scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal Article•DOI•

Biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation

Rosemary Hill1, Rosemary Hill2, Guiomar Nates-Parra3, José Javier G. Quezada-Euán4, Damayanti Buchori5, Gretchen LeBuhn6, Márcia Motta Maués7, Petina L. Pert2, Peter Kwapong8, Shafqat Saeed9, Sara Jo Breslow10, Manuela Carneiro da Cunha11, Manuela Carneiro da Cunha12, Lynn V. Dicks13, Leonardo Galetto14, Mary Gikungu Gikungu, Brad G. Howlett15, Vera Lúcia Imperatriz-Fonseca, Phil O'b. Lyver16, Berta Martín-López17, Elisa Oteros-Rozas18, Simon G. Potts19, Marie Roué20 •
James Cook University1, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation2, National University of Colombia3, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán4, Bogor Agricultural University5, San Francisco State University6, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária7, University of Cape Coast8, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad9, University of Washington10, University of São Paulo11, University of Chicago12, University of East Anglia13, National University of Cordoba14, Plant & Food Research15, Landcare Research16, Lüneburg University17, Pablo de Olavide University18, University of Reading19, National Museum of Natural History20
11 Mar 2019-Vol. 2, Iss: 3, pp 214-222
TL;DR: In this article, the authors used the Conceptual Framework of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to analyse the biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation by indigenous peoples and local communities globally.
Abstract: Pollinators underpin sustainable livelihoods that link ecosystems, spiritual and cultural values, and customary governance systems with indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) across the world. Biocultural diversity is a shorthand term for this great variety of people–nature interlinkages that have developed over time in specific ecosystems. Biocultural approaches to conservation explicitly build on the conservation practices inherent in sustaining these livelihoods. We used the Conceptual Framework of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services to analyse the biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation by IPLCs globally. The analysis identified biocultural approaches to pollinators across all six elements of the Conceptual Framework, with conservation-related practices occurring in 60 countries, in all continents except Antarctica. Practices of IPLCs that are important for biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation can be grouped into three categories: the practice of valuing diversity and fostering biocultural diversity; landscape management practices; and diversified farming systems. Particular IPLCs may use some or all of these practices. Policies that recognize customary tenure over traditional lands, strengthen indigenous and community-conserved areas, promote heritage listing and support diversified farming systems within a food sovereignty approach are among several identified that strengthen biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation, and thereby deliver mutual benefits for pollinators and people. Pollinators are integral to ecosystem functions and human wellbeing, yet conservation approaches often ignore indigenous and biocultural perspectives and practices. This Analysis uses the IPBES framework to categorize biocultural practices and identify policies to support their roles in pollinator conservation.

Summary (4 min read)

Jump to: [Introduction] – [Results of the Analysis] – [Figure 1 (a) IPBES Conceptual Framework 5 and (b) analysis of biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation according to this Conceptual Framework] – [Figure 2 Global patterns of the contribution of biocultural approaches for pollinators and pollination to quality of life, from studies/sites identified in the analysis: (a) beekeeping; (b) honey hunting; (c) Intangible Cultural Heritage listed as globally significant; (d) Cultural and Mixed Sites inscribed on the World Heritage List (WHL) with significance for pollinators] – [Anthropogenic assets] – [Biocultural pollinator institutions and governance] – [Drivers of change] – [Figure 3 Drawings by J.M.F. Camargo 52 , marked with the Kayapó names of the different anatomical structures of a bee (left) and ontogenetic stages of bee development (right). Reproduced with permission.] – [Figure 4 Landscape management practices (a and b) and diversified farming systems (c and d), based on Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK), that are part of and foster pollinators' roles in Nature's Contributions to People (NCP)] – [Seven policies to support biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation] and [Conclusion]

Introduction

  • Pollinators are integral to a good quality of life for people globally, contributing to sustainable livelihoods, maintenance of ecosystem health and function, food production, cultural, spiritual and social values 1 .
  • Inclusive policy for their conservation requires innovative, multiscale assessments that include evidence from science and other knowledge systems 2 .
  • Biocultural approaches to conservation, which explicitly build on local cultural perspectives and recognize feedbacks between ecosystems and quality of life, have emerged as key to the necessary inclusivity 4 .
  • The authors provide the first global analysis and review of current literature about biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation, drawing on and augmenting work undertaken for the first IPBES assessment 9 .
  • Particular IPLCs may use some or all of these practices.

Results of the Analysis

  • All six elements of the IPBES CF are presented in Figure 1 (a); and Figure 1 (b) presents the analysis of IPLCs' biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation into these elements, which includes b Indigenous and local knowledge is defined here in accordance with Diaz et al.
  • It is also referred to by other terms such as, for example, Indigenous, local or traditional knowledge, traditional ecological/environmental knowledge (TEK), farmers' or fishers' knowledge, ethnoscience, indigenous science, folk science." recognition of drivers of unsustainable practices for pollinators which are evident among some IPLCs.
  • The arrows between the elements reflect influences and interactions 5 which are not further described here.

