Advertisement

Apidologie

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 194–210 | Cite as

Bee conservation policy at the global, regional and national levels

  • Andrew ByrneEmail author
  • Úna Fitzpatrick
Review Article

Abstract

Bees are important both ecologically and economically for the ecosystem service role they play as pollinators. Documented global decline in bees has sparked the formation of a global policy framework for pollinators, primarily through the International Pollinator Initiative within the Convention of Biological Diversity. There are now regional Pollinator Initiatives, along with regional and national conservation legislation, that can impact on the conservation of bees. The creation of bee Regional Red Lists, under guidance from the International Union for Conservation of Nature, along with conservation priority lists offer another mechanism for streamlining bees into regional, national or subnational conservation policy and practice. These structures, if utilised properly, can form a coordinated and effective policy framework on which conservation actions can be based.

conservation policy bee international pollinator initiative legislation 

La politique de conservation des abeilles aux niveaux mondial, régional et national

Apoidea abeille politique protection législation initiative internationale sur les pollinisateurs 

Richtlinien zum Schutz der Bienen auf globaler, regionaler und nationaler Ebene

Zusammenfassung

Bienen sind unter den Insekten die am höchsten entwickelten und effektivsten Bestäuber für mehr als 70 % aller Blütenpflanzen. Sie stellen damit eine ökologisch und ökonomisch unverzichtbare Gruppe zur Aufrechterhaltung des Ökosystems dar. Inzwischen gibt es zahlreiche Belege für einen weit verbreiteten Rückgang der Bienen, was zur Bildung von globalen, regionalen und nationalen Regelungen zum Schutz der Bienen geführt hat. Es gibt zwei zentrale Ansatzpunkte für globale Regelwerke zum Schutz der Bienen (Details siehe Tab. I). Die weltweite Rote Liste gefährdeter Arten, aufgestellt von der Weltnaturschutzunion (International Union for Conservation of Nature), hat nur einen begrenzten Effekt für den Bienenschutz, da bisher keiner Bienenart der Status als gefährdete Tierart zugesprochen wurde. Das wichtigste Rahmenwerk zum Schutz der Bienen ist die Internationale Bestäuberinitiative (International Pollinator Initiative, IPI), eine Querschnittsinitiative des Biodiversitätsabkommens (Convention of Biological Diversity, CBD). Die Hauptaufgabe der IPI ist es, vorgeschlagene Aktionen weltweit zu fördern und zu koordinieren und die IPI ist auch die globale Plattform, um Richtlinien zum Schutz der Bestäuber, einschließlich Bienen, aufzustellen. Die IPI entwickelt einen Aktionsplan, um verbesserte Richtlinien und Ausführungsbestimmungen zum Schutz der Bienen und deren Habitate zu erreichen. Regional gibt es bereits allgemeine Regelwerke zum Naturschutz, die durch den Schutz von Habitaten und Ökosystemen positive Auswirkungen auf den Bienenschutz haben können; ein Beispiel ist die Fauna-Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie (FFH) in der Europäischen Union. Spezielle Richtlinien für den Bestäuberschutz werden vom IPI in Form regionaler Bestäuberinitiativen umgesetzt. Dadurch können Netzwerke über eine gesamte Region etabliert werden, was die Umsetzung von IPI-Aktionsplänen auf dieser regionalen Ebene erleichtert.

Auf der nationalen Ebene beeinflussen drei Rahmenrichtlinien den Bienenschutz. Während die weltweite Rote Liste nur einen begrenzten Einfluss auf den Bienenschutz hat, können regionale und nationale Rote Listen einen größeren Effekt haben, indem sie die Bedrohung der Bienen auf der regionaler bzw. nationaler Ebene feststellen und Schutz-massnahmen für bestimmte Arten aufstellen. Das CBD bietet durch die Aufstellung von nationalen Biodiversitätsabkommen und Aktionsplänen einen Rahmen, um nationale Verpflichtungen zum Schutz der Biodiversität abzugeben; sie kann daher für den Bienenschutz auf nationaler Ebene verwendet werden. Daneben können gesetzliche nationale Regelungen zum Schutz der Fauna eventuell auch für den Bienenschutz angewendet werden.

