
data (species identity, distribution and abundance) for Latin
America, Africa, Asia and Oceania preclude any general
statement on their regional status, local declines have been
recorded. Long-term international or national monitoring of
both pollinators and pollination is urgently required to
provide information on status and trends for most species
and most parts of the world.
11 The number of managed western honey bee
hives has increased globally over the last five
decades, even though declines have been recorded
in some European countries and North America
over the same period. Seasonal colony loss of western
honey bees has in recent years been high at least in some
parts of the temperate Northern Hemisphere and in South
Africa. Beekeepers can under some conditions, with
associated economic costs, make up such losses through
the splitting of managed colonies.
12 The International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) Red List assessments indicate that
16.5 per cent of vertebrate pollinators are
threatened with global extinction (increasing to 30
per cent for island species). There are no global
Red List assessments specifically for insect
pollinators. However, regional and national
assessments indicate high levels of threat for
some bees and butterflies. In Europe, 9 per cent of
bee and butterfly species are threatened and populations
are declining for 37 per cent of bees and 31 per cent of
butterflies (excluding data deficient species, which includes
57 per cent of bees). Where national Red List assessments
are available, they show that often more than 40 per cent of
bee species may be threatened.
13 The volume of production of pollinator-
dependent crops has increased by 300 per cent
over the last five decades, making livelihoods
increasingly dependent on the provision of
pollination. However, overall these crops have
experienced lower growth and lower stability of
yield than pollinator-independent crops. Yield per
hectare of pollinator-dependent crops has increased less,
and varies more year to year, than yield per hectare of
pollinator-independent crops. While the drivers of this trend
are not clear, studies of several crops at local scales show
that production declines when pollinators decline.
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
10
KEY MESSAGES
C. DRIVERS OF CHANGE, RISKS
AND OPPORTUNITIES, AND POLICY
AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
_______
14 The abundance, diversity and health of
pollinators and the provision of pollination are
threatened by direct drivers that generate risks to
societies and ecosystems. Threats include land-use
change, intensive agricultural management and pesticide
use, environmental pollution, invasive alien species,
pathogens and climate change. Explicitly linking pollinator
declines to individual or combinations of direct drivers is
limited by data availability or complexity, yet a wealth of
individual case studies worldwide suggests that these direct
drivers often affect pollinators negatively.
15 Strategic responses to the risks and
opportunities associated with pollinators and
pollination range in ambition and timescale from
immediate, relatively straightforward, responses
that reduce or avoid risks to relatively large-scale
and long-term responses that aim to transform
agriculture or society’s relationship with nature.
There are seven broad strategies, linked to actions, for
responding to risks and opportunities (table SPM. 1),
including a range of solutions that draw on indigenous and
local knowledge. These strategies can be adopted in parallel
and would be expected to reduce risks associated with
pollinator decline in any region of the world, regardless of
the extent of available knowledge about the status of
pollinators or the effectiveness of interventions.
16 A number of features of current intensive
agricultural practices threaten pollinators and
pollination. Moving towards more sustainable
agriculture and reversing the simplification of
agricultural landscapes offer key strategic
responses to risks associated with pollinator
decline. Three complementary approaches to maintaining
healthy pollinator communities and productive agriculture
are: (a) ecological intensification (i.e., managing nature’s
ecological functions to improve agricultural production and
livelihoods while minimizing environmental damage);
(b)strengthening existing diversified farming systems
(including forest gardens, home gardens, agroforestry and
mixed cropping and livestock systems) to foster pollinators
and pollination through practices validated by science or
indigenous and local knowledge (e.g., crop rotation); and
(c)investing in ecological infrastructure by protecting,
restoring and connecting patches of natural and semi-
natural habitats throughout productive agricultural
landscapes. These strategies can concurrently mitigate the
impacts of land-use change, land management intensity,
pesticide use and climate change on pollinators.
17 Practices based on indigenous and local
knowledge can be a source of solutions to current
challenges, in co-production with science, by
supporting an abundance and diversity of
pollinators. Practices include diverse farming systems;
favouring heterogeneity in landscapes and gardens; kinship
relationships that protect many specific pollinators; using
seasonal indicators (e.g., flowering) to trigger actions (e.g.,
planting); distinguishing a wide range of pollinators; and
tending to nest trees and floral and other pollinator resources.
Knowledge co-production has led to improvements in hive
design, new understanding of parasite impacts and the
identification of stingless bees new to science.
18 The risk to pollinators from pesticides arises
through a combination of toxicity and the level of
exposure, which varies geographically with the
compounds used and the scale of land management
and habitat in the landscape. Pesticides, particularly
insecticides, have been demonstrated to have a broad
range of lethal and sublethal effects on pollinators
under controlled experimental conditions. The few
available field studies assessing effects of field-realistic exposure
provide conflicting evidence of effects based on species studied
and pesticide usage. It is currently unresolved how sublethal
effects of pesticide exposure recorded for individual insects
affect colonies and populations of managed bees and wild
pollinators, especially over the longer term. Recent research
focusing on neonicotinoid insecticides shows evidence of lethal
and sublethal effects on bees and some evidence of impacts on
the pollination they provide. There is evidence from a recent
study that shows impacts of neonicotinoids on wild pollinator
survival and reproduction at actual field exposure.4 Evidence,
from this and other studies, of effects on managed honey bee
colonies is conflicting.
19 Exposure of pollinators to pesticides can be
decreased by reducing the use of pesticides,
seeking alternative forms of pest control and
adopting a range of specific application practices,
including technologies to reduce pesticide drift.
Actions to reduce pesticide use include promoting
Integrated Pest Management, supported by
educating farmers, organic farming and policies to
reduce overall use. Risk assessment can be an effective
tool for defining pollinator-safe uses of pesticides, which
should consider different levels of risk among wild and
managed pollinator species according to their biology.
Subsequent use regulations (including labelling) are important
steps towards avoiding the misuse of specific pesticides. The
International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management of
the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health
Organization of the United Nations provides a set of voluntary
4. Rundlöf et al. (2015). Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide
negatively affects wild bees. Nature 521: 77-80 doi:10. 1038/nature14420.
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
11
KEY MESSAGES
actions for Government and industry to reduce risks for
human health and environment.5 6
20 Most agricultural genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) carry traits for herbicide tolerance (HT) or
insect resistance (IR). Reduced weed populations are likely
to accompany most herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops, diminishing
food resources for pollinators. The actual consequences for the
abundance and diversity of pollinators foraging in herbicide-
tolerant (HT)-crop fields is unknown. Insect resistant (IR) crops
can result in the reduction of insecticide use, which varies
regionally according to the prevalence of pests, the emergence
of secondary outbreaks of non-target pests or primary pest
resistance. If sustained, the reduction in insecticide use could
reduce pressure on non-target insects. How insect-resistant
(IR) crop use and reduced pesticide use affect pollinator
abundance and diversity is unknown. Risk assessments
required for the approval of genetically modified organism
(GMO) crops in most countries do not adequately address the
direct sublethal effects of insect-resistant (IR) crops or the
indirect effects of herbicide-tolerant (HT) and insect-resistant
(IR) crops, partly because of a lack of data.
21 Bees suffer from a broad range of parasites,
including Varroa mites in western and eastern honey
bees. Emerging and re-emerging diseases are a
significant threat to the health of honey bees,
5. Based on a survey from 2004-2005; Ekström, G., and Ekbom, B. (2010).
Can the IOMC Revive the ‘FAO Code’ and take stakeholder initiatives to
the developing world? Outlooks on Pest Management 21:125-131.
6. Erratum: a) The title “International Code of Conduct on the Distribution
and Use of Pesticides of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO)” has been changed to the “International Code
of Conduct on Pesticide Management of the Food and Agriculture
Organization and the World Health Organization of the United Nations”
to reflect this revision made in 2014; b) A survey from 2004 and 2005
suggests that a total of 31 out of 51 countries who completed the survey
questionnaire, or 61 per cent, were using it, and not 15 per cent. The
incorrect figure of 15 percent has therefore been deleted from the text.
bumble bees and solitary bees, especially when
they are managed commercially. Greater emphasis on
hygiene and the control of pathogens would help reduce the
spread of disease across the entire community of pollinators,
managed and wild. Mass breeding and large-scale transport
of managed pollinators can pose risks for the transmission of
pathogens and parasites and increase the likelihood of
selection for more virulent pathogens, alien species invasions
and regional extinctions of native pollinator species. The risk
of unintended harm to wild and managed pollinators could be
decreased by better regulation of their trade and use.
22 The ranges, abundances and seasonal activities
of some wild pollinator species (e.g., bumble bees
and butterflies) have changed in response to
observed climate change over recent decades.
Generally, the impacts of ongoing climate change on
pollinators and pollination services to agriculture may not be
fully apparent for several decades, owing to a delayed
response in ecological systems. Adaptive responses to climate
change include increasing crop diversity and regional farm
diversity and targeted habitat conservation, management or
restoration. The effectiveness of adaptation efforts at securing
pollination under climate change is untested.
23 Many actions to support wild and managed
pollinators and pollination (described above and in
table SPM. 1) could be implemented more effectively
with improved governance. For example, broad-scale
government policy may be too homogenous and not allow
for local variation in practices; administration can be
fragmented into different levels; and goals can be
contradictory between sectors. Coordinated, collaborative
action and knowledge sharing that builds links across
sectors (e.g., agriculture and nature conservation), across
jurisdictions (e.g., private, Government, not-for-profit), and
among levels (e.g., local, national, global) can overcome
these challenges and lead to long-term changes that benefit
pollinators. Establishing effective governance requires
habits, motivations and social norms to change over the
long term. However, the possibility that contradictions
between policy sectors may remain even after coordination
efforts have been undertaken should be acknowledged and
should be a point of attention in future studies.
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
12
BACKGROUND
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
13
BACKGROUND
BACK-
GROUND
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
14
BACKGROUND
WILD
POLLINATORS
MANAGED
POLLINATORS
Frame colour indicates the main
area of species’ distribution
Gerbillurus
paeba
Cinnyris
mariquensis
Nephele
comma
Apis
mellifera
Meliponula
ferruginea
AFRICA
WILD POLLINATORS MANAGED POLLINATORS
Anthidium
manicatum
Helophilus
pendulus
Bombus
lapidarius
Apis
mellifera
Bombus
terrestris
EUROPE
WILD POLLINATORS MANAGED POLLINATORS
Trichoglossus
moluccanus
Cercartetus
concinnus
Amegilla
cingulata
OCEANIA
WILD POLLINATORS MANAGED POLLINATORS
Xylocopa
caerulea
Euphonia
pectorallis
Bombus
dahlbomii
Trachylepsis
atlantica
Melipona
fasciculata
SOUTH & CENTRAL AMERICA
WILD POLLINATORS MANAGED POLLINATORS
Epicharis
rustica
Selasphorus
platycercus
Bombus
ternarius
Leptonycteris
yerbabuenae
Bombus
impatiens
NORTH AMERICA
WILD POLLINATORS MANAGED POLLINATORS
Junonia
almana
Xylocopa
caerulea
Bombus
rufofasciatus
Apis cerana
Apis
mellifera
EURASIA
WILD POLLINATORS MANAGED POLLINATORS
FIGURE SPM. 1
Global diversity of wild and managed pollinators. Examples provided
here are purely illustrative and have been chosen to reflect the wide
variety of animal pollinators found regionally.