Figure 1 (a) IPBES Conceptual Framework 5 and (b) analysis of biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation according to this Conceptual Framework

  • Pollinators, pollination and good quality of life Pollinators and plant-pollinator interaction networks make vital contributions to IPLCs' quality of life, in both subsistence and market economies, as part of socio-cultural heritage, identity, and social relations 11 .
  • Beekeeping provides a critical anchor for rural economies because: (1) minimal investment is required; (2) diverse products can be sold; (3) land ownership or rental is usually not necessary; (4) nutritional and medicinal benefits derive; (5) timing and location of activities are flexible; and (6) links to ILK and traditions are usually numerous 12 .
  • Honey hunting makes significant contributions to some IPLCs, providing vital sustenance and deep connections with quality of life .
  • Examples of contemporary honey-hunters include: the forest peoples of Indonesia; Ogiek people in Kenya; and Xingu people in Brazil 11 .
  • The collection of entire bee colonies means that high protein components such as brood, royal jelly and pollen form important dietary constituents 14 .

Figure 2 Global patterns of the contribution of biocultural approaches for pollinators and pollination to quality of life, from studies/sites identified in the analysis: (a) beekeeping; (b) honey hunting; (c) Intangible Cultural Heritage listed as globally significant; (d) Cultural and Mixed Sites inscribed on the World Heritage List (WHL) with significance for pollinators

  • Pollinators' roles in rituals, dances, myths and legends of IPLCs are recognised as globally significant through inclusions in the Intangible Cultural Heritage of UNESCO .
  • The World Heritage List is divided into sites listed for their cultural heritage; those listed for their natural heritage; and those that have both cultural and natural heritage, known as "mixed sites".
  • Virtually all natural sites protect pollinators and many cultural and mixed sites protect and celebrate biocultural linkages between people and pollinators .
  • Examples of sites that recognise biocultural approaches include the Coffee Cultural Landscape of Colombia, and the Osun Sacred Grove protected by Yoruba peoples near Osogbo, Nigeria.
  • The Agave Landscape in Mexico recognizes biocultural interactions with this bat-pollinated plant used since at least the 16th century to produce tequila spirit, and for at least 2,000 years to make other fermented drinks, fibre and cloth.

Anthropogenic assets

  • IPLCs develop and use anthropogenic assets, particularly technologies for honey-hunting and beekeeping 15 , that underpin the good quality of their lives.
  • Honey hunters manufacture ladders in Ethiopia 16 and ropes from lianas in India 17 for tree-climbing.
  • In France and Spain, anthropogenic assets include traditional swarming methods, harvest and honey extraction techniques, and diverse smokers 19 .
  • Examples include its use for arrow cement in Bolivia; to soften skins, and make jewelry in Africa; and to make hunting tools, firesticks and didgeridoos, a traditional musical instrument, in Australia 10 .

Biocultural pollinator institutions and governance

  • IPLCs' governance and institutional arrangements are central to biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation .
  • Governance systems consist of actors (individuals and organisations), institutions (formal and informal rules and norms) and multi-level interactions (across scales and between organisations and institutions) 29 .
  • Actors in biocultural governance systems often include actual pollinators, as IPLCs attribute authority to many spirits who are pollinators, including birds, bats, butterflies, bees and other insects 10 .
  • Multilevel interactions highlight risks to these biocultural approaches, arising from lack of recognition of customary tenure and other rights at the nation-state level.
  • Ogiek honey-hunters recently won the case ACHRP vs Republic of Kenya App. No. 006/2012 in the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights.

Drivers of change

  • Many IPLCs report pollinator and pollination declines associated with expansion of industrial forestry and agriculture into their traditional lands, driving habitat loss and degradation, and replacing biodiverse habitat with monocultures 11 .
  • Loss and decline of the stingless bees is linked with a loss of traditional knowledge and practices such as ethnomedicine (use of honey), cosmogony, and handcraft (using cerumen) 10 .
  • Pollinators can themselves become threatened as IPLCs experience scarcity of wild food resources.
  • Large flying foxes (Pteropus vampyrus natunae) in Kalimantan, Indonesia, are threatened by over-hunting for food 44 .
  • Language holds culturally specific knowledge of local biodiversity, ethnobiological knowledge, as well as knowledge about traditional resource use, management practices and taxonomy.

Figure 3 Drawings by J.M.F. Camargo 52 , marked with the Kayapó names of the different anatomical structures of a bee (left) and ontogenetic stages of bee development (right). Reproduced with permission.