Für ein funktionierendes System (Abb. 1) empfehlen wir, dass die Informationen zu solchen Regelwerken veröffentlicht werden und für alle Interessierten zugänglich sind. Es sollten mehr Anstrengungen unternommen werden, um globale, regionale und nationale Regelungen zu verbinden. Regelungen, die bereits einen Schutz für Bienen bieten, sollten erweitert werden und nicht nur die vom Menschen gehaltenen Bienenarten sondern auch Wildbienen mit einbeziehen. Die weltweite Rote Liste sollte Bienen mit einbeziehen und damit deren Anzahl und Bedeutung gerecht werden. Wir empfehlen, dass regionale Rote Listen und Prioritätslisten entwickelt werden und dass auf dieser Basis entsprechende Schutzmaßnahmen etabliert werden. Die Umsetzung dieser Empfehlungen würde die Chance erhöhen, den Rückgang der Bienen zu stoppen und damit deren essentiellen Leistungen für das Ökosystem zu sichern.

Naturschutz Richtlinien Bienen Internationale Bestäuberinitiative Gesetzgebung Apoidea 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen-Wardell, G., Bernhardt P., Bitner R., Burquez A., Buchmann, S., Cane J., Cox P.A., Dalton V., Feinsinger P., Ingram M., Inouye D., Jones C.E., Kennedy K., Kevan P., Koopowitz H., Medellin R., Medellin-Morales S., Nabhan G.P. (1998) The potential consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields, Conserv. Biol. 12, 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ANON. (2001) Development of the African Pollinator Initiative, [online] http://www.iita. org/wafrinethome/PDFs/African%20Pollinator% 20Initiative.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2009).Google Scholar
  3. Ascher J., Eardley C., Griswold T., Melo G., Polaszek A., Ruggiero M., Williams P., Walker K., Warrit N. (2008) World Bee Checklist Project — update 2008–09, manuscript (version 10/09/2008), [online] Integrated Taxonomic Information System. http://www.itis.gov/beechecklist.html (accessed on: 13 February 2009).Google Scholar
  4. Biesmeijer J.C., Roberts S.P.M., Reemer M., Ohlemûller R., Edwards M., Peeters T., Schaffers A.P., Potts S.G., Kleukers R., Thomas C.D., Settele J., Kunin W.E. (2006) Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands, Science 313, 351–354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black S.H. (2007) Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the U.S. Senate, The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
  6. Black S.H., Shepard M., Allen M.M. (2001) Xerces Endangered Species Update, 18, 42–49.Google Scholar
  7. Blanche K.R., Ludwig J.R., Cunningham S.A. (2006) Proximity to rainforest enhances pollination and fruit set in orchards, J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 1182–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broughton D.A., McAdam J.H. (2002) A red data list for the Falkland Islands vascular flora, Oryx 36, 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buchmann S.L., Nabhan G.P. (1996) The Forgotten Pollinators, Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  10. Corbet S.A., Williams I.H., Osborne J.L. (1991) Bees and the pollination of crops and wild flowers in the European Community, Bee World 72, 47–59.Google Scholar
  11. Danforth B.N., Sipes S., Fang J., Brady S.G. (2006) The history of early bee diversification based on five genes plus morphology, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 15118–15123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Danforth B.N., Griswald, T. (2008) Megachilid Bees, Phylogenetic & Revisionary Studies, [online] www.bee-bol.org/durban%20pres/Griswold. ppt (accessed on: 13 February 2009).Google Scholar
  13. Dias B.S.F., Raw A., Imperatriz-Fonseca V.L. (1999) International Pollinators Initiative: The Sao Paulo declaration on pollinators, Report on the Recommendations of the Workshop on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Pollinators in Agriculture with Emphasis on Bees, [online] www.biodiv.org/doc/case-studies/ agr/cs-agr-pollinator-rpt.pdf (accessed on: 13 February 2009).Google Scholar
  14. Eardley C.D. (2001) Pollinators: a conservation priority. Science in Africa, Issue 2, [online] http:// scienceinafrica.co.za/pollinator.htm (accessed on: 13 February 2009).Google Scholar
  15. Eardley C., Roth D., Clarke J., Buchmann S., Gemmill B. (2006) Pollinators and pollination: A resource book for policy and practice, Publ. by African Pollinator Initiative (API), South Africa.Google Scholar
