Beekeepers’ knowledges and participation in pollinator conservation policy

Abstract

Peer reviewed versionCyswllt i'r cyhoeddiad / Link to publication Dyfyniad o'r fersiwn a gyhoeddwyd / Citation for published version (APA):Abstract: This paper considers the potential for beekeepers' knowledges to be incorporated into participatory policy processes addressing current challenges to pollinator health.Pollinator decline is a serious issue for future food security and wider environmental resilience, with important implications for rural land use governance. The precipitous decline in global pollinator populations over recent years has resulted in a range of government initiatives to tackle the causes identified. In the UK this includes a National Pollinator Strategy in England and Pollinator Action Plan in Wales. These plans are notable for their introduction of a more participatory approach, incorporating 'lay-knowledge' and citizen science from beekeeping practitioners alongside scientific data. This paper presents evidence from interviews and participant observation with key stakeholders within the beekeeping community in the UK, alongside archival material from the Bee Farmers' Association, to assess the knowledge controversies arising from this strategy. Specifically, the paper considers the distinction of beekeepers' knowledges from typically acknowledged expert sources, whilst also reflecting upon aspects of plurality and tension within the beekeeping community. The paper concludes by outlining some areas of contestation between beekeepers and the wider policy and scientific community, which could impact on the future success of more participatory forums. This includes, firstly, evidence of hierarchies and exclusions in 2 the forms of knowledge considered, when insights from professional scientists are privileged above those from beekeepers and when some beekeepers knowledges are given more credit than others. Secondly, we consider limitations resulting from policy makers' evidence requirements for peer-reviewed science, which can further exacerbate the exclusion of beekeepers' insights and lead to scenarios whereby policy only engages with a narrow set of criteria that may not be beneficial when advanced in isolation from the broader system changes. Finally, aspects of policy clash are outlined between pollinator conservation and wider agricultural strategies that seek to maintain a productivist agenda.

Do emotions influence the motivations and preferences of keepers of stingless bees?

“…Thus, beekeeping may provide concrete experiences of beneficial human-environment interaction by stimulating attitudes of nature conservation among practitioners [ 24 , 25 ] and potential for sustainable forest management [ 26 ].…”

Communicating soil carbon science to farmers: Incorporating credibility, salience and legitimacy

“…Debates in rural contexts about the authoritative status and legitimacy accorded to scientific knowledge have been played out in contested arenas of conservation agriculture, diffuse pollution, GMOs, animal disease, pollinators and agri-environmental management (Blackstock et al, 2010, Fish et al, 2003, Maye et al, 2014, Maderson and Wynne-Jones, 2016, Sumberg and Thompson, 2012. More widely, recognition of science's institutionalised power and its denial of the legitimacy of other knowledges has led to a more democratic model of science and society (Wynne, 1996, Whatmore, 2009.…”

Post-decisional logics of inaction: The influence of knowledge controversy in climate policy decision-making

“…Previous research has documented these characteristics for knowledge controversies themselves; how in particular localities, controversies have the potential to "heat-up" and "cool-down", "melting" and "solidifying" to form new social configurations and governing arrangements (Donaldson et al, 2013;Venturini, 2010;Maderson and Wynne-Jones, 2016).…”