  • Nature's contributions to people Nature's contributions to people (NCP) include all the contributions, both positive and negative, of nature (i.e. systems of life) to quality of life for people 8 .
  • NCP are created through interactions between systems of life, anthropogenic assets, and institutions and governance.
  • The context-specific perspective is recognised as potentially producing bundles or groups that follow from distinct lived experiences such as farming, or hunting and gathering.
  • The authors analysis identified three such bundles or groups that are considered NCP as part of, and ways to foster, biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation: (1) the practice of valuing diversity and fostering biocultural diversity; (2) landscape management practices; and (3) diversified farming systems.
  • Many IPLCs favour heterogeneity in land-use as well as in their gardens, tend to the conservation of nesting trees and flowering resources for bees, butterflies and other pollinators, name and classify a great range of wild bees, observe their habitat and food preferences.

Figure 4 Landscape management practices (a and b) and diversified farming systems (c and d), based on Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK), that are part of and foster pollinators' roles in Nature's Contributions to People (NCP)

  • Three types of diversified farming systems based on ILK, scattered across the globe, were identified as part of, and ways to foster NCP .
  • Evidence is accumulating that commodity agroforestry, practiced by IPLCs and resulting in a landscape matrix of fragments of high-biodiversity native vegetation amidst the agricultural crop, both produces food and maintains pollination services 54 .
  • Home Gardens, capitalised to distinguish those characterised by producing a wide diversity of foods and medicinal plants, display complexity and multi-functionality, and provide habitat for a great diversity of pollinators 55 .
  • Shifting cultivation (seasonal rotation of crops, trees, animals and intercropping) demonstrates diverse interdependencies with pollinators and remains important in many regions, particularly through the tropical world 56 .
  • The traditional Mayan Milpa shifting cultivation produces a patchy landscape with forests in different stages of succession with a diverse array of plants, nearly all of which are pollinated by insects, birds and bats 57 .

Seven policies to support biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation

  • IPLCs across the globe continue to practice many successful biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation.
  • Indigenous Protected Areas in Australia required prior informed consent for their creation, and have protected culturally-significant pollinationdependent fruit, their bird and bat pollinators, and their habitats 10 .
  • The Intangible Cultural Heritage List promotes understanding of practices which are listed-for example the protection of traditional knowledge of Totanac people, which includes agroforestry systems that protect pollinators and stingless beekeeping.
  • Fostering livelihoods based on beekeeping can overcome many barriers to effective pollinator protection when they are able to link: (1) customary economies (that require ongoing protection of pollinators); (2) markets (that give these products economic significance); and (3) investments from government in accompanying research, market analysis and brokering 11 .
  • Promoting food sovereignty helps pollination protection because of its connection with diversified farming systems and management practices that foster diversity and abundance of pollinators and pollination resources 65 .

Conclusion

  • Pollinators and pollination have become worldwide heritage and IPLCs' have ancient and recent associations with these organisms, creating rich and unique biocultural manifestations.
  • The contributions of IPLCs are therefore essential to decision-making and actions for the preservation of these key ecological resources.
  • The authors consider that the suggested seven policies will strengthen vital ILK while providing ongoing opportunities for education, development and empowerment of the wellbeing of IPLCs and mutual benefits with broader societies.
  • Local community-driven conservation initiatives can be successful and should be encouraged.
  • The authors conclude that pollination and pollinators can be better preserved by acknowledging IPLCs and working together between ILK and science for sustainable ecosystem governance and management in this time of rapid global change.

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Figures (2)