  16. Eardley C., Gikungu M., Schwarz M.P. (2009) Bee conservation in sub-Saharan Africa and Madagascar: diversity, status and threats, Apidologie 40, 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fitzpatrick Ú., Murray T.E., Byrne A., Paxton R.J., Brown M.J.F. (2006) Regional Red List of Irish Bees, Publ. Rep. to National Parks and Wildlife Service (Ireland) and Environment and Heritage Service (N. Ireland).Google Scholar
  18. Fitzpatrick Ú., Murray T.E., Paxton R.J., Brown M.J.F. (2007) Building on IUCN Regional Red Lists to Produce Lists of Species of Conservation Priority: a Model with Irish Bees, Conserv. Biol. 21, 1324–1332.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freitas B.M., Imperatriz-Fonseca V.L., Medina L.M., Kleinert A.M.P., Galetto L., Nates-Parra G., Quezada-Euán J.J.G. (2009) Diversity, threats and conservation of bees in the Neotropics, Apidologie 40, 332–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gärdenfors U. (2001) Classifying threatened species at national versus global levels, Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 511–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gärdenfors U., Hilton-Taylor C., Mace G.M., Rodríguez J.P. (2001) The application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels, Conserv. Biol. 15, 1206–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gärdenfors U. (Ed.) (2005) Rädlistade arter i Sverige 2005 — the 2005 Red List of Swedish species. ArtDatabanken, The Swedish Species Information Centre, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  23. Gikungu M. (2008) Status of Pollinator Studies in Kenya. Global Bee Summit, Durban South Africa, Workshop Presentation.Google Scholar
  24. Goulson D. (2003) Effects of introduced bees on native ecosystems, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goulson D., Stout J.C., Kells A.R. (2002) Do exotic bumblebees and honeybees compete with native flower-visiting insects in Tasmania? J. Insect Conserv. 6, 179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haslett J.R. (2007) European strategy for the conservation of invertebrates, Nature and Environment, No. 145.Google Scholar
  27. Holloway G.J., Griffiths G.H., Richardson P. (2003) Conservation strategy maps: a tool to facilitate biodiversity action planning illustrated using the heath fritillary butterfly, J. Appl. Ecol. 40, 413–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Imperatriz-Fonseca V.L., Dias B.F.S. (2004) Brazilian Pollinators Initiative. in: Freitas B.M., Pereira O.P. (Eds.), Solitary beesconservation, rearing and management for pollination, UFC, pp. 27–34. [online] http://www.webbee.org.br/ bpi/english/solitary_bees.htm (accessed on 13 February 2009).Google Scholar
  29. Ingram M., Nabhan G., Buchmann S. (1996) Our Forgotten Pollinators: Protecting the Birds and Bees, Global Pesticide Campaigner Volume 6, Number 4, December 1996, PANNA, San Francisco, CA, [online] http://www.pmac.net/ birdbee.htm (acccessed on: 13 February 2009).Google Scholar
  30. International Pollinator Initiative — Plan of Action (2002) Pollinators — Plan of Action, [online] http:// www.cbd.int/agro/planaction.shtml (accessed on: 13 February 2009).Google Scholar
  31. IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List categories. Version 3.1. Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  32. IUCN (2003) Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List criteria at regional levels, Version 3.0. Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  33. IUCN (2006) Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Version 6.1. Species Survival Commission, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  34. Kearns C.A., Inouye, D.W., Waser, N.M. (1998) Endangered mutualisms: the conservation of plant-pollinator interactions, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29, 83–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keller V., Bollmann K. (2004) From red lists to species of conservation concern, Conserv. Biol. 18, 1636–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kremen C., Ricketts T. (2000) Global perspectives on pollination disruptions, Conserv. Biol. 14, 1226–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kremen C., Williams N.M., Bugg R.L., Fay J.P., Thorp R.W. (2004) The area requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bee communities in California, Ecol. Lett. 7, 1109–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kwapong P. (2006) Benefits of Taxonomy: African Pollinator Initiative (API). Taxonomy for Ghana’s development and conservation — assessing the needs, Ghana-UK project 2006–7, Workshop Presentation.Google Scholar
