After many months of consultation and workshops, the National Pollinator Strategy for England has finally been released by Defra, and can be downloaded from this website. It reflects an important, wider change in societal attitudes to nature, and specifically the ecosystem services it provides, though the strategy itself is by no means perfect. I rather wish that it had been a UK-wide strategy, as biodiversity does not respect political boundaries, but such is a the nature of our partly-devolved political system. Wales already has an Action Plan for Pollinators and I hope that the rest of the UK follows, though a strategy for Northern Ireland would surely have to include the Republic of Ireland?
In the following sections I’ve quoted liberally from the summary section of the National Pollinator Strategy, and added a few comments and reflections of my own in italics. As always, your views and comments would be very welcome.
The 10 year National Pollinator Strategy aims to deliver across five key areas:
1. Supporting pollinators on farmland
- Working with farmers to support pollinators through the Common Agricultural Policy and with voluntary initiatives to provide food, shelter and nesting sites.
- Minimising the risks for pollinators associated with the use of pesticides through best practice, including Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
Comment: at the moment many farmers are already pro-actively encouraging pollinators and other wildlife, but most are not. Will “voluntary initiatives“, including encouraging Integrated Pest Management, be sufficient? About 70% of the country is farmed and any wildlife conservation strategy has got to include agricultural stakeholders. But the influence of large agro-chemical businesses should not be under-estimated. I’ve seen figures suggesting that fields of oil seed rape in this country receive applications of up to 20 different chemicals (biocides and fertilisers) each year. That represents a significant profit for these companies, who will not want to change the status quo. Data showing a slow down in the rate of decline of plants and pollinators in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Belgium may be evidence that CAP agri-environmental schemes have had a positive impact, but I’d like to see more data addressing that question (and not just for pollinators – farmland birds are doing worse than any other category of birds in the UK).
2. Supporting pollinators across towns, cities and the countryside
- Working with large-scale landowners, and their advisers, contractors and facility managers, to promote simple changes to land management to provide food, shelter and nest sites.
- Ensuring good practice to help pollinators through initiatives with a wide range of organisations and professional networks including managers of public and amenity spaces, utility and transport companies, brownfield site managers, local authorities, developers and planners
- Encouraging the public to take action in their gardens, allotments, window boxes and balconies to make them pollinator-friendly or through other opportunities such as community gardening and volunteering on nature reserves.
Comment: “simple changes to land management” can do a lot for supporting local biodiversity, even in the most unlikely, urban settings, which is the underlying philosophy behind our award-winning Biodiversity Index tool. Quite a number of local authorities are getting the message that it’s A Good Thing to reduce the frequency of cutting amenity grasslands, both for pollinators and for budgets. But local authorities are also taking foolish decisions with regard to developing sites that should be protected, and brownfield areas are being specifically targeted for building urban housing, despite the fact that we have long known that they are some of our best sites for pollinators. How do we reconcile these different priorities? Brownfield sites by their nature are transitory, early successional habitats, so perhaps local authorities should be encouraged (made?) to have a rolling stock of a minimum proportion of undeveloped brownfield sites as part of their portfolio of land holdings? Or how about a requirement that all developed areas of brownfield land are replaced by an equivalent area of brown roofs?
3. Enhancing the response to pest and disease risks
- Working to address pest and disease risks to honey bees whilst further improving beekeepers’ husbandry and management practices to strengthen the resilience of bee colonies.
- Keeping under active review any evidence of pest and disease risks associated with commercially produced pollinators used for high-value crop production.
Comment: interestingly there’s no mention of disease risks to non-managed pollinators, yet we know that honey bee diseases can be passed to bumblebees, for instance.
Actions to support these priority areas:
4. Raising awareness of what pollinators need to survive and thrive
- Developing and disseminating further advice to a wide range of land owners, managers and gardeners as part of Bees’ Needs.
- Improving the sharing of knowledge and evidence between scientists, conservation practitioners and non-government organisations (NGOs) to ensure that actions taken to support pollinators are based on up-to-date evidence.
Comment: yes, dissemination of sound, evidence-based knowledge has got to be a priority.
5. Improving evidence on the status of pollinators and the service they provide
- Developing a sustainable long-term monitoring programme so we better understand their status, the causes of any declines and where our actions will have most effect.
- Improving our understanding of the value and benefits pollinators provide, and how resilient natural and agricultural systems are to changes in their populations.
Comment: monitoring of pollinators is a real sticking point in the strategy, as there’s still no consensus on what should be monitored, how, where, and how frequently. This was the subject of a workshop at the Natural History Museum in London that I attended about a year ago, and there’s still much that is undecided. I know that a partnership led by CEH Wallingford is working on this at the moment, and hopefully a scheme will be in place by next year. Let’s see what they come up with.
In taking action across these five areas, the National Pollinator Strategy wants to achieve the following outcomes:
- More, bigger, better, joined-up, diverse and high-quality flower-rich habitats (including nesting places and shelter) supporting our pollinators across the country.
- Healthy bees and other pollinators which are more resilient to climate change and severe weather events.
- No further extinctions of known threatened pollinator species.
- Enhanced awareness across a wide range of businesses, other organisations and the public of the essential needs of pollinators.
- Evidence of actions taken to support pollinators.
Comment: “More, bigger, better, joined up…” has been the buzz phrase in British conservation since at least the Lawton Report. One of the outcomes of that report was the setting up of twelve flagship Nature Improvement Areas (NIAs), one of which is the Nene Valley NIA, a project on which my research group has been working. The Strategy mentions the NIAs several times and states that “extending the monitoring and evaluation framework for Nature Improvement Areas to include pollinators” is one of its interim aims. But as I recently mentioned, funding for the NIAs finishes at the end of March 2015 and Defra has indicated that there will be no additional government money. How will this aim be met? I’d be very interested to know as the Nene Valley NIA is one of the few which specifically focused on pollinators as part of our remit. It would be a terrible shame to lose the expertise and momentum that we’ve built up when funding stops next year. As regards “No further extinctions of known threatened pollinator species“, the talk I gave at SCAPE 2014 was on that very topic and a paper outlining our results is currently in press. I hope to be able to share those findings with the broad readership of this blog very shortly.