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Biocultural approaches to pollinator
conservation
Article
Accepted Version
Hill, R., Nates-Parra, G., Quezada-Euán, J. J. G., Buchori, D.,
LeBuhn, G., Maués, M. M., Pert, P. L., Kwapong, P. K., Saeed,
S., Breslow, S. J., Carneiro da Cunha, M., Dicks, L. V.,
Galetto, L., Gikungu, M. G., Howlett, B. G., Imperatriz-
Fonseca, V. L., Lyver, P. O.'B., Martín-López, B., Oteros-
Rozas, E., Potts, S. G. and Roué, M. (2019) Biocultural
approaches to pollinator conservation. Nature Sustainability, 2.
pp. 214-222. ISSN 2398-9629 doi:
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0244-z Available at
https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/82035/
It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the
work. See Guidance on citing
.
To link to this article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0244-z
Publisher: Nature
All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law,
including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other
copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in
the End User Agreement
.
www.reading.ac.uk/centaur
CentAUR
Central Archive at the University of Reading
Reading’s research outputs online
1
Biocultural approaches to pollinator 1
conservation 2
3
Abstract 4
Pollinators underpin sustainable livelihoods that link ecosystems, spiritual and cultural values, and 5
customary governance systems with indigenous peoples
a
and local communities (IPLC) across the 6
world. Biocultural diversity is a short-hand term for this great variety of people-nature interlinkages 7
that have developed over time in specific ecosystems. Biocultural approaches to conservation 8
explicitly build on the conservation practices inherent in sustaining these livelihoods. We used the 9
Conceptual Framework of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services to 10
analyse the biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation by indigenous peoples and local 11
communities globally. The analysis identified biocultural approaches to pollinators across all six 12
elements of the Conceptual Framework, with conservation-related practices occurring in sixty 13
countries, in all continents except Antarctica. Practices of IPLC that are significant for biocultural 14
approaches to pollinator conservation can be grouped into three categories: the practice of valuing 15
diversity and fostering biocultural diversity; landscape management practices; and diversified 16
farming systems. Particular IPLCs may use some or all of these practices. Policies that recognise 17
customary tenure over traditional lands, strengthen Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas, 18
promote heritage listing and support diversified farming within a food sovereignty approach, are 19
among several identified that strengthen biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation, and 20
thereby deliver mutual benefits for pollinators and people. 21
a
Here we follow the global norm of using lower case for “indigenous” while recognising the norm in Australia and New
Zealand is to use upper case, following Johnson, J.T. et al. (2007) Creating anti-colonial geographies: Embracing indigenous
peoples' knowledges and rights. Geographical Research 45 (2), 117-120.
2
22
23
24
25
Keywords: biocultural diversity, indigenous peoples, local communities, conservation, biodiversity, 26
governance, cultural values 27
28
3
Introduction 29
Pollinators are integral to a good quality of life for people globally, contributing to sustainable 30
livelihoods, maintenance of ecosystem health and function, food production, cultural, spiritual and 31
social values
1
. Inclusive policy for their conservation requires innovative, multiscale assessments that 32
include evidence from science and other knowledge systems
2
. Yet conservation science has often 33
neglected societies’ values, world views and knowledge systems and ignored culturally-grounded 34
approaches
3
. In this context, biocultural approaches to conservation, which explicitly build on local 35
cultural perspectives and recognize feedbacks between ecosystems and quality of life, have emerged 36
as key to the necessary inclusivity
4
. Biocultural approaches are underpinned by the concept of 37
biocultural diversity, which recognises that culture and biodiversity are linked and may be mutually 38
constituted
5
. Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) are integral to the biocultural 39
diversity that has developed in ecosystems over millennia, including large areas of the globe, many 40
with high biodiversity, over which IPLCs have management responsibility
6
. The Intergovernmental 41
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services (IPBES) is promoting inclusivity in 42
assessments through the IPBES Conceptual Framework
5
, their valuation approaches
7
, and by 43
providing space for context-specific culturally-grounded ways of assessing nature’s contributions to 44
people (NCP)
8
. In this paper, we provide the first global analysis and review of current literature 45
about biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation, drawing on and augmenting work 46
undertaken for the first IPBES assessment
9
. 47
48
For the first time in any global environmental assessment, the IPBES global pollination assessment 49
included indigenous and local knowledge (ILK)
b
. This incorporation of ILK focused on the 50
contributions of pollination and pollinators to two elements of the IPBES Conceptual Framework—51
good quality of life and nature’s contributions to people
10
. For this paper, we analyse biocultural 52
approaches, based on ILK, according to all six elements of the IPBES Conceptual Framework (CF)
5
53
(Figure 1). We focus on the knowledge of IPLCs, both groups identified essentially by their (multi-54
scalar) linkages with their traditional territories (see Methods, Box 1). Our analysis demonstrates 55
that practices of IPLCs that are significant for pollinator conservation can be grouped into three 56
categories: (1) the practice of valuing diversity and fostering biocultural diversity; (2) landscape 57
management practices; and (3) diversified farming systems. Particular IPLCs may use some or all of 58
these practices. Seven policies to strengthen these approaches are presented, followed by 59
concluding comments about implications for future science and policy. Methods for analysis, 60
literature review and (self)-identification of IPLCs are presented at the end of the article. 61
Results of the Analysis 62
All six elements of the IPBES CF are presented in Figure 1(a); and Figure 1 (b) presents the analysis of 63
IPLCs’ biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation into these elements, which includes 64
b
Indigenous and local knowledge is defined here in accordance with Diaz et al. 2015 as “A cumulative body of
knowledge, practice and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by
cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with
their environment. It is also referred to by other terms such as, for example, Indigenous, local or traditional
knowledge, traditional ecological/environmental knowledge (TEK), farmers’ or fishers’ knowledge,
ethnoscience, indigenous science, folk science.”
Citations
More filters
Journal Article•DOI•
Working with indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people

[...]