BACKGROUND
TO POLLINATORS,
POLLINATION AND FOOD
PRODUCTION
Pollination is the transfer of pollen between
the male and female parts of flowers to
enable fertilization and reproduction. The
majority of cultivated and wild plants
depend, at least in part, on animal vectors,
known as pollinators, to transfer pollen, but
other means of pollen transfer such as self-
pollination or wind-pollination are also important {1.2}.
Pollinators comprise a diverse group of animals dominated
by insects, especially bees, but also include some species
of flies, wasps, butterflies, moths, beetles, weevils, thrips,
ants, midges, bats, birds, primates, marsupials, rodents
and reptiles (figure SPM. 1). While nearly all bee species
are pollinators, a smaller (and variable) proportion of
species within the other taxa are pollinators. More than
90 per cent of the leading global crop types are visited by
bees and around 30 per cent by flies, while each of the
other taxa visits less than 6 per cent of the crop types. A
few species of bees are managed, such as the western
honey bee (Apis mellifera) and eastern honey bee (Apis
cerana), some bumble bees, some stingless bees and a
few solitary bees; however, the vast majority of the world’s
20,077 known bee species are wild (i.e., free living and
unmanaged) {1.3}.
Pollinators visit flowers primarily to collect or feed on
nectar and/or pollen, although a few specialist pollinators
may also collect other rewards such as oils, fragrances
and resins offered by some flowers. Some species of
pollinators are specialists (i.e., visiting a small variety
of flowering species), while others are generalists (i.e.,
visiting a wide range of species). Similarly, specialist
plants are pollinated by a small number of species
while generalist plants are pollinated by a broad range
of species {1.6}. Section A of this summary examines
the diversity of values7 associated with pollinators and
pollination, covering economic, environmental, socio-
7. Values: those actions, processes, entities or objects that are worthy
or important (sometimes values may also refer to moral principles).
Díaz et al. (2015) “The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting
nature and people.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
14: 1–16.
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
15
BACKGROUND
cultural, indigenous and local perspectives. Section B
characterizes the status and trends of wild and managed
pollinators and pollinator-dependent crops and wild plants.
Section C considers the direct and indirect drivers of plant-
pollinator systems and management and policy options for
adaptation and mitigation when impacts are negative.
The assessment report evaluates a large knowledge base
of scientific, technical, socio economic and indigenous and
local knowledge sources. Appendix 1 defines the central
concepts used in the report and in the present summary for
policymakers, and appendix 2 explains the terms used to
assign and communicate the degree of confidence in the
key findings. Chapter references enclosed in curly brackets
in the present summary for policymakers, e.g., {2.3.1, box
2.3.4}, indicate where support for the findings, figures,
boxes and tables may be found in the assessment report.
WILD
POLLINATORS
MANAGED
POLLINATORS
Frame colour indicates the main
area of species’ distribution
Gerbillurus
paeba
Cinnyris
mariquensis
Nephele
comma
Apis
mellifera
Meliponula
ferruginea
AFRICA
WILD POLLINATORS MANAGED POLLINATORS
Anthidium
manicatum
Helophilus
pendulus
Bombus
lapidarius
Apis
mellifera
Bombus
terrestris
EUROPE
WILD POLLINATORS MANAGED POLLINATORS
Trichoglossus
moluccanus
Cercartetus
concinnus
Amegilla
cingulata
OCEANIA
WILD POLLINATORS MANAGED POLLINATORS
Xylocopa
caerulea
Euphonia
pectorallis
Bombus
dahlbomii
Trachylepsis
atlantica
Melipona
fasciculata
SOUTH & CENTRAL AMERICA
WILD POLLINATORS MANAGED POLLINATORS
Epicharis
rustica
Selasphorus
platycercus
Bombus
ternarius
Leptonycteris
yerbabuenae
Bombus
impatiens
NORTH AMERICA
WILD POLLINATORS MANAGED POLLINATORS
Junonia
almana
Xylocopa
caerulea
Bombus
rufofasciatus
Apis cerana
Apis
mellifera
EURASIA
WILD POLLINATORS MANAGED POLLINATORS
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
16
BACKGROUND
Diverse knowledge systems, including science
and indigenous and local knowledge, contribute
to understanding pollinators and pollination, their
economic, environmental and socio-cultural values
and their management globally (well established).
Scientific knowledge provides extensive and multi-
dimensional understanding of pollinators and pollination,
resulting in detailed information on their diversity, functions
and steps needed to protect pollinators and the values
they produce. In indigenous and local knowledge systems,
pollination processes are often understood, celebrated and
managed holistically in terms of maintaining values through
fostering fertility, fecundity, spirituality and a diversity of
farms, gardens and other habitats. The combined use of
economic, socio-cultural and holistic valuation of pollinator
gains and losses, using multiple knowledge systems, brings
different perspectives from different stakeholder groups,
providing more information for the management of and
decision-making about pollinators and pollination, although
key knowledge gaps remain {4.2, 4.6, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3,
5.1.4, 5.1.5, 5.2.1, 5.2.5, 5.3.1, 5.5, figure 5-5 and boxes
5-1, 5-2}.
Animal pollination plays a vital role as a regulating
ecosystem service in nature. An estimated 87.5 per
cent (approximately 308,000 species) of the world’s
flowering wild plants depend, at least in part, on
animal pollination for sexual reproduction, and this
ranges from 94 per cent in tropical communities
to 78 per cent in temperate zone communities
(established but incomplete). Pollinators play central
roles in the stability and functioning of many terrestrial food
webs, as wild plants provide a wide range of resources such
as food and shelter for many other invertebrates, mammals,
birds and other taxa {1.2.1, 1.6, 4.0, 4.4}.
Production, yield and quality of more than three
quarters of the leading global food crop types,
occupying 33-35 per cent of all agricultural land,
benefit8 from animal pollination (well established).
Of the 107 leading global crop types,9 production from 91
(fruit, seed and nut) crops rely to varying degrees upon
8. When other factors are not limiting, e.g., crop nutrition.
9. Klein et al. (2007) “Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes
for world crops” Proc. R. Soc. B 274: 303-313. Note that this graph
and figures are taken from fig. 3 in Klein et al., 2007, and only include
crops that produce fruits or seeds for direct human use as food (107
crops), but exclude crops for which seeds are only used for breeding
or to grow vegetable parts for direct human use or for forage and
crops known to be only wind-pollinated, passively self-pollinated or
reproduced vegetatively.
animal pollination. Total pollinator loss would decrease crop
production by more than 90 per cent in 12 per cent of the
leading global crops, would have no effects in 7 per cent
of the crops and would have unknown effects in 8 per cent
of the crops. In addition, 28 per cent of the crops would
lose between 40 and 90 per cent of production, whereas
the remaining crops would lose between 1 and 40 per cent
(figure SPM. 2). In terms of global production volumes, 60 per
cent of production comes from crops that do not depend
on animal pollination (e.g., cereals and root crops), 35 per
cent of production comes from crops that depend at least
in part on animal pollination and 5 per cent have not been
evaluated (established but incomplete). In addition, many
crops, such as potatoes, carrots, parsnips, alliums and
other vegetables, do not depend directly on pollinators for
the production of the parts we consume (e.g., roots, tubers,
stems, leaves or flowers), but pollinators are still important
for their propagation via seeds or in breeding programmes.
Furthermore, many forage species (e.g., legumes) also
benefit from animal pollination {1.1, 1.2.1, 3.7.2}.
28%
Production
reduction
in 85% of
leading
crops
No effects
Unknow effects >90% reduction
in crop production
40 to 90%
reduction
1 to 40%
reduction
12%
7%
8%
45%
FIGURE SPM. 2
Percentage dependence on animal-mediated pollination
of leading global crops that are directly consumed by
humans and traded on the global market.9
10. Klein et al. (2007) “Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes
for world crops” Proc. R. Soc. B 274: 303-313. Note that this
graph and figures are taken from fig. 3 in Klein et al., 2007, and only
includes crops that produce fruits or seeds for direct human use as
food (107 crops), but excludes crops for which seeds are only used
for breeding or to grow vegetable parts for direct human use or for
forage, and crops known to be only wind-pollinated, passively self-
pollinated or reproduced vegetatively.
A. Values of pollinators
and pollination
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
17
BACKGROUND
Animal pollination is directly responsible for
between 5 and 8 per cent of current global
agricultural production by volume (i.e., this amount
of production would be lost if there were no
pollinators), and includes foods that supply major
proportions of micronutrients, such as vitamin A,
iron and folate, in global human diets (figure SPM. 3A)
(established but incomplete) {3.7.2, 5.2.2}.11 12
11. Chaplin-Kramer et al. (2014) “Global malnutrition overlaps with
pollinator-dependent micronutrient production.” Proc. R. Soc. B 281:
2014.1799.
12. Lautenbach et al. (2012) “Spatial and temporal trends of global
pollination benefit.” PLoS ONE 7: e35954.
Loss of pollinators could lead to lower availability of crops
and wild plants that provide essential micronutrients for
human diets, impacting health and nutritional security and
risking increased numbers of people suffering from vitamin
A, iron and folate deficiency. It is now well recognized that
hunger and malnutrition are best addressed by paying
attention to diverse nutritional requirements and not to
calories alone, but also to the dietary nutritional value from
non staple crop products, many of which are dependent on
pollinators {1.1, 2.6.4, 3.7, 3.8. 5.4.1.2}. This includes some
animal pollinators that are themselves consumed for food
and are high in protein, vitamins and minerals.
0102560 100 250 1500
Vitamin A pollination dependency
No pollination demandNo data
Low
0Areas excluded 0.7
High
(A) Fractional dependency of micronutrient production on pollination
(B) Pollination service to direct crop market output in US$
Iron pollination dependency
Low
0 0.2
High
Folate pollination dependency
Low
00.2
High
Areas excluded Areas excluded
Pollination benets (US$ per ha agricultural area)
FIGURE SPM. 3
(A) Fractional dependency of micronutrient production on pollination.This represents the proportion of production that is
dependent on pollination for (a) vitamin A, (b) iron, and (c) folate. Based on Chaplin-Kramer et al. (2014).10
(B) Global map of pollination service to direct crop market output in terms of US$ per hectare of added production on a
5’ by 5’ latitude longitude grid. Benefits are given as US$ for the year 2000 and have been corrected for inflation (to the year 2009)
and for purchasing power parities. Analyses used country-specific FAO-data on production prices and production quantities and on
the pollination dependency ratio of the crops. Based on Lautenbach et al. (2012).11
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
18
BACKGROUND
The annual market value of the 5-8 per cent of
production that is directly linked with pollination
services is estimated at $235 billion-$577
billion (in 2015 US$) worldwide (established but
incomplete) (figure SPM. 3B) {3.7.2, 4.7.3}. On average,
pollinator-dependent crops have higher prices than non-
pollinator dependent crops. The distribution of these
monetary benefits is not uniform, with the greatest additional
production occurring in parts of Eastern Asia, the Middle
East, Mediterranean Europe and North America. The
additional monetary output linked to pollination services
accounts for 5-15 per cent of total crop output in different
United Nations regions, with the greatest contributions in
the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia. In the absence
of animal pollination, changes in global crop supplies
could increase prices to consumers and reduce profits
to producers, resulting in a potential annual net loss of
economic welfare of $160 billion-$191 billion globally to crop
consumers and producers and a further $207 billion-$497
billion to producers and consumers in other, non-crop
markets (e.g., non-crop agriculture, forestry and food
processing) {4.7}. The accuracy of the economic methods
used to estimate these values is limited by numerous
data gaps, and most studies focus on developed nations
{4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 4.7}. Explicit estimation and consideration
of economic benefits through tools such as cost-benefit
analyses and multi-criteria analyses provide information
to stakeholders and can help inform land-use choices
with greater recognition of pollinator biodiversity and
sustainability {4.1, 4.6}.