  39. Kwapong P. (2008) African Pollinator Initiative (API). Global Bee Summit, Durban South Africa, Workshop Presentation.Google Scholar
  40. Leong J.M., Thorp R.W. (2005) Bee Diversity Associated with Limnanthes Floral Patches in California Vernal Pool Habitats, USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-195.Google Scholar
  41. Leth P. (1997) Regional rødliste over særligt beskyttelseskrævende karplanter i Vestsjællands Amt 1997, Vestsjællands Amt, Natur & Miljø. Sorø.Google Scholar
  42. Losey J.E., Vaughan M. (2006) The economic value of ecological services provided by insects, BioScience 56, 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mace G., Lande R. (1991) Assessing extinction threats: toward a reevaluation of IUCN threatened species categories, Conserv. Biol. 5, 148–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mbengashe M. (2006) South Africa’s third national report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, [online] http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/ za/za-nr-03-en.pdf (accessed on: 13 February 2009).Google Scholar
  45. Michener C.D. (2000) The Bees of the World, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  46. Miller R., Rodríguez J.P., Bambaradeniya C., Boles R., Eaton M., Fowler T., Gärdenfors U., Keller V., Molur S., Pollock C.,Walker S. (2005) Report from the National Red List Advisory Group Workshop “Analysis of the Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at a National Level” Villa Majagual, 21–26 January 2005.Google Scholar
  47. Miller R.M., Rodríguez J.P., Aniskowicz-Fowler T., Bambaradeniya C., Boles R., Eaton M.A., Gärdenfors U., Keller V., Molur S., Walker S., Pollock C. (2006) Extinction risk and conservation priorities, Science 313, 441–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morse R.A., Calderone N.W. (2000) The value of honey bees as pollinators of U.S. crops in 2000, Bee Culture 128, 15.Google Scholar
  49. Murray T.E., Kuhlmann M., Potts S.G. (2009) Community ecology of bees: populations, species and communities, Apidologie 40, 211–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pimentel D., Wilson C., McCullum C., Huang R., Dwen P., Flack J., Tran Q., Saltman T., Cliff B. (1997) Economics and environmental benefits of biodiversity, BioScience 47, 747–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Possingham H.P., Andelman S.J., Burgman M.A., Medellín R.A., Master L.L., Keith D.A. (2002) Limits to the use of threatened species lists, Trends Ecol. Evol. 17, 503–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Potts S.G. (2004) European Pollinator Initiative, Crop and Crop Associated Biodiversity Pollinator Case Studies, [online] http://www.fao.org/ag/ AGP/agps/C-CAB/Castudies/pdf/9-002.pdf (accessed on: 13 February 2009).Google Scholar
  53. Rasmont P. (1995) How to restore the Apoid diversity in Belgium and France? Wrong and right ways, or the end of the protection paradigm! in: Banaszak J. (Ed.), Changes in European Bee Fauna, Pedagogical University, Bydgoszcz.Google Scholar
  54. Remsen D., Ruggiero M. (2007) Towards a Global Bee Checklist: Summary and Status Report, [online] http://globalbees.editwebrevisions.info/ en/node/913 (accessed on: 13 February 2009).Google Scholar
  55. Ricketts T.H. (2004) Tropical forest fragments enhance pollinator activity in nearby coffee crops, Conserv. Biol. 18, 1262–1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rodger J.G., Balkwill K., Gemmill B. (2004) African pollination studies: where are the gaps? Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 24, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rodrigues A.S.L., Pilgrim J.D., Lamoreux J.F., Hoffman M., Brooks T.M. (2006) The value of the IUCN Red List for conservation, Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 71–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rodriguez J.P., Ashenfelter G., Rojas-Suárez F., García Fernández J.J., Suárez L., Dobson A.P. (2000) Local data are vital to world-wide conservation, Nature 403, 241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sanford (1985) Wet Lands — The Bee forage Connection, APIS, 3 (6), June 1985, [online] http://apis.ifas.ufl.edu/apis85/apjun85.htm#2 (accessed on: 13 February 2009).Google Scholar