Rosemary Hill1, Çiğdem Adem, Wilfred V. Alangui2, Zsolt Molnár, Yildiz Aumeeruddy-Thomas3, Peter Bridgewater4, Maria Tengö5, Randy Thaman6, Constant Y. Adou Yao, Fikret Berkes7, Joji Cariño, Manuela Carneiro da Cunha8, Mariteuw Chimère Diaw, Sandra Díaz9, Viviana E. Figueroa, Judy Fisher10, Preston Hardison, Kaoru Ichikawa, Peris M. Kariuki, Madhav Karki, Phil O'b. Lyver11, Pernilla Malmer5, Onel Masardule, Alfred A. Oteng Yeboah12, Diego Pacheco, Tamar Pataridze, Edgar Selvin Pérez, Michèle-Marie Roué3, Hassan Roba, Jennifer Rubis, Osamu Saito13, Dayuan Xue14 •
James Cook University1, University of the Philippines Baguio2, Centre national de la recherche scientifique3, Australian National University4, Stockholm Resilience Centre5, University of the South Pacific6, University of Manitoba7, University of São Paulo8, National University of Cordoba9, University of Western Australia10, Landcare Research11, University of Ghana12, United Nations University13, Minzu University of China14
01 Apr 2020-Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
TL;DR: In 2017, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) adopted an ILK Approach including procedures for assessments of nature and nature's linkages with people; a participatory mechanism; and institutional arrangements for including indigenous peoples and local communities.

152 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Land Use Policy

[...]

Andrew Warren
01 Mar 1989-Journal of Arid Environments

103 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
A global-scale expert assessment of drivers and risks associated with pollinator decline.

[...]

Lynn V. Dicks1, Lynn V. Dicks2, Tom D. Breeze3, Hien T. Ngo, Deepa Senapathi3, Jiandong An, Marcelo A. Aizen4, Parthiba Basu5, Damayanti Buchori6, Leonardo Galetto7, Leonardo Galetto8, Lucas Alejandro Garibaldi9, Barbara Gemmill-Herren10, Barbara Gemmill-Herren11, Brad G. Howlett12, Vera Lúcia Imperatriz-Fonseca13, Steven D. Johnson14, Anikó Kovács-Hostyánszki, Yong Jung Kwon15, H. Michael G. Lattorff16, Thingreipi Lungharwo, Colleen L. Seymour17, Adam J. Vanbergen, Simon G. Potts3 •
University of Cambridge1, University of East Anglia2, University of Reading3, National University of Comahue4, University of Calcutta5, Bogor Agricultural University6, University of Córdoba (Spain)7, National Scientific and Technical Research Council8, National University of Río Negro9, Prescott College10, World Agroforestry Centre11, Plant & Food Research12, University of São Paulo13, University of KwaZulu-Natal14, Kyungpook National University15, International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology16, University of Cape Town17
16 Aug 2021-Nature Ecology and Evolution
TL;DR: The authors evaluated the relative regional and global importance of eight drivers of pollinator decline and ten consequent risks to human well-being using a formal expert elicitation process, and concluded that global policy responses should focus on reducing pressure from changes in land cover and configuration, land management and pesticides.
Abstract: Pollinator decline has attracted global attention and substantial efforts are underway to respond through national pollinator strategies and action plans. These policy responses require clarity on what is driving pollinator decline and what risks it generates for society in different parts of the world. Using a formal expert elicitation process, we evaluated the relative regional and global importance of eight drivers of pollinator decline and ten consequent risks to human well-being. Our results indicate that global policy responses should focus on reducing pressure from changes in land cover and configuration, land management and pesticides, as these were considered very important drivers in most regions. We quantify how the importance of drivers and risks from pollinator decline, differ among regions. For example, losing access to managed pollinators was considered a serious risk only for people in North America, whereas yield instability in pollinator-dependent crops was classed as a serious or high risk in four regions but only a moderate risk in Europe and North America. Overall, perceived risks were substantially higher in the Global South. Despite extensive research on pollinator decline, our analysis reveals considerable scientific uncertainty about what this means for human society.

92 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Why bees are critical for achieving sustainable development.

[...]

Vidushi S. Patel1, Vidushi S. Patel2, Natasha Pauli2, Eloise M. Biggs2, Liz Barbour1, Bryan Boruff1, Bryan Boruff2 •
Cooperative Research Centre1, University of Western Australia2
01 Jan 2021-AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment
TL;DR: This work explores the contributions of bees towards achieving the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and suggests that bees potentially contribute towards 15 of the 17 SDGs and a minimum of 30 SDG targets.
Abstract: Reductions in global bee populations are threatening the pollination benefits to both the planet and people. Whilst the contribution of bee pollination in promoting sustainable development goals through food security and biodiversity is widely acknowledged, a range of other benefits provided by bees has yet to be fully recognised. We explore the contributions of bees towards achieving the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Our insights suggest that bees potentially contribute towards 15 of the 17 SDGs and a minimum of 30 SDG targets. We identify common themes in which bees play an essential role, and suggest that improved understanding of bee contributions to sustainable development is crucial for ensuring viable bee systems.

82 citations

The world history of beekeeping and honey hunting [Boekbespreking]

[...]

Marleen Boerjan
01 Jan 2000

60 citations

References
More filters
Journal Article•DOI•
Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons

[...]