Many livelihoods depend on pollinators, their
products and their multiple benefits (established
but incomplete). Many of the world’s most important cash
crops are pollinator-dependent. These constitute leading
export products in developing countries (e.g., coffee and
cocoa) and developed countries (e.g., almonds) providing
employment and income for millions of people. Impacts
of pollinator loss will therefore be different among regional
economies, being higher for economies with a stronger
reliance on pollinator-dependent crops (whether grown
nationally or imported). Existing studies of the economic
value of pollination have not accounted for non-monetary
aspects of economies, particularly the assets that form
the basis of rural economies, for example human (e.g.,
employment of beekeepers), social (e.g., beekeepers
associations), physical (e.g., honey bee colonies),
financial (e.g., honey sales) and natural assets (e.g., wider
biodiversity resulting from pollinator-friendly practices). The
sum and balance of these assets are the foundation for
future development and sustainable rural livelihoods {3.7,
4.2, 4.4, 4.7}.
Livelihoods based on beekeeping and honey
hunting are an anchor for many rural economies
and are the source of multiple educational and
recreational benefits in both rural and urban
contexts (well established). Globally, available data
show that 81 million hives annually produce 65,000
tonnes of beeswax and 1.6 million tonnes of honey, of
which an estimated 518,000 tonnes are traded. Many
rural economies favour beekeeping and honey hunting, as
minimal investment is required; diverse products can be
sold; diverse forms of ownership support access; family
nutrition and medicinal benefits can be derived from it; the
timing and location of activities are flexible; and numerous
links exist with cultural and social institutions. Beekeeping
is also of growing importance as an ecologically-inspired
lifestyle choice in many urban contexts. Significant
unrealized potential exists for beekeeping as a sustainable
livelihood activity in developing world contexts {4.3.2, 4.7.1,
5.2.8.4, 5.3.5, 5.4.6.1, case examples 5-10, 5-11, 5-12,
5-13, 5-14, 5-21, 5-24, 5-25, and figures 5-12, 5-13, 5-14,
5-15, 5-22}.
Pollinators are a source of multiple benefits to
people well beyond food-provisioning alone,
contributing directly to medicines, biofuels, fibres,
construction materials, musical instruments, arts
and crafts and as sources of inspiration for art,
music, literature, religion and technology (well
established). For example, some anti-bacterial, anti-fungal
and anti-diabetic agents are derived from honey; Jatropha
oil, cotton and eucalyptus trees are examples of pollinator-
dependent biofuel, fibre and timber sources respectively;
beeswax can be used to protect and maintain fine musical
instruments. Artistic, literary and religious inspiration from
pollinators includes popular and classical music (e.g., I’m
a King Bee by Slim Harpo, the Flight of the Bumblebee
by Rimsky-Korsakov); sacred passages about bees in the
Mayan codices (e.g., stingless bees), the Surat An-Naĥl in
the Qur’an, the three-bee motif of Pope Urban VIII in the
Vatican and sacred passages of Hinduism, Buddhism and
Chinese traditions such as the Chuang Tzu. Pollinator-
inspired technical design is reflected in the visually guided
flight of robots and the 10 metre telescopic nets used by
some amateur entomologists today {5.2.1, 5.2.2., 5.2.3,
5.2.4, case examples 5-2, 5-16, and figures 5-7, 5-8, 5-9,
5-10, 5-24}.
A good quality of life for many people relies on the
ongoing roles of pollinators in globally significant
heritage as symbols of identity, as aesthetically
significant landscapes, flowers, birds, bats
and butterflies and in the social relations and
governance interactions of indigenous peoples and
local communities (well established). As examples,
the World Heritage site the Agave Landscape and Ancient
Industrial Facilities of Tequila depends on bat pollination to
maintain agave genetic diversity and health; people show
marked aesthetic preferences for the flowering season in
diverse European cultural landscapes; a hummingbird is the
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
19
BACKGROUND
national symbol of Jamaica, a sunbird of Singapore, and an
endemic birdwing the national butterfly of Sri Lanka; seven-
foot wide butterfly masks symbolize fertility in festivals of
the Bwa people of Burkina Faso; and the Tagbanua people
of the Philippines, according to their tradition, interact with
two bee deities living in the forest and karst as the ultimate
authority for their shifting agriculture {5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3,
5.3.4, 5.3.6, case examples 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20,
and figures 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21}.
Diversified farming systems, some linked to
indigenous and local knowledge, represent an
important pollinator-friendly addition to industrial
agriculture and include swidden, home garden,
commodity agroforestry and bee farming systems
(established but incomplete). While small holdings
(less than 2 hectares) constitute about 8-16 per cent of
global farm land, large gaps exist in our knowledge on the
area of diversified farming systems linked to indigenous
and local knowledge. Diversified farming systems foster
agro-biodiversity and pollination through crop rotation,
the promotion of habitat at diverse stages of succession,
diversity and abundance of floral resources; ongoing
incorporation of wild resources and inclusion of tree canopy
species; innovations, for example in apiaries, swarm capture
and pest control; and adaptation to social-environmental
change, for example through the incorporation of new
invasive bee species and pollination resources into farming
practices {5.2.8, case examples 5-7, 5-8. 5-9, 5-10, 5-11,
5-12, 5-13, and figures 5-14, 5-15, 5-22}.
A number of cultural practices based on indigenous
and local knowledge contribute to supporting
an abundance and diversity of pollinators and
maintaining valued “biocultural diversity” (for
the purposes of this assessment, biological and
cultural diversity and the links between them are
referred to as “biocultural diversity”) (established
but incomplete). This includes practices of diverse
farming systems; of favouring heterogeneity in landscapes
and gardens; of kinship relationships that protect many
specific pollinators; of using biotemporal indicators that
rely on distinguishing a great range of pollinators; and of
tending to the conservation of nesting trees and floral and
other pollinator resources. The ongoing linkages among
these cultural practices, the underpinning indigenous and
local knowledge (including multiple local language names
for diverse pollinators) and pollinators constitute elements
of “biocultural diversity”. Areas where “biocultural diversity”
is maintained are valued globally for their roles in protecting
both threatened species and endangered languages.
While the extent of these areas is clearly considerable, for
example extending over 30 per cent of forests in developing
countries, key gaps remain in the understanding of their
location, status and trends {5.1.3, 5.2.5, 5.2.6, 5.2.7,
5.4.7.2, case example 5-1, 5-3, 5-5, 5-6, and figures 5-4,
5-11}.
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
20
BACKGROUND
(A) 1961
Percentage of expected agriculture loss in the absence of animal pollination
0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 25.0 (%)No data
(B) 2012
FIGURE SPM. 4
World map showing agriculture dependence on pollinators (i.e., the percentage of expected agriculture production volume loss in the
absence of animal pollination (categories depicted in the coloured bar) in 1961 and 2012, based on FAO dataset (FAOSTAT 2013) and
following the methodology of Aizen et al. (2009).12
More food is produced every year and global
agriculture’s reliance on pollinator-dependent crops
has increased in volume by more than 300 per
cent over the last five decades (well established).
The extent to which agriculture depends on pollinators
varies greatly among crops, varieties and countries (figure
SPM. 4). Animal pollination benefits have increased most in
the Americas, the Mediterranean, the Middle East and East
Asia, mainly due to their cultivation of a variety of fruit and
seed crops {3.7.2, 3.7.3, 3.7.4, 3.8.3}.
B. Status and trends
in pollinators, pollination and
pollinator-dependent crops
and wild plants
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
21
BACKGROUND
13
While global agriculture is becoming increasingly
pollinator-dependent, yield growth and stability of
pollinator-dependent crops are lower than those
of pollinator-independent crops (well established).
Yield per hectare of pollinator-dependent crops has
increased less, and varies more year to year, than yield per
hectare of pollinator-independent crops. While the drivers
of this trend are not clear, studies of several crops at local
scales show that production declines when pollinators
decline. Furthermore, yields of many crops show local
declines and lower stability when pollinator communities lack
a variety of species (well established). A diverse pollinator
community is more likely to provide stable, sufficient
pollination than a less diverse community, as a result of
pollinator species having different food preferences, foraging
behaviour and activity patterns. Furthermore, studies at local
scales show that crop production is higher in fields with
diverse and abundant pollinator communities than in fields
with less diverse pollinator communities. Wild pollinators,
for some crops, contribute more to global crop production
than do honey bees. Managed honey bees often cannot
compensate fully for the loss of wild pollinators, can be less
effective pollinators of many crops and cannot always be
supplied in sufficient numbers to meet pollination demand
in many countries (established but incomplete). However,
certain wild pollinator species are dominant. It is estimated
that 80 per cent of the pollination of global crops can be
attributed to the activities of just 2 per cent of wild bee
species. A diversity of pollination options, including both wild
13. Aizen et al. (2009) “How much does agriculture depend on
pollinators? Lessons from long-term trends in crop production”
Annals of Botany 103: 15791-588.
and managed species, is needed in most open field systems,
where weather and environment can be unpredictable
(established but incomplete) {3.7.2, 3.8.2, 3.8.3}.14
The number of managed western honey bee hives
is increasing at the global scale, although seasonal
colony loss is high in some European countries
and in North America (well established) (figure
SPM. 5). Colony losses may not always result in
irreversible declines, as losses can be mitigated
by beekeepers splitting colonies15 to recover or
even exceed seasonal losses. The seasonal loss of
western honey bees in Europe and North America varies
strongly by country, state and province and by year, but in
recent decades (at least since the widespread introduction
of Varroa) has often been higher than the 10-15 per cent
that was previously regarded as normal (established but
incomplete). Data for other regions of the world is largely
lacking {2.4.2.3, 2.4.2.4, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.5}.
Many wild bees and butterflies have been declining
in abundance, occurrence and diversity at local and
regional scales in North-West Europe and North
America (established but incomplete); data for
other regions and pollinator groups are currently
insufficient to draw general conclusions, although
local declines have been reported. At a regional level,
14. Data from the countries that were part of the former Soviet Union, the
former Yugoslavia or the former Czechoslovakia were combined.
15. Bee colonies are split by taking a portion of the workers from a strong
colony and a new queen reared elsewhere to form a new colony; this
activity has an associated economic cost.
−3 −1 0 1 2 3 4 5 10No data −2
Annual growth in number of hives (1961-2012)
FIGURE SPM. 5
World map showing the annual growth rate (per cent per year) in the number of honey bee hives for countries reporting those data to
FAO between 1961 and 2012 (FAOSTAT 2013).13
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
22
BACKGROUND
16
declines in the diversity of bees and pollinator-dependent
wild plants have been recorded in highly industrialized
regions of the world, particularly Western Europe and
16. Klein et al. (2007). “Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes
for world crops.” Proceedings of he Royal Society B 274:303-313.
Eastern North America, over the last century (well
established). Some species have declined severely, such
as Franklin’s bumble bee (Bombus franklini) in the western
United States of America and the great yellow bumble
bee (Bombus distinguendus) in Europe (well established).