  60. Samways M.J. (2002) Red-listed Odonata of Africa, Odonatologica 31, 151–170.Google Scholar
  61. Sárospataki M., Novak J., Molnar V. (2005) Assessing the threatened status of bumble bee species (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Hungary, central Europe, Biodivers. Conserv. 14, 2437–2446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schoonhoven L.M., Jermy T., van Loon J.J.A. (1998) Insect-Plant Biology: From Physiology to Evolution, Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  63. Settele J., Hammen V., Hulme P., Karlson U., Klotz S., Kotarac M., Kunin W., Marion G., O’Connor M., Petanidou T., Peterson K., Potts S., Pritchard H., Pysek P., Rounsevell M., Spangenberg J., Steffan-Dewenter I., Sykes M., Vighi M., Zobel M., Kühn I. (2005) ALARM: Assessing large-scale environmental risks for biodiversity with tested methods, Gaia 14, 69–72.Google Scholar
  64. Settele J., Biesmeijer J.C., Grabaum R., Hammen V.C., Hulme P.E., Karlson U., Klotz S., Kotarac M., Kunin W.E., Marion G., O’Connor M., Petanidou T., Peterson K., Potts S.G., Pysek P., Rattei S., Rounsevell M. (2007) Environmental risk assessment for biodiversity and ecosystems: results and perspectives of the large scale inter- and transdisciplinary research of the ALARM Project, in: Emerging Issues for Biodiversity Conservation in a Changing Climate, pp. 50–53, Montreal, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Abstracts of poster presentations at the 12th meeting of the subsidiary body on scientific, technical and technological advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity. ISBN: 92-9225-073-6.Google Scholar
  65. Shepherd M.D., Vaughan D.M., Black S.H., Eds. (2005) Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CD-ROM Version 1 (May 2005), The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
  66. Steffan-Dewenter I., Tscharntke T. (1999) Effects of habitat isolation on pollinator communities and seed set, Oecologia, 121, 432–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stout J.C., Morales C.L. (2009) Ecological impacts of invasive alien species on bees, Apidologie 40, 388–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tang J., Wice J., Thomas V.G., Kevan P.G. (2005) Assessment of the capacity of Canadian Federal and Provincial legislation to conserve native and managed pollinators, A Report Compiled by The International Network of Expertise for Sustainable Pollination at the request of The North American Pollinator Protection Campaign.Google Scholar
  69. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (2008) Invertebrate conservation fact sheet 2008 Farm Bill benefits to crop pollinators, [online] http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/ 11/2008_farm_bill_-fact_sheet_xerces_society. pdf (accessed on: 13 February 2009).Google Scholar
  70. Thorp R.W. (2000) The collection of pollen by bees, Plant Syst. Evol. 222, 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thorp R.W. (2005) Species Profile: Bombus franklini, in: Shepherd M.D., Vaughan D.M., Black S.H. (Eds.), Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America, CD-ROM Version 1 (May 2005), Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.Google Scholar
  72. Waser N.M., Ollerton J. (Eds.) (2006) Plant-Pollinator Interactions: From Specialization to Generalization, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  73. Watanabe M.E. (1994) Pollination worries rise as honey bees decline, Science 265, 1170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Williams P.H. (1998) An annotated checklist of bumble bees with an analysis of patterns of description (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini), Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus. Lond. (Entomol.) 67, 79–152.Google Scholar
  75. Williams P.H., Osborne J.L. (2009) Bumblebee vulnerability and conservation world-wide, Apidologie 40, 367–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Williams I.H. (2003) The Convention on Biological Diversity adopts the International Pollinator Initiative, Bee World 84, 27–81.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer S+B Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Biodiversity Data Centre, Beechfield HouseCarriganoreIreland

Personalised recommendations