Ashwini Chhatre1, Arun Agrawal•
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign1
20 Oct 2009-Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
TL;DR: It is argued that local communities restrict their consumption of forest products when they own forest commons, thereby increasing carbon storage and contributing to climate change mitigation without adversely affecting local livelihoods.
Abstract: Forests provide multiple benefits at local to global scales. These include the global public good of carbon sequestration and local and national level contributions to livelihoods for more than half a billion users. Forest commons are a particularly important class of forests generating these multiple benefits. Institutional arrangements to govern forest commons are believed to substantially influence carbon storage and livelihood contributions, especially when they incorporate local knowledge and decentralized decision making. However, hypothesized relationships between institutional factors and multiple benefits have never been tested on data from multiple countries. By using original data on 80 forest commons in 10 countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, we show that larger forest size and greater rule-making autonomy at the local level are associated with high carbon storage and livelihood benefits; differences in ownership of forest commons are associated with trade-offs between livelihood benefits and carbon storage. We argue that local communities restrict their consumption of forest products when they own forest commons, thereby increasing carbon storage. In showing rule-making autonomy and ownership as distinct and important institutional influences on forest outcomes, our results are directly relevant to international climate change mitigation initiatives such as Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) and avoided deforestation. Transfer of ownership over larger forest commons patches to local communities, coupled with payments for improved carbon storage can contribute to climate change mitigation without adversely affecting local livelihoods.

594 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Diversified farming systems: an agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture

[...]

Claire Kremen, Alastair Iles, Christopher M. Bacon
01 Dec 2012-Ecology and Society
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors define diversified farming systems (DFS) as farming practices and landscapes that intentionally include functional biodiversity at multiple spatial and/or temporal scales in order to maintain ecosystem services that provide critical inputs to agriculture, such as soil fertility, pest and disease control, water use efficiency and pollination.
Abstract: This Special Issue on Diversified Farming Systems is motivated by a desire to understand how agriculture designed according to whole systems, agroecological principles can contribute to creating a more sustainable, socially just, and secure global food system. We first define Diversified Farming Systems (DFS) as farming practices and landscapes that intentionally include functional biodiversity at multiple spatial and/or temporal scales in order to maintain ecosystem services that provide critical inputs to agriculture, such as soil fertility, pest and disease control, water use efficiency, and pollination. We explore to what extent DFS overlap or are differentiated from existing concepts such as sustainable, multifunctional, organic or ecoagriculture. DFS are components of social-ecological systems that depend on certain combinations of traditional and contemporary knowledge, cultures, practices, and governance structures. Further, as ecosystem services are generated and regenerated within a DFS, the resulting social benefits in turn support the maintenance of the DFS, enhancing its ability to provision these services sustainably. We explore how social institutions, particularly alternative agri-food networks and agrarian movements, may serve to promote DFS approaches, but note that such networks and movements have other primary goals and are not always explicitly connected to the environmental and agroecological concerns embodied within the DFS concept. We examine global trends in agriculture to investigate to what extent industrialized forms of agriculture are replacing former DFS, assess the current and potential contributions of DFS to food security, food sovereignty and the global food supply, and determine where and under what circumstances DFS are expanding rather than contracting. © 2012 by the author(s).

496 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability

[...]

Maria Tengö1, Rosemary Hill2, Pernilla Malmer1, Christopher M. Raymond3, Marja Spierenburg4, Finn Danielsen, Thomas Elmqvist1, Carl Folke5, Carl Folke1 •
Stockholm Resilience Centre1, James Cook University2, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences3, Radboud University Nijmegen4, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences5
01 Jun 2017-Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a framework for evidence-based guidance on how tasks to mobilise, translate, negotiate, synthesise and apply multiple forms of evidence can bridge knowledge systems.

452 citations

Book•
The World History of Beekeeping and Honey Hunting

[...]

Eva Crane
26 Aug 1999
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore the history of man's use of bees, from prehistoric honey hunting to the sophisticated industry it has become today, from the early days of beekeeping to the present day.
Abstract: This work explores in detail the world history of man's use of bees, from prehistoric honey hunting to the sophisticated industry it has become today. Honey has always been the chief prize, but bee brood was eaten as meat, and beeswax was important in many technologies. Bees, honey and wax have special symbolic significance in both early beliefs and later world religions. And bees' greatest benefit to man has been their pollination of his crops. Honey hunting is shown here in the rock art of four continents. Pictures of beekeeping survive from ancient Egypt, and hives or parts of them from Greece, Crete, pre-Roman Spain and the Maya region of Mesoamerica. Many traditional practices have been handled down through the generations, and there are abundant written records, the earliest from the second millennium BC. This book contains many first-hand descriptions, set out to cover aspects of the subject.

411 citations

Posted Content•
Summary for policymakers of the assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on pollinators, pollination and food production

[...]

Simon G. Potts, Vera Imperatriz Fonseca, Hien T. Ngo, Jacobus C. Biesmeijer, Tom D. Breeze, Lynn V. Dicks, Lucas Alejandro Garibaldi, Rosemary Hill, Josef Settele, Adam J. Vanbergen, Marcelo A. Aizen, Saul A. Cunningham, Connal Eardley, Breno Magalhães Freitas, Nicola Gallai, Peter G. Kevan, A. Kovács Hostyánszki, Peter Kwapong, Junan Li, Xiaolin Li, Dino J. Martins, G. Nates Parra, Jeffery S. Pettis, Romina Rader, Blande F. Viana 
01 Jan 2016-Research Papers in Economics
TL;DR: The authors in this paper provided 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 options.
Abstract: 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.