Trends for other species are unknown or are only known
NT
10%
VU
5%
LC
80%
CR
0.4%
EN
2.4%
VU
1.2%
(B) IUCN Red List status in Europe
Bees
Th
r
e
atene
d
cate
g
or
i
e
s
Extinct (EX)
Extinct in the Wild (EW)
Critically Endangered (CR)
Endangered (EN)
Vulnerable (VU)
Near Threatened (NT)
Least Concern (LC)
Not Evaluated (NE)
Adequate data
Evaluated
All species
DD
56.7%
NT
5.2%
LC
34.1%
CR
1%
DD
1% EN
3%
Extinction risk
Butteries
(A) Structure of the IUCN Red List Categories
(C) IUCN Red List status of vertebrate pollinators across regions
Europe North Asia
Mesoamerica
Caribbean Islands
South America
Sub-Saharan
Africa
West and
Central Asia
Oceania
North Africa
North America
East Asia
South and
Southeast Asia
FIGURE SPM. 6
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)15 Red List status of wild pollinator taxa.
(A) IUCN relative risk categories: EW = Extinct in the wild; CR = Critically Endangered; EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT =
Near Threatened; LC = Least Concern; DD = Data Deficient; NE = Not Evaluated.
(B) European bees and butterflies.
(C) Vertebrate pollinators (including mammals and birds) across IUCN regions.
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
23
BACKGROUND
for a small part of the species’ distribution. Declines have
also been recorded in other insect and vertebrate pollinator
groups such as moths, hummingbirds and bats (established
but incomplete). In some European countries, declining
trends in insect pollinator diversity have slowed down or
even stopped (established but incomplete). However, the
reason(s) for this remain(s) unclear. In agricultural systems,
the local abundance and diversity of wild bees have been
found to decline strongly with distance from field margins
and remnants of natural and semi natural habitat at scales of
a few hundred metres (well established) {3.2.2, 3.2.3}.
While global agriculture is becoming increasingly
pollinator-dependent, yield growth and stability of
pollinator-dependent crops are lower than those
of pollinator-independent crops (well established).
Yield per hectare of pollinator-dependent crops has
increased less, and varies more year to year, than yield per
hectare of pollinator-independent crops. While the drivers
of this trend are not clear, studies of several crops at local
scales show that production declines when pollinators
decline. Furthermore, yields of many crops show local
declines and lower stability when pollinator communities
lack a variety of species (well established). A diverse
pollinator community is more likely to provide stable,
sufficient pollination than a less diverse community as a
result of pollinator species having different food preferences,
foraging behaviour and activity patterns. Furthermore,
studies at local scales show that crop production is higher
in fields with diverse and abundant pollinator communities
than in fields with less diverse pollinator communities.
Managed honey bees often cannot compensate fully for
the loss of wild pollinators, can be less effective pollinators
of many crops and cannot always be supplied in sufficient
numbers to meet pollination demand in many countries
(established but incomplete). However, certain wild pollinator
species are dominant. It is estimated that 80 per cent of
the pollination of global crops can be attributed to the
activities of just 2 per cent of wild bee species. A diversity
of pollination options, including both wild and managed
species, is needed in most open field systems, where
weather and environment can be unpredictable (established
but incomplete) {3.7.2, 3.8.2, 3.8.3}.
An objective evaluation of the status of a species is
The International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) Red List assessment. Global assessments
are available for many vertebrate pollinators, e.g.,
birds and bats (figure SPM. 6A). An estimated 16.5
per cent of vertebrate pollinators are threatened
with global extinction (increasing to 30 per cent for
island species) (established but incomplete), with a
trend towards more extinctions (well established).
Most insect pollinators have not been assessed
at the global level (well established). Regional and
national assessments of insect pollinators indicate
high levels of threat, particularly for bees and
butterflies (often more than 40 per cent of species
threatened) (established but incomplete). Recent
European scale assessments indicate that 9 per cent of
bees and 9 per cent of butterflies are threatened (figure
SPM. 6B) and that populations are declining for 37 per
cent of bees and 31 per cent of butterflies (excluding data
deficient species). For the majority of European bees, data
are insufficient to make IUCN assessments. At the national
level, where Red Lists are available they show that the
numbers of threatened species tend to be much higher than
at the regional level. In contrast, crop pollinating bees are
generally common species and rarely threatened species.
Of 130 common crop pollinating bees, only 58 species
have been assessed either in Europe or North America,
of which only two species are threatened, two are near
threatened, and 42 are not threatened (i.e., Least Concern
IUCN risk category), and for 12 species data are insufficient
for assessment. Of 57 species considered in a 2007
assessment of global crop pollination, only 10 species have
been formally assessed, of which one bumble bee species
is critically endangered. However, at least 10 other species,
including three honey bee species, are known to be very
common, although the health of honey bee colonies should
also be considered {3.2.2, 3.2.3}.
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
24
BACKGROUND
A wealth of observational, empirical and modelling
studies worldwide point to a high likelihood that
many drivers have affected, and are affecting, wild
and managed pollinators negatively (established
but incomplete). However, a lack of data, particularly
outside Western Europe and North America, and
correlations between drivers make it very difficult to link
long-term pollinator declines with specific direct drivers.
Changes in pollinator health, diversity and abundance have
generally led to locally reduced pollination of pollinator-
dependent crops (lowering the quantity, quality or stability
of yield) and have contributed to altered wild plant diversity
at the local and regional scales, and resulted in the loss
of distinctive ways of life, cultural practices and traditions
as a result of pollinator loss (established but incomplete).
Other risks, including the loss of aesthetic value or well-
being associated with pollinators and the loss of long-term
resilience in food production systems, could develop in the
longer-term. The relative importance of each driver varies
between pollinator species according to their biology and
geographic location. Drivers can also combine or interact in
their effects, complicating any ranking of drivers by risk17 of
harm (unresolved) {2.7, 4.5, 6.2.1}.
Habitat destruction, fragmentation and degradation,
along with conventional intensive land management
practices, often reduce or alter pollinators’
food (well established) and nesting resources
(established but incomplete). These practices include
high use of agrochemicals and intensively performed tillage,
grazing or mowing. Such changes in pollinator resources
are known to lower densities and diversity of foraging
insects and alter the composition and structure of pollinator
communities from local to regional scales (well established)
{2.2.1.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.2, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 3.2}.
Three complementary strategies are envisaged
for producing more sustainable agriculture that
address several important drivers of pollinator
decline: ecological intensification, strengthening
existing diverse farming systems and investing in
ecological infrastructure (table SPM. 1). (i) Ecological
intensification involves managing nature’s ecological
17. This assessment uses a scientific-technical approach to risk, in which
a risk is understood as the probability of a specific, quantified hazard
or impact taking place.
functions to improve agricultural production and livelihoods
while minimizing environmental damage. (ii) Strengthening
existing diverse farming systems involves managing systems
such as forest gardens, home gardens and agroforestry to
foster pollinators and pollination through practices validated
by science or indigenous and local knowledge (e.g., crop
rotation). (iii) Ecological infrastructure needed to improve
pollination includes patches of semi-natural habitats
distributed throughout productive agricultural landscapes,
providing nesting and floral resources. These three
strategies concurrently address several important drivers
of pollinator decline by mitigating the impacts of land-use
change, pesticide use and climate change (established but
incomplete). The policies and practices that form them have
direct economic benefits to people and livelihoods in many
cases (established but incomplete). Responses identified
for managing immediate risks in agriculture (table SPM. 1)
tend to mitigate only one or none of the drivers of pollinator
decline. Some of these responses (marked with an asterisk
in table SPM. 1) have potential adverse effects, both on
pollinators and for wider agricultural sustainability, that need
to be quantified and better understood {2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.1,
2.3.2.3, 3.2.3, 3.6.3, 5.2.8, 6.9}.
Responses known to reduce or mitigate negative
agricultural impacts on pollinators include organic
farming and planting flower strips, both of which
increase local numbers of foraging pollinating
insects (well established) and pollination
(established but incomplete). Long-term abundance
data (which are not yet available) would be required to
establish whether these responses have population-
level benefits. Evidence for the effects of organic farming
comes largely from Europe and North America. Actions
to enhance pollination on intensive farmland also enhance
other ecosystem services, including natural pest regulation
(established but incomplete). There are, however, potential
trade-offs between enhancing yield and enhancing
pollination. For example, in many, but not all, farming
systems current organic practices usually produce lower
yields (well established). Better understanding the role
of ecological intensification could address this issue of
trade-off by increasing organic farm yields while boosting
pollination benefits. The effects of this response, including
its utility in reducing the tradeoff, represent a knowledge gap
{6.4.1.1.1, 6.4.1.1.4, 6.7.1, 6.7.2}.
C. Drivers of change, risks
and opportunities and policy
and management options
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
25
BACKGROUND
Greater landscape-scale habitat diversity often
results in more diverse pollinator communities
(well established) and more effective crop and
wild plant pollination (established but incomplete).
Depending on land use (e.g., agriculture, forestry, grazing,
etc.,), landscape habitat diversity can be enhanced to
support pollinators through intercropping; crop rotation
including flowering crops; agroforestry; and creating,
restoring or maintaining wildflower habitat or native
vegetation (well established). The efficacy of such
measures can be enhanced if implemented from field to
landscape scales that correspond with pollinator mobility,
hence assuring connectivity among these landscape
features (established but incomplete) {2.2.2, 2.2.3, 3.2.3}.
Such actions can be achieved by rewarding farmers or
land managers for good practices (well established), by
demonstrating the economic value of pollination services
in agriculture, forestry or livestock production and by using
(agricultural) extension services to convey knowledge
and demonstrate practical application to farmers or land
managers (established but incomplete). The protection
of large areas of semi-natural or natural habitat (tens of
hectares or more) helps to maintain pollinator habitats at
regional or national scales (established but incomplete), but
will not directly support agricultural pollination in areas that
are more than a few kilometres away from large reserves
because of the limited flight ranges of crop pollinators
(established but incomplete). Enhancing connectivity at the
landscape scale, for example by linking habitat patches
(including with road verges), may enhance pollination
of wild plants by enabling the movement of pollinators
(established but incomplete), but its role in maintaining
pollinator populations remains unclear {2.2.1.2, 6.4.1.1.10,
6.4.1.5, 6.4.1.3, 6.4.3.1.1, 6.4.3.1.2, 6.4.3.2.2, 6.4.5.1.6}.
Managing and mitigating the impacts of pollinator
decline on people’s good quality of life could
benefit from responses that address loss of
access to traditional territories, loss of traditional
knowledge, tenure and governance, and the
interacting, cumulative effects of direct drivers
(established but incomplete). A number of integrated
responses that address these drivers of pollinator decline
have been identified: 1) food security, including the ability
to determine one’s own agricultural and food policies,
resilience and ecological intensification; 2) conservation
of biological and cultural diversity and the links between
them; 3) strengthening traditional governance that
supports pollinators; 4) prior and informed consent for
conservation, development and knowledge-sharing; 5)
recognizing tenure; 6) recognizing significant agricultural,
biological and cultural heritage and 7) framing conservation
to link with peoples’ values {5.4, case examples 5-18,
5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5-22, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, figures
5-26, 5-27, and box 5-3}.
Managing urban and recreational green spaces to
increase the local abundance of nectar providing
and pollen-providing flowering plants increases
pollinator diversity and abundance (established
but incomplete), although it is unknown whether
this has long-term benefits at the population level.
Road verges, power lines, railway banks (established
but incomplete) in cities also have a large potential for
supporting pollinators if managed appropriately to provide
flowering and nesting resources {6.4.5.1, 6.4.5.1.6}.
The risk to pollinators from pesticides arises
through a combination of toxicity (compounds vary
in toxicity to different pollinator species) and the
level of exposure (well established). The risk also
varies geographically, with the compounds used, with the
type and scale of land management (well established) and
potentially with the refuges provided by un-treated semi
natural or natural habitats in the landscape (established
but incomplete). Insecticides are toxic to insect pollinators
and the direct lethal risk is increased, for example, if
label information is insufficient or not respected, where
application equipment is faulty or not fit-for-purpose, or the
regulatory policy and risk assessment are deficient (well
established). A reduction of pesticide use or use within an
established Integrated Pest Management approach would
lower the risk of not sustaining populations of pollinators,
many of which deliver pollination to crops and wild plants,
but needs to be considered while balancing the need to
ensure agricultural yields {2.3.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, and box
2.3.5}.
Pesticides, particularly insecticides, have been
demonstrated to have a broad range of lethal and
sublethal effects on pollinators under controlled
experimental conditions (well established). The few
available field studies assessing effects of field-
realistic exposure (figure SPM. 7) provide conflicting
evidence of effects based on the species studied
and pesticide usage (established but incomplete).
It is currently unresolved how sublethal effects of
pesticide exposure recorded for individual insects
affect colonies and populations of managed bees
and wild pollinators, especially over the longer
term. Most studies of sublethal impacts of insecticides
on pollinators have tested a limited range of pesticides,
recently focusing on neonicotinoids, and have been carried
out using honey bees and bumble bees, with fewer studies
on other insect pollinator taxa. Thus, significant gaps in
our knowledge remain (well established) with potential
implications for comprehensive risk assessment. Recent
research focusing on neonicotinoid insecticides shows
evidence of lethal and sublethal effects on bees under
controlled conditions (well established) and some evidence
of impacts on the pollination they provide (established but
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
26
BACKGROUND
18
incomplete). There is evidence from a recent study that
shows impacts of neonicotinoids on wild pollinator survival
and reproduction at actual field exposure (established
but incomplete).19 Evidence, from this and other studies,
of effects on managed honey bee colonies is conflicting
(unresolved). What constitutes a field realistic exposure,
as well as the potential synergistic and long term effects of
pesticides (and their mixtures), remain unresolved {2.3.1.4}.
Risk assessment of specific pesticide ingredients
and regulation based on identified risks are
important responses that can decrease the
environmental hazard from pesticides used in
agriculture at the national level (established but
18. EFSA (2013) “Guidance on the risk assessment of plant protection
products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees)”.
EFSA Journal 11: 3295; USEPA (2014) “Guidance for Assessing
Pesticide Risks to Bees.” United States Environmental Protection
Agency.
19. Rundlöf et al. (2015). Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide
negatively affects wild bees. Nature 521: 77-80 doi:10. 1038/
nature14420.
incomplete) {2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.3, 6.4.2.4.1}. Pesticide
exposure can be reduced by decreasing the usage of
pesticides, for example by adopting Integrated Pest
Management practices, and where they are used, the
impacts of pesticides can be lessened through application
practices and technologies to reduce pesticide drift (well
established) {2.3.1.3, 6.4.2.1.2, 6.4.2.1.3, 6.4.2.1.4}.
Education and training are necessary to ensure that
farmers, farm advisers, pesticide appliers and the public
use pesticides safely (established but incomplete). Policy
strategies that can help to reduce pesticide use, or avoid
misuse, include supporting farmer field schools, which
are known to increase the adoption of Integrated Pest
Management practices as well as agricultural production
and farmer incomes (well established). The International
Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management of the Food and
Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization
of the United Nations sets out voluntary actions for
Government and industry; a survey from 2004 and 2005
suggests that sixty-one per cent of countries who completed
the survey questionnaire (31 out of 51 countries) are using
No effect
1.9 µg/kg Nectar
Pollen range (all studies)
Type of sublethal effect measured
Effect
0.1
0.01
1
10
100
1000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
M
o
l
ecu
l
ar
P
hysiolo
g
ical
O
r
g
anis
m
Reported effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on individual adult honey bees
Molecular
Concentration consumed orally by individual honey bees
or exposure at the sub-organism level (µg/kg, or ppb)
Cellular
Morphology
Memory
Behaviour
Lifespan
Immune responses and
physiology
Average maximum residue
values (Godfray et al. (2014))
Average residue values
(Rundlöf et al. (2015))
FIGURE SPM. 7
This graph shows whether different concentrations of neonicotinoid insecticides have been reported to have sublethal (adverse, but
not fatal) effects on individual adult honey bees (green closed circles) or not (blue open circles). Studies included used any one of
three neonicotinoid insecticides: imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. Exposure was either by oral consumption or directly on
internal organs and tissues. Different types of sublethal effect that have been tested from molecular to whole-organism (bee) scales
are shown on the horizontal axis. Colony-level effects, such as growth or success of whole honey bee colonies, are not included.
The shaded area shows the full range of concentrations (0.9-23 μg/Kg) that honey bees could be exposed to observed in pollen
following seed treatment in all known field studies.
Levels of clothianidin in oilseed rape pollen (blue; 13.9 ± 1.8 μg/Kg, range 6.6–23 μg/Kg) and nectar (red; 10.3 ± 1.3 μg/Kg, range
6.7–16 μg/Kg) measured in a recent field study in Sweden (Rundlöf et al, 2015) are shown by dashed lines.
Maximum residues measured following seed treatment of crops reported by all the studies reviewed by Godfray et al. (2014) are
shown by solid lines for pollen (blue, 6.1 μg/Kg) and nectar (red, 1.9 μg/Kg); lines show an average of the maximum values across
studies. Honey bees feeding in fields consume only nectar. Honey bees staying in the hive also consume pollen (16 per cent of their
diet; European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2013, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 2014).17
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
27
BACKGROUND
it {6.4.2.1, 6.4.2.2.5, 6.4.2.2.6, 6.4.2.4.2}.20 Research
aimed at improving the effectiveness of pest management in
pesticide-free and pesticide minimized (e.g., Integrated Pest
Management) farming systems would help provide viable
alternatives to conventional high chemical input systems that
are productive while at the same time reducing the risks to
pollinators.
Use of herbicides to control weeds indirectly affects
pollinators by reducing the abundance and diversity
of flowering plants providing pollen and nectar (well
established). Agricultural and urban land management
systems that allow a variety of weedy species to flower
support more diverse communities of pollinators, which can
enhance pollination (established but incomplete) {2.2.2.1.4,
2.2.2.1.8, 2.2.2.1.9, 2.2.2.3, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.4.2}. This can be
achieved by reducing herbicide use or taking less stringent
approaches to weed control, paying careful attention to the
potential trade-off with crop yield and control of invasive alien
species {2.3, 6.4.2.1.4, 6.4.5.1.3.}. One possible approach
is demonstrated by traditional diversified farming systems,
in which weeds themselves are valued as supplementary
food products {5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.4.2, 6.4.1.1.8}. The potential
direct sublethal effects of herbicides on pollinators are largely
unknown and seldom studied {2.3.1.4.2}.
Most agricultural genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) carry traits for herbicide tolerance (HT) or
insect resistance (IR). Reduced weed populations
are likely to accompany most herbicide-tolerant
(HT) crops, diminishing food resources for
pollinators (established but incomplete). The actual
consequences for the abundance and diversity of
pollinators foraging in herbicide-tolerant (HT)-crop
fields is unknown {2.3.2.3.1}. Insect-resistant (IR)
crops result in the reduction of insecticide use,
which varies regionally according to the prevalence
of pests, and the emergence of secondary
outbreaks of non-target pests or primary pest
resistance (well established). If sustained, this
reduction in insecticide use could reduce pressure
on non target insects (established but incomplete).
How insect-resistant-(IR) crop use and reduced
pesticide use affect pollinator abundance and
diversity is unknown {2.3.2.3.1}. No direct lethal
effects of insect-resistant (IR) crops (e.g., producing
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxins) on honey bees or other
Hymenoptera have been reported. Lethal effects have been
identified in some butterflies (established but incomplete),
20. Erratum: a) The title “International Code of Conduct on the Distribution
and Use of Pesticides of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO)” has been changed to the “International Code
of Conduct on Pesticide Management of the Food and Agriculture
Organization and the World Health Organization of the United Nations”
to reflect this revision made in 2014; b) A survey from 2004 and 2005
suggests that a total of 31 out of 51 countries who completed the
survey questionnaire, or 61 per cent, were using it, and not 15 per
cent. This correction has been made in the text.
while data on other pollinator groups (e.g., hoverflies) are
scarce {2.3.2.2}. The ecological and evolutionary effects
of potential transgene flow and introgression in wild
relatives and non-genetically modified crops on non-target
organisms, such as pollinators, need study {2.3.2.3.2}. The
risk assessment required for the approval of genetically-
modified-organism (GMO) crops in most countries does
not adequately address the direct sublethal effects of
insect-resistant (IR) crops or the indirect effects of herbicide-
tolerant (HT) and insect-resistant (IR) crops, partly because
of a lack of data {6.4.2.6.1}. Quantifying the direct and
indirect impacts of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs)
on pollinators would help to inform whether, and to what
extent, response options are required.
Declines in the number of managed western honey
bee colonies are due in part to socio-economic
changes affecting beekeeping and/or poor
management practices (unresolved) {3.3.2}. While
pollinator management has developed over thousands
of years, there are opportunities for further substantial
innovation and improvement of management practices,
including better management of parasites and pathogens
(well established) {3.3.3, 3.4.3, 6.4.4.1.1.2}, improving
selection for desired traits in bees (well established) and
breeding for genetic diversity (well established) {6.4.4.1.1.3}.
Successful management of bees, including honey bees
and stingless bees, often depends on local and traditional
knowledge systems. The erosion of those knowledge
systems, particularly in tropical countries, may contribute to
local declines (established but incomplete) {3.3.2, 6.4.4.5}.
Insect pollinators suffer from a broad range
of parasites, with Varroa mites attacking and
transmitting viruses among honey bees being
a notable example (well established). Emerging
and re-emerging diseases (e.g., due to host
shifts of both pathogens and parasites) are a
significant threat to the health of honey bees
(well established), bumble bees and solitary bees
(established but incomplete for both groups) during
the trade and management of commercial bees for
pollination {2.4, 3.3.3, 3.4.3}. The western honey bee,
Apis mellifera, has been moved around the world, and this
has resulted in a spill over of pathogens both to this species,
in the case of the Varroa mite, and from this species to wild
pollinators, such as deformed wing virus (established but
incomplete). Greater emphasis on hygiene and the control of
pests (Varroa and other pests) and pathogens in managed
insect pollinators would have health benefits for the entire
community of pollinators, managed and wild, by limiting
pathogen spread. There are no proven options for treating
viruses in any managed pollinator species, but ribonucleic
acid interference (RNAi) technology could provide one
pathway toward such treatment (established but incomplete)
{6.4.4.1.1.2.3.1}. Varroa mites, a key parasite of honey bees,
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
28
BACKGROUND
have developed resistance to some chemical treatments
(well established) so new treatment options are required
{2.4, 3.2.3, 3.3.3, 3.4.3, 6.4.4.1.1.2.3.5}. Other stressors,
such as exposure to chemicals or insufficient nutrition, may
sometimes worsen the impacts of disease (unresolved) {2.7}.
In comparison, there is very little research on diseases of
other pollinators (e.g., other insects, birds, bats) {2.4}.
Commercial management, mass breeding, transport
and trade in pollinators outside their original ranges
have resulted in new invasions, transmission of
pathogens and parasites and regional extinctions of
native pollinator species (well established). Recently
developed commercial rearing of bumble bee species for
greenhouse and field crop pollination, and their introduction
to continents outside of their original ranges, have resulted in
biological invasions, pathogen transmission to native species
and the decline of congeneric (sub-)species (established
but incomplete). A well-documented case is the severe
decline in and extirpation from many areas of its original
range of the giant bumble bee, Bombus dahlbomii, since
the introduction and spread of the European B. terrestris
in southern South America (well established) {3.2.3, 3.3.3,
3.4.32, 3.4.3}. The presence of managed honey bees and
their escaped descendants (for example African honey bees
in the Americas) have changed visitation patterns to the native
plants in those regions (unresolved) {3.2.3, 3.3.2, 3.4.2, 3.4.3}.