404 citations

Related Papers (5)
Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being

[...]

08 Dec 2016-Nature
Simon G. Potts, Vera Lúcia Imperatriz-Fonseca, Hien T. Ngo, Marcelo A. Aizen, Jacobus C. Biesmeijer, Jacobus C. Biesmeijer, Tom D. Breeze, Lynn V. Dicks, Lucas Alejandro Garibaldi, Rosemary Hill, Josef Settele, Adam J. Vanbergen 
Assessing nature's contributions to people

[...]

19 Jan 2018-Science
Sandra Díaz, Unai Pascual, Marie Stenseke, Berta Martín-López, Robert T. Watson, Zsolt Molnár, Rosemary Hill, Kai M. A. Chan, Ivar Andreas Baste, Kate A. Brauman, Stephen Polasky, Andrew Church, Mark Lonsdale, Anne Larigauderie, Paul Leadley, Alexander P.E. van Oudenhoven, Felice van der Plaat, Matthias Schröter, Sandra Lavorel, Yildiz Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Elena Bukvareva, Kirsten Davies, Sebsebe Demissew, Gunay Erpul, Pierre Failler, Carlos A. Guerra, Chad L. Hewitt, Hans Keune, Sarah Lindley, Yoshihisa Shirayama 
The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people

[...]

01 Jun 2015-Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Sandra Díaz, Sebsebe Demissew, Julia Carabias, Carlos Alfredo Joly, Mark Lonsdale, Neville Ash, Anne Larigauderie, Jay Ram Adhikari, Salvatore Arico, András Báldi, Ann M. Bartuska, Ivar Andreas Baste, Adem Bilgin, Eduardo S. Brondizio, Kai M. A. Chan, Viviana E. Figueroa, Anantha Kumar Duraiappah, Markus Fischer, Rosemary Hill, Thomas Koetz, Paul Leadley, Philip O'b. Lyver, Georgina M. Mace, Berta Martín-López, Michiko Okumura, Diego Pacheco, Unai Pascual, Edgar Selvin Pérez, Belinda Reyers, Eva Roth, Osamu Saito, Robert J. Scholes, Nalini Sharma, Heather Tallis, Randolph R. Thaman, Robert T. Watson, Tetsukazu Yahara, Zakri Abdul Hamid, Callistus Akosim, Yousef S. Al-Hafedh, Rashad Allahverdiyev, Edward Amankwah, T. Stanley Asah, Zemede Asfaw, Gabor Bartus, Anathea L. Brooks, Jorge Caillaux, Gemedo Dalle, Dedy Darnaedi, Amanda Driver (Sanbi), Gunay Erpul, Pablo Escobar-Eyzaguirre, Pierre Failler, Ali Moustafa Mokhtar Fouda, Bojie Fu, Haripriya Gundimeda, Shizuka Hashimoto, Floyd Homer, Sandra Lavorel, Gabriela Lichtenstein, William Armand Mala, Wadzanayi Mandivenyi, Piotr Matczak, Carmel Mbizvo, Mehrasa Mehrdadi, Jean Paul Metzger, Jean Bruno Mikissa, Henrik Moller, Harold A. Mooney, Peter J. Mumby, Harini Nagendra, Carsten Nesshöver, Alfred Oteng-Yeboah, György Pataki, Marie Roué, Jennifer Rubis, Maria Schultz, Peggy Smith, Rashid Sumaila, Kazuhiko Takeuchi, Spencer Thomas, Madhu Verma, Youn Yeo-Chang, Diana Zlatanova 
Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of Honey Bee Abundance

[...]

29 Mar 2013-Science
Lucas Alejandro Garibaldi, Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, Rachael Winfree, Marcelo A. Aizen, Riccardo Bommarco, Saul A. Cunningham, Claire Kremen, Luísa G. Carvalheiro, Luísa G. Carvalheiro, Lawrence D. Harder, Ohad Afik, Ignasi Bartomeus, Faye Benjamin, Virginie Boreux, Virginie Boreux, Daniel P. Cariveau, Natacha P. Chacoff, Jan H. Dudenhöffer, Breno Magalhães Freitas, Jaboury Ghazoul, Sarah S. Greenleaf, Juliana Hipólito, Andrea Holzschuh, Brad G. Howlett, Rufus Isaacs, Steven K. Javorek, Christina M. Kennedy, Kristin M. Krewenka, Smitha Krishnan, Yael Mandelik, Margaret M. Mayfield, Iris Motzke, Iris Motzke, Theodore Munyuli, Brian A. Nault, Mark Otieno, Jessica D. Petersen, Gideon Pisanty, Simon G. Potts, Romina Rader, Taylor H. Ricketts, Maj Rundlöf, Maj Rundlöf, Colleen L. Seymour, Christof Schüepp, Christof Schüepp, Hajnalka Szentgyörgyi, Hisatomo Taki, Teja Tscharntke, Carlos H. Vergara, Blandina Felipe Viana, Thomas C. Wanger, Catrin Westphal, Neal M. Williams, Alexandra-Maria Klein 
Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach

[...]