Better regulation of the movement of all species of managed
pollinators around the world, and within countries, can limit
the spread of parasites and pathogens to managed and wild
pollinators alike and reduce the likelihood that pollinators will
be introduced outside their native ranges and cause negative
impacts (established but incomplete) {6.4.4.2}.
The impact of invasive alien species on pollinators
and pollination is highly contingent on the identity
of the invader and the ecological and evolutionary
context (well established) {2.5, 3.5.3}. Alien plants
or alien pollinators change native pollinator networks, but
the effects on native species or networks can be positive,
negative or neutral depending on the species involved {2.5.1,
2.5.2, 2.5.5, 3.5.3}. Introduced invasive pollinators when
reaching high abundances can damage flowers, thereby
reducing wild plant reproduction and crop yield (established
but incomplete) {6.4.3.1.4}. Invasive alien predators can
affect pollination by consuming pollinators (established
but incomplete) {2.5.4}. The impacts of invasive aliens are
exacerbated or altered when they exist in combination with
other threats such as disease, climate change and land-
use change (established but incomplete) {2.5.6, 3.5.4}.
Eradicating invasive species that negatively impact pollinators
is rarely successful, and so policies that focus on mitigating
their impact and preventing new invasions are important
(established but incomplete) {6.4.3.1.4}.
Some pollinator species (e.g., butterflies) have
moved their ranges, altered their abundance and
shifted their seasonal activities in response to
observed climate change over recent decades,
while for many other pollinators climate change
induced shifts within habitats have had severe
impacts on their populations and overall
distribution (well established) {2.6.2.2, 3.2.2}.
Generally, the impacts of ongoing climate change on
pollinators and pollination services and agriculture may not
be fully apparent for several decades owing to delayed
response times in ecological systems (well established).
Beyond 2050, all climate change scenarios reported by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggest that
(i) community composition is expected to change as certain
species decrease in abundance while others increase (well
established) {2.6.2.3, 3.2.2}; and (ii) the seasonal activity of
many species is projected to change differentially, disrupting
life cycles and interactions between species (established
but incomplete) {2.6.2.1}. The rate of change of the climate
across the landscape, especially under mid-end and
high-end IPCC greenhouse gas emissions scenarios21 is
predicted to exceed the maximum speed at which many
pollinator groups (e.g., many bumble bee and butterfly
species), can disperse or migrate, in many situations
despite their mobility (established but incomplete) {2.6.2.2}.
For some crops, such as apple and passion fruit, model
projections at national scales have shown that climate
change may disrupt crop pollination because the areas with
the best climatic conditions for crops and their pollinators
may no longer overlap in future (established but incomplete)
{2.6.2.3}. Adaptive responses to climate change include
increasing crop diversity and regional farm diversity and
targeted habitat conservation, management and restoration.
The effectiveness of adaptation efforts at securing pollination
under climate change is untested. There are prominent
research gaps in understanding climate change impacts
on pollinators and efficient adaptation options {6.4.1.1.12,
6.4.4.1.5, 6.5.10.2, 6.8.1}.
The many drivers that directly impact the health,
diversity and abundance of pollinators, from the
gene to the biome scales, can combine in their
effects and thereby increase the overall pressure
on pollinators (established but incomplete) {2.7}.
Indirect drivers (demographic, socio-economic, institutional
and technological) are producing environmental pressures
(direct drivers) that alter pollinator diversity and pollination
(well established). The growth in global human population,
economic wealth, globalized trade and commerce and
technological developments (e.g. increased transport
efficacy) has transformed the climate, land cover and
management intensity, ecosystem nutrient balance and
21. As presented in the scenario process for the fifth assessment report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://sedac.ipcc-
data.org/ddc/ar5_scenario_process/RCPs.html).
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
29
BACKGROUND
biogeographical distribution of species (well established).
This has had, and continues to have, consequences for
pollinators and pollination worldwide (well established). In
addition, the area of land devoted to growing pollinator-
dependent crops has increased globally in response to
market demands from a growing and increasingly wealthy
population, albeit with regional variations (well established)
{2.8, 3.7.2, 3.7.3, 3.8}.
The variety and multiplicity of threats to pollinators
and pollination generate risks to people and
livelihoods (well established). In some parts of the
world, there is evidence of impacts on peoples’ livelihoods
from crop pollination deficits (leading to lower yield and
quality of food production, and human diet quality) and loss
of distinctive ways of life, cultural practices and traditions.
These risks are largely driven by changes in land cover and
agricultural management systems, including pesticide use
(established but incomplete) {2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.3.2.3,
3.2.2, 3.3.3, 3.6, 3.8.2, 3.8.3, 5.4.1, 5.4.2, 6.2.1}.
The strategic responses to the risks and
opportunities associated with pollinators and
pollination range in ambition and timescale from
immediate, relatively straightforward, responses
that reduce or avoid risks to relatively large-scale
and long-term transformative responses. Table
SPM. 1 summarizes various strategies linked to specific
responses based on the experiences and evidence
described in this assessment.
AMBITION STRATEGY EXAMPLES OF RESPONSES CHAPTER REFERENCES
IMPROVING
CURRENT
CONDITIONS FOR
POLLINATORS
AND/OR
MAINTAINING
POLLINATION
MANAGE
IMMEDIATE RISKS
• Create uncultivated patches of vegetation
such as field margins with extended
flowering periods
2.2.1.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.2.1.1,
2.2.2.1.4, 6.4.1.1.1, 5.2.7.5,
5.2.7.7, 5.3.4
• Manage blooming of mass-flowering crops* 2.2.2.1.8, 2.2.3, 6.4.1.1.3
• Change management of grasslands 2.2.2.2, 2.2.3, 6.4.1.1.7
Reward farmers for pollinator-friendly
practices
6.4.1.3, 5.3.4
• Inform farmers about pollination requirements 5.4.2.7, 2.3.1.1, 6.4.1.5
• Raise standards of pesticide and genetically-
modified organism (GMO) risk assessment
2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 6.4.2.1.1,
6.4.2.2.5
• Develop and promote the use of technologies that
reduce pesticide drift and agricultural practices
that reduce exposure to pesticides
2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 6.4.2.1.3,
6.4.2.1.2
• Prevent infections and treat diseases of managed
pollinators; regulate trade in managed pollinators
2.4, 6.4.4.1.1.2.2,
6.4.4.1.1.2.3, 6.4.4.2
• Reduce pesticide use (includes Integrated Pest
Management, IPM)
6.4.2.1.4
UTILIZE
IMMEDIATE
OPPORTUNITIES
Support product certification and livelihood
approaches
5.4.6.1, 6.4.1.3
Improve managed bee husbandry 2.4.2, 4.4.1.1, 5.3.5,
6.4.4.1.3
Develop alternative managed pollinators* 2.4.2
Quantify the benefits of managed pollinators 6.4.1.3, 6.4.4.3
Manage road verges* 2.2.2.2.1, 6.4.5.1.4, 6.4.5.1.6
Manage rights of way and vacant land in cities to
support pollinators
2.2.2.3, 6.4.5.1.4, 6.4.5.1.6,
6.4.5.4
TABLE SPM. 1
Overview of strategic responses to risks and opportunities associated with pollinators and pollination. Examples of
specific responses are provided, selected from chapters 5 and 6 of the assessment report to illustrate the scope of each proposed
strategy. This is not a comprehensive list of available responses and represents around half of the available options covered in the
assessment report. Not all the responses shown for “improving current conditions” will benefit pollinators in the long term, and those
with potential adverse, as well as positive, effects are marked with an asterisk. All the responses from chapter 6 that are already
being implemented somewhere in the world and have well established evidence of direct (rather than assumed or indirect) benefits to
pollinators are included in the table and are highlighted in bold.
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
30
BACKGROUND
AMBITION STRATEGY EXAMPLES OF RESPONSES CHAPTER REFERENCES
TRANSFORMING
AGRICULTURAL
LANDSCAPES
ECOLOGICALLY
INTENSIFY
AGRICULTURE
THROUGH ACTIVE
MANAGEMENT
OF ECOSYSTEM
SERVICES
Support diversified farming systems 2.2.1.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.2.1.1,
2.2.2.1.6, 5.2.8, 5.4.4.1,
6.4.1.1.8
• Promote no-till agriculture 2.2.2.1.3, 6.4.1.1.5
Adapt farming to climate change 2.7.1, 6.4.1.1.12
Encourage farmers to work together to plan
landscapes; engage communities (participatory
management)
5.2.7, 5.4.5.2, 6.4.1.4
Promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 2.2.2.1.1, 2.3.1.1, 6.4.2.1.4,
6.4.2.2.8, 6.4.2.4.2
Monitor and evaluate pollination on farms 5.2.7, 6.4.1.1.10
• Establish payment for pollination services
schemes
6.4.3.3
Develop and build markets for alternative
managed pollinators
6.4.4.1.3, 6.4.4.3
• Support traditional practices for managing habitat
patchiness, crop rotation and co production
of knowledge between indigenous and local
knowledge holders, scientists and stakeholders
2.2.2.1.1, 2.2.3, 5.2.7, 5.4.7.3,
6.4.6.3.3
STRENGTHEN
EXISTING
DIVERSIFIED
FARMING
SYSTEMS
Support organic farming systems;
diversified farming systems; and food
security, including the ability to determine one’s
own agricultural and food policies, resilience and
ecological intensification
2.2.2.1.1, 2.2.2.1.6, 5.2.8,
5.4.4.1, 6.4.1.1.4, 6.4.1.1.8
Support “biocultural diversity” conservation
approaches through recognition of rights,
tenure and strengthening of indigenous and
local knowledge and traditional governance that
supports pollinators
5.4.5.3, 5.4.5.4, 5.4.7.2,
5.4.7.3
INVEST IN
ECOLOGICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE
Restore natural habitats (also in urban areas) 6.4.3.1.1, 6.4.5.1.1, 6.4.5.1.2
Protect heritage sites and practices 5.2.6, 5.2.7, 5.3.2, 5.4.5.1,
5.4.5.3
Increase connectivity between habitat patches 2.2.1.2, 6.4.3.1.2
Support large-scale land-use planning and
traditional practices that manage habitat
patchiness and “biocultural diversity”
5.1.3, 5.2.6, 5.2.7, 5.2.9,
6.4.6.2.1
AMBITION STRATEGY EXAMPLES OF RESPONSES CHAPTER REFERENCES
TRANSFORMING
SOCIETY’S
RELATIONSHIP
WITH NATURE
INTEGRATE
PEOPLES’
DIVERSE
KNOWLEDGE AND
VALUES INTO
MANAGEMENT
Translate pollinator research into agricultural
practices
2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.1.2,
6.4.1.5, 6.4.4.5
Support knowledge co-production and exchange
among indigenous and local knowledge holders,
scientists and stakeholders
5.4.7.3, 6.4.1.5, 6.4.6.3.3
Strengthen indigenous and local knowledge that
fosters pollinators and pollination, and knowledge
exchange among researchers and stakeholders
5.2.7, 5.4.7.1, 5.4.7.3,
6.4.4.5, 6.4.6.3.3
Support innovative pollinator activities that
engage stakeholders with attachments to the
multiple socio-cultural values of pollinators
5.2.3, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, 5.3.4,
5.4.7.1, 6.4.4.5
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
31
BACKGROUND
Indigenous and local knowledge systems, in
co-production with science, can be a source of
solutions for the present challenges confronting
pollinators and pollination (established but
incomplete). Knowledge co-production activities between
farmers, indigenous peoples, local communities and
scientists have led to numerous relevant insights including:
improvements in hive design for bee health; understanding
pesticide uptake into medicinal plants and the impacts of
the mistletoe parasite on pollinator resources; identification
of species of stingless bees new to science; establishing
baselines to understand trends in pollinators; improvements
in economic returns from forest honey; identification of
change from traditional shade-grown to sun grown coffee
as the cause of declines in migratory bird populations; and
a policy response to risk of harm to pollinators leading to
a restriction on the use of neonicotinoids in the European
Union {5.4.1, 5.4.2.2, 5.4.7.3, tables 5-4 and 5-5}.
Long-term monitoring of wild and managed
pollinators and pollination can provide crucial
data for responding rapidly to threats such as
pesticide poisonings and disease outbreaks, as
well as long-term information about trends, chronic
issues and the effectiveness of interventions (well
established). Such monitoring would address major
knowledge gaps on the status and trends of pollinators
and pollination, particularly outside Western Europe. Wild
pollinators can be monitored to some extent through citizen
science projects focused on bees, birds or pollinators
generally {6.4.1.1.10, 6.4.6.3.4}.
Many actions to support pollinators are hampered
in their implementation through governance
deficits, including fragmented multi-level
administrative units, mismatches between fine-
scale variation in practices that protect pollinators
and homogenizing broad-scale government
policy, contradictory policy goals across sectors
and contests over land use (established but
incomplete). Coordinated, collaborative action and
knowledge sharing that strengthens linkages across
sectors (e.g., agriculture and nature conservation), across
jurisdictions (e.g., private, Government, not-for-profit), and
among levels (e.g., local, national, global) can overcome
many of these governance deficits. The establishment
of social norms, habits and motivation that are the key
to effective governance outcomes involves long time
frames {5.4.2.8, 5.4.7.4}. However, the possibility that
contradictions between policy sectors may remain even
after coordination efforts have been undertaken should be
acknowledged and should be a point of attention in future
studies.
AMBITION STRATEGY EXAMPLES OF RESPONSES CHAPTER REFERENCES
TRANSFORMING
SOCIETY’S
RELATIONSHIP
WITH NATURE
LINK PEOPLE AND
POLLINATORS
THROUGH
COLLABORATIVE,
CROSS SECTORAL
APPROACHES
Monitor pollinators (collaboration between
farmers, the broader community and pollinator
experts)
5.2.4, 5.4.7.3, 6.4.1.1.10,
6.4.4.5, 6.4.6.3.4
Increase taxonomic expertise through education,
training and technology
6.4.3.5
Education and outreach programmes 5.2.4, 6.4.6.3.1
Manage urban spaces for pollinators and
collaborative pathways
6.4.5.1.3
Support high-level pollination initiatives and
strategies
5.4.7.4, 6.4.1.1.10, 6.4.6.2.2
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
32
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
33
APPENDIX
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
34
APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1
Terms that are central to
understanding the summary for
policymakers
The conceptual framework of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services is a highly simplified model of the complex
interactions within and between the natural world and human
societies. The framework includes six interlinked elements
constituting a system that operates at various scales in time
and space (figure SPM. A1): nature; nature’s benefits to
people; anthropogenic assets; institutions and governance
systems and other indirect drivers of change; direct drivers
of change; and good quality of life. This figure (adapted from
Díaz et al. 201522) is a simplified version of that adopted
by the Plenary of the Platform in its decision IPBES-2/4. It
retains all its essential elements, with additional text used to
demonstrate its application to the pollinators, pollination and
food production thematic assessment.
KEY ELEMENTS OF THE PLATFORM’S
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
_______
“Nature”, in the context of the Platform, refers to the
natural world with an emphasis on biodiversity. Within the
context of western science, it includes categories such as
biodiversity, ecosystems (both structure and functioning),
evolution, the biosphere, humankind’s shared evolutionary
heritage and “biocultural diversity”. Within the context of
other knowledge systems, it includes categories such as
Mother Earth and systems of life, and it is often viewed as
inextricably linked to humans, not as a separate entity.
“Anthropogenic assets” refers to built-up infrastructure,
health facilities, knowledge – including indigenous and local
knowledge systems and technical or scientific knowledge
– as well as formal and non-formal education, technology
(both physical objects and procedures) and financial assets.
Anthropogenic assets have been highlighted to emphasize
that a good quality of life is achieved by a co-production of
benefits between nature and societies.
22. Díaz et al. (2015) “The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting
nature and people” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
14: 1–16.
“Nature’s benefits to people” refers to all the benefits
that humanity obtains from nature. Ecosystem goods
and services are included in this category. Within other
knowledge systems, nature’s gifts and similar concepts
refer to the benefits of nature from which people derive a
good quality of life. The notion of nature’s benefits to people
includes the detrimental as well as the beneficial effects
of nature on the achievement of a good quality of life by
different people and in different contexts. Trade-offs between
the beneficial and detrimental effects of organisms and
ecosystems are not unusual and they need to be understood
within the context of the bundles of multiple effects provided
by a given ecosystem within specific contexts.
“Drivers of change” refers to all those external factors
(i.e., generated outside the conceptual framework element
in question) that affect nature, anthropogenic assets,
nature’s benefits to people and quality of life. Drivers of
change include institutions and governance systems and
other indirect drivers, and direct drivers – both natural and
anthropogenic (see below).
“Institutions and governance systems and other
indirect drivers” are the ways in which societies
organize themselves (and their interaction with nature), and
the resulting influences on other components. They are
underlying causes of change that do not make direct contact
with the portion of nature in question; rather, they impact
it – positively or negatively – through direct anthropogenic
drivers. “Institutions” encompass all formal and informal
interactions among stakeholders and social structures that
determine how decisions are taken and implemented, how
power is exercised, and how responsibilities are distributed.
Various collections of institutions come together to form
governance systems that include interactions between
different centres of power in society (corporate,
customary-law based, governmental, judicial) at different
scales from local through to global. Institutions and
governance systems determine, to various degrees, the
access to, and the control, allocation and distribution of,
components of nature and anthropogenic assets and their
benefits to people.
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
35
APPENDIX
SECTION A:
Values of
pollinators,
pollination and
their benefits to
people
SECTION C:
Drivers and
management
options
SECTION B:
Status and trends
in pollinators and
pollinations
Nature’s benefits to people
Food, bre, building materials,
medicines, and other products
and services derived from
pollinator- dependent plants,
honey, other hive products,
cultural, and aesthetic values
Good quality of life
• Pollinators are responsible for the productivity
of many of the world’s crops which contribute to
healthy diets:
• Beekeeping, pollinator-dependent plant
products, honey and other hive products
support livelihoods;
• Pollinator-dependent landscapes contribute to
a rich and meaningful cultural and spiritual life;
Anthropogenic assets
Hives, other infrastructure, knowledge of
beekeeping techniques, processing and transport
knowledge of role of wild pollinators in ecosystems
Nature
Pollinators, pollinator-dependent cultivated and wild
plants, their interactions, and the ecosystems they inhabit
Direct drivers
Natural drivers
Anthropogenic drivers
Agricultural intensication,
landscape fragmentation,
pesticides, pathogen
introductions, climate
change
Institutions and governance and other indirect
drivers
International and national laws, global and national
markets, commercial and sanitary regulations on bee
colonies and products, imports/exports of managed
bee colonies, and products, agri-environmental
schemes, international, regional and local pollinator
initiatives,customary rules
FIGURE SPM. A1:
Illustration of the core concepts used in the summary for policymakers, which are based on the Platform’s conceptual
framework. Boxes represent main elements of nature and society and their relationships; headings in boxes are inclusive categories
embracing both western science and other knowledge systems; thick arrows denote influence between elements (thin arrows denote
links that are acknowledged as important, but are not the main focus of the Platform). Examples below bolded headings are purely
illustrative and not intended to be exhaustive.
“Direct drivers”, both natural and anthropogenic, affect
nature directly. “Natural direct drivers” are those that
are not the result of human activities and whose occurrence
is beyond human control (e.g., natural climate and weather
patterns, extreme events such as prolonged drought or
cold periods, cyclones and floods, earthquakes, volcanic
eruptions). “Anthropogenic direct drivers” are those
that are the result of human decisions and actions, namely,
of institutions and governance systems and other indirect
drivers. (e.g., land degradation and restoration, freshwater
pollution, ocean acidification, climate change produced by
anthropogenic carbon emissions, species introductions).
Some of these drivers, such as pollution, can have negative
impacts on nature; others, as in the case of habitat
restoration, can have positive effects.
“Good quality of life” is the achievement of a fulfilled
human life, a notion that varies strongly across different
societies and groups within societies. It is a state of
individuals and human groups that is dependent on
context, including access to food, water, energy and
livelihood security, health, good social relationships and
equity, security, cultural identity and freedom of choice and
action. From virtually all standpoints, a good quality of life is
multidimensional, having material as well as immaterial and
spiritual components. What a good quality of life entails,
however, is highly dependent on place, time and culture,
with different societies espousing different views of their
relationships with nature and placing different levels of
importance on collective versus individual rights, the material
versus the spiritual domain, intrinsic versus instrumental
values, and the present time versus the past or the future.
The concept of human well-being used in many western
societies and its variants, together with those of living in
harmony with nature and living well in balance and harmony
with Mother Earth, are examples of different perspectives on
a good quality of life.
SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS OF THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
36
APPENDIX
APPENDIX 2
Communication of the degree
of confidence
In this assessment, the degree of confidence in each main
finding is based on the quantity and quality of evidence
and the level of agreement regarding that evidence (figure
SPM. A2). The evidence includes data, theory, models
and expert judgement. Further details of the approach are
documented in the note by the secretariat on the guide
to the production and integration of assessments of the
Platform (IPBES/4/INF/9).
The summary terms to describe the evidence are:
Well established: comprehensive meta-analysis23
or other synthesis or multiple independent studies that
agree.
Established but incomplete: general agreement
although only a limited number of studies exist; no
comprehensive synthesis and/or the studies that exist
address the question imprecisely.
Unresolved: multiple independent studies exist but
conclusions do not agree.
Inconclusive: limited evidence, recognizing major
knowledge gaps.
23. A statistical method for combining results from different studies
that aims to identify patterns among study results, sources of
disagreement among those results or other relationships that may
come to light in the context of multiple studies.
24. Moss R.H. and Schneider S.H. (2000) “Uncertainties in the IPCC
TAR: Recommendations to lead authors for more consistent
assessment and reporting”, Guidance Papers on the Cross Cutting
Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC [eds. R. Pachauri,
T. Taniguchi and K. Tanaka], World Meteorological Organization,
Geneva, pp. 33–51.
High
Level of agreement
Low
High
Certainty scale
Low
Low Robust
Quantity and
quality of
the evidence
Established
but incomplete Well
established
Inconclusive Unresolved
FIGURE SPM. A2
The four-box model for the qualitative communication
of confidence. Confidence increases towards the top-right
corner as suggested by the increasing strength of shading.
Source: modified from Moss and Schneider (2000).22
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SCIENCE-POLICY PLATFORM
ON BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (IPBES)
IPBES Secretariat, UN Campus
Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1, D-53113 Bonn, Germany
Tel. +49 (0) 228 815 0570
secretariat@ipbes.net
www.ipbes.net
The Intergovernmental Science-
Policy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
is the intergovernmental body which assesses the state of biodiversity and
ecosystem services, in response to requests from Governments, the private
sector and civil society.