01 Jun 2017-Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Unai Pascual, Unai Pascual, Patricia Balvanera, Sandra Díaz, György Pataki, Eva Roth, Marie Stenseke, Robert T. Watson, Esra Başak Dessane, Mine Islar, Eszter Kelemen, Virginie Maris, Martin F. Quaas, Suneetha M. Subramanian, Heidi Wittmer, Asia Adlan, So Eun Ahn, Yousef S. Al-Hafedh, Edward Amankwah, Stanley T. Asah, Pam Berry, Adem Bilgin, Sara Jo Breslow, Craig Bullock, Daniel Cáceres, Hamed Daly-Hassen, Eugenio Figueroa, Christopher D. Golden, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, David González-Jiménez, Joël Houdet, Hans Keune, Ritesh Kumar, Keping Ma, Peter H. May, Aroha Te Pareake Mead, Patrick J. O’Farrell, Ram Pandit, Walter Pengue, Ramón Pichis-Madruga, Florin Popa, Susan Preston, Diego Pacheco-Balanza, Heli Saarikoski, Bernardo B. N. Strassburg, Bernardo B. N. Strassburg, Bernardo B. N. Strassburg, Marjan van den Belt, Madhu Verma, Fern Wickson, Noboyuki Yagi 
Frequently Asked Questions (16)
Q1. What contributions have the authors mentioned in the paper "Biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation" ?

21 a Here the authors follow the global norm of using lower case for “ indigenous ” while recognising the norm in Australia and New Zealand is to use upper case, following Johnson, J. T. et al. ( 2007 ) Creating anti-colonial geographies: Embracing indigenous peoples ' knowledges and rights. 

205 ecological and behavioural characteristics as well as seasonal occurrence are used by IPLCs to classify 206 different plant and animal species, resulting in unique understandings of the systems of life45,46. 

Invasive species, such as African and European bees, are recognised 174 by IPLCs in South and Central America as driving declines in native pollinators and their products, 175 including stingless bee honey10. 

Participatory evaluation of pollinator-friendly farming 321 practices has been used by the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) as an 322 effective framework for co-producing knowledge between scientists and farmers63. 

The United Nations 402 recognizes that no formal definition of whom are indigenous peoples and/or local 403 communities is needed—self-identification is the key requirement. 

Examples of Intangible 94 Cultural Heritage that rely on pollinator-dependent resources include knotted bag-making by forest 95 peoples of Papua, and barkcloth-making by the Baganda people in Uganda. 

Their contributions to the sustainable use and 440 conservation of biocultural diversity over millennia benefits many peoples globally, and the authors are 441 deeply grateful. 

Traditional 163 farming systems are undervalued relative to commercial, industrial and trade-oriented resource 164 exploitation of the same spaces, despite the ecosystem services that traditional farming protects. 

The authors thank the indigenous peoples and local communities globally who provided their knowledge of 438 practices and philosophies underpinning conservation of pollinators and pollination to the hundreds 43913of publications that the authors reviewed for this article. 

Indigenous land reconfiguration and fragmented institutions: A 550 historical political ecology of Tsimane' lands (Bolivian Amazon). 

Land tenure systems are often multi-layered, for example in the 138 Philippines people can have tenure rights to communal, corporate and individual lands30. 

Examples of sites that recognise biocultural approaches include the Coffee Cultural 101 Landscape of Colombia, and the Osun Sacred Grove protected by Yoruba peoples near Osogbo, 102 Nigeria. 

The final steps to enable this analysis involved firstly updating 422 the review with publications since 2015 (the cut-off date for the IPBES pollination report), and 423 heritage sites and elements listed in 2016-17; and secondly re-analysing the data gathered through 424 the dialogues11 and literature to respond to all elements of the IPBES CF. 

Their analysis identified three such bundles or 236 groups that are considered NCP as part of, and ways to foster, biocultural approaches to pollinator 237 conservation: (1) the practice of valuing diversity and fostering biocultural diversity; (2) landscape 238 management practices; and (3) diversified farming systems. 

a global call was issued for indigenous and local knowledge holders from IPLCs and 385 experts who wished to contribute information relevant to pollinators and pollination, to participate 386 in global and community dialogues. 

While the IPBES global pollination 377 assessment did not fully succeed in achieving such engagement, as knowledge-holders and their 378 institutions were not involved in the latter parts of the assessment, several methods, including 379 global and community dialogues in the early phases and tailored literature analyses, ensured a high-380 degree of rigour in their approach to working with ILK 67.