The mission of IPBES is to strengthen the science-policy interface for
biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable
use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and sustainable
development.
IPBES is placed under the auspices of UNEP, UNESCO, FAO and UNDP.
Its secretariat is hosted by the German government and located on the UN
campus, in Bonn, Germany.
Scientists from all parts of the world contribute to the work of IPBES on a
voluntary basis. They are nominated by their government or an organisation,
and selected by the Multidisciplinary Expert Panel (MEP) of IPBES. Peer
review forms a key component of the work of IPBES to ensure that a range
of views is reected in its work, and that the work is complete to the highest
scientic standards.
... Climate change is exacerbating biodiversity losses have accelerated in Europe (as evidenced by rapid declines in pollinators, habitat, insects, and birds) linked also to industrial methods of agriculture. 154 Maintaining and increasing biodiversity is a key strategy for climate adaptation. Two key policy initiatives at national level provide examples of how to address biodiversity as a public good through agroecological approaches as detailed by HLPE (2019). ...
... Climate change is exacerbating biodiversity losses have accelerated in Europe (as evidenced by rapid declines in pollinators, habitat, insects, and birds) linked also to industrial methods of agriculture. 154 Maintaining and increasing biodiversity is a key strategy for climate adaptation. Two key policy initiatives at national level provide examples of how to address biodiversity as a public good through agroecological approaches as detailed by HLPE (2019). ...
... The dynamics of pollinator populations and factors that impact upon these populations are a focus of attention for policy-makers concerned with conservation and vital ecosystem services like pollination. There are substantial gaps in knowledge about the status of pollinators worldwide (e.g., abundance declines, distribution, species declines) and the effectiveness of measures to protect them (GM crop regulation, pesticide policy, pollution control, etc.) (Becher, Osborne, Thorbek, Kennedy, & Grimm, 2013;Chauzat et al., 2014;Dicks et al., 2016;Godfray et al., 2014;Potts et al., 2016;Vanbergen & The Insect Pollinators Initiative, 2013). In order to adequately protect and preserve pollinators, such as by means of England's National Pollinator Strategy (NPS) in the UK (Defra, 2014), it is vital to know what and how much effect various key factors have on the abundance of honey bees, wild bees, and other pollinators (such as hover flies) and whether these effects act independently or in combination. ...
Article
Full-text available
Policy-makers often need to rely on experts with disparate fields of expertise when making policy choices in complex, multi-faceted, dynamic environments such as those dealing with ecosystem services. For policy-makers wishing to make evidence-based decisions which will best support pollinator abundance and pollination services, one of the problems faced is how to access the information and evidence they need, and how to combine it to formulate and evaluate candidate policies. This is even more complex when multiple factors provide influence in combination. The pressures affecting the survival and pollination capabilities of honey bees (Apis mellifera), wild bees, and other pollinators are well documented, but incomplete. In order to estimate the potential effectiveness of various candidate policy choices, there is an urgent need to quantify the effect of various combinations of factors on the pollination ecosystem service. Using high-quality experimental evidence is the most robust approach, but key aspects of the system may not be amenable to experimentation or may be prohibitive based on cost, time and effort. In such cases, it is possible to obtain the required evidence by using structured expert elicitation, a method for quantitatively characterizing the state of knowledge about an uncertain quantity. Here we report and discuss the outputs of the novel use of a structured expert elicitation, designed to quantify the probability of good pollinator abundance given a variety of weather, disease, and habitat scenarios. Evaluación de la respuesta de la abundancia de polinizadores a las presiones ambientales mediante el uso de elicitación experta estructurada A menudo los legisladores dependen de expertos en diversas áreas de conocimiento para tomar decisiones sobre legislación en entornos complejos, multifacéticos y dinámicos tales como los que tienen que ver con los servicios ecosistémicos. Los legisladores que quieren tomar decisiones basadas en evidencias que respalden mejor los servicios de polinización y la abundancia de polinizadores, se enfrentan al problema de cómo acceder a la información y a las evidencias que necesitan, y de cómo combinar éstas para formular y evaluar futuras leyes. Esto es aún más complejo cuando hay múltiples factores que influyen de manera combinada. Las presiones que afectan a la supervivencia y a la capacidad polinizadora de las abejas de la miel (Apis mellifera), a las abejas silvestres y a otros polinizadores están bien documentadas, pero de manera incompleta. Para estimar la efectividad potencial de varias opciones posibles de legislación, es necesario cuantificar el efecto combinado de varios factores sobre el servicio ecosistémico de polinización. El uso de una evidencia experimental de alta calidad es el enfoque más sólido, pero algunos aspectos clave del sistema podrían no ser susceptibles de experimentación o ser prohibitivos debido al coste, el tiempo y el esfuerzo. En tales casos, es posible obtener la evidencia requerida mediante el uso de la elicitación experta estructurada, un método para caracterizar cuantitativamente el estado del conocimiento sobre una cantidad incierta. En este estudio informamos y discutimos los resultados del uso novedoso de una elicitación experta estructurada, diseñada para cuantificar la probabilidad de una abundancia de polinizadores adecuada teniendo en cuenta una variedad de escenarios climáticos, de enfermedades y de hábitat.
... where das/y stands for 'Days at sea per year'. Such a predictive scenario may can answer the question 'What will likely happen?', as suggested in Potts et al. (2016). ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper deals with fishery management in the face of the ecological and economic effects of global warming. To achieve this, a dynamic bioeconomic model and model-based scenarios are considered, in which the stock's growth function depends on the sea surface temperature. The model is empirically calibrated for the French Guiana shrimp fishery using time series collected over the period 1993–2009. Three fishing effort strategies are then compared under two contrasted IPCC climate scenarios (RCP 8.5 and RCP 2.6). A first harvesting strategy maintains the Status Quo in terms of fishing effort. A more ecologically-oriented strategy based on the closure of the fishery is also considered. A third strategy, which relates to Maximum Economic Yield (MEY), is based on the optimisation of the net present value derived from fishing. The results first show that 'status Quo’ fishing intensity combined with global warming leads to the collapse of the fishery in the long run. Secondly, it turns out that the Closure strategy preserves stock viability especially under the optimistic climate scenario. Thirdly, the MEY strategy makes it possible to satisfy bioeconomic performances requirements with positive stock and profit, once again, especially under the optimistic warming scenario. Consequently, MEY emerges as a relevant bioeconomic strategy in terms of adaptation to climate change but only in connection with climate change mitigation.
... It is well established that pollinators play a significant role in the provisioning of crop pollination services worldwide[5]. However, there is less widespread appreciation that pollinator communities are not all equally effective at pollinating all plant species. ...
Article
Effective pollination is a complex phenomenon determined by both species-level and community-level factors. While pollinator communities are constituted by interacting organisms in a shared environment, these factors are often simplified or overlooked when quantifying species-level pollinator effectiveness alone. Here, we review the recent literature on pollinator effectiveness to identify the pros and cons of existing methods and outline three important areas for future research: plant-pollinator interactions, heterospecific pollen transfer and the variation in pollination outcomes. We conclude that there is a need to acknowledge a new, additional community level property of pollination effectiveness (i.e. pollinator community effectiveness) in order to account for the suite of plant, pollinator and environmental factors known to influence different stages of successful pollination.
Article
Full-text available
Introduction The complex links and feedbacks between ecosystems and people are now sharply in focus. Our growing understandings of the complex relations between ecosystems and people, the social and ecological drivers of changes in nature, and the different dimensions of a good quality of life, from local to global scales, have made these interdependencies ever more visible (IPBES 2019; Díaz et al. 2019). Furthermore, recent studies have revealed how dramatically unsustainable and inequitable the interactions between ecosystems and people are, as a result of a long legacy of consumerism and utilitarianism, patriarchy and colonialism, and the global expansion of production-oriented relationships with nature. In embracing the new name and scope of the Journal Ecosystems and People (Martín-López et al. 2019) a special issue was launched in 2018 to gather and synthesize the findings, insights and experiences gained in science-policy interfaces regarding ecosystems and people, with a special emphasis on the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). We invited scientific contributions and contributions from non-academic authors, on the process, theory, and outcomes of IPBES as well as on other science-policy interfaces. Following the approach of the journal, the special issue aimed for a diverse distribution of authors based on gender, region, ethnicity and seniority as contributors. In this introductory paper, we synthesize the insights gained through this special issue. We identify four key challenges, as well as opportunities and strategies to overcome them, which are presented below. These challenges and exemplary strategies were drawn from a series of collaborative contributions from authors around the world, involving work at different science-policy interfaces, and including a range of professional and disciplinary backgrounds among scientists, sectors of society, types of knowledge and spatial and temporal scales. Close to 100 authors, from nearly 30 different countries, encompassing all continents, from a wide range of career stages participated in this special issue. They belong to a wide range of academic, education, governmental, civil society and consulting organizations and provide a rich overview of how science-policy interfaces advance research on ecosystems and people.
Article
In this paper, we consider a problem of contract theory in which several Principals hire a common Agent and we study the model in the continuous time setting. We show that optimal contracts should satisfy some equilibrium conditions and we reduce the optimisation problem of the Principals to a system of coupled Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equations. Further, in a more specific linear-quadratic model where two interacting Principals hire one common Agent, we are able to calculate the optimal effort by the Agent for both Principals. In this continuous time model, we extend the result of Bernheim and Whinston (1986) in which the authors compare the optimal effort of the Agent in a non-cooperative Principals model and that in the aggregate model, and give the condition under which these two optimisations coincide.
Article
Losses of honey bees have been repeatedly reported from many places worldwide. The widespread use of synthetic pesticides has led to concerns regarding their environmental fate and their effects on pollinators. Based on a standardised review, we report the use of a wide variety of honey bee matrices and sampling methods in the scientific papers studying pesticide exposure. Matrices such as beeswax and beebread were very little analysed despite their capacities for long-term pesticide storage. Moreover, bioavailability and transfer between in-hive matrices were poorly understood and explored. Many pesticides were studied but interactions between molecules or with other stressors were lacking. Sampling methods, targeted matrices and units of measure should have been, to some extent, standardised between publications to ease comparison and cross checking. Data on honey bee exposure to pesticides would have also benefit from the use of commercial formulations in experiments instead of active ingredients, with a special assessment of co-formulants (quantitative exposure and effects). Finally, the air matrix within the colony must be explored in order to complete current knowledge on honey bee pesticide exposure.
Article
Full-text available
Sustainable livelihoods and human well-being depend on multiple anthropogenic and natural assets (stock of materials or information that exists in a point in time). However, the simultaneous and multiple impacts of land-use decisions on these assets are often ignored. In this study, we focus on pollinator-friendly practices (PFP: practices that intend to increase the abundance and diversity of natural pollinators) to quantify the multi-dimensional value of land-use decisions and to address potential synergies and trade-offs among assets. We combined socio-economic and ecological methods to quantify natural (pollinator richness) and anthropogenic (human, physical, social, and financial) assets in 30 coffee plantations with a gradient in the number of PFP in eastern Brazil. We found that an increase in the number of PFP resulted in both enhanced flower-visitor richness (natural asset) and coffee yield (financial asset). Farmers who dedicated more time to field work than to administrative work applied more PFP on their farms. Our results highlight that land-use decisions oriented towards enhancing natural assets can also provide the highest levels of financial assets. This provides a general framework for efforts towards ecological intensification that can be employed in other regions.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.