session 1 improving knowledge on pollinators: status
TRANSCRIPT
SESSION 1
Improving knowledge on pollinators: status, trends, monitoring
Setting the scene
Josef Settele Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ,
Halle
45% increase globally
Losses in N. America and many European countries
Global
Status of managed honeybees (Apis mellifera)
China
USA ex-USSR Germany
Argentina Spain
Declines in diversity and occurrence of some bees, hoverflies and butterflies in Europe and North America >40% bee species are threatened in
some National lists 9% of European bee and butterfly
species are threatened Lack of data for other regions
precludes assessment of status, but some reports of declines
Status of wild insects
Bombus cullumanus (Critically Endangered) Source: P. Rasmont
Intro statement
• IPBES – Pollination Report & many other sources (e.g. Hallmann et al. 2017): Insect decline or even insect dieback is fact not fiction
• We know enough about the reasons in order to be able to act in a precautionary way
• Just the same do we need monitoring, e.g. to show the effectiveness of measures taken (if any are taken) or effects from now onwards if nothing is done
Butterfly Monitoring Schemes (BMS) in Europa
Foto: Erk Dallmeyer
© Chris van Swaay
BMS Method Standardised Transect Counts
Example of Transect 550 m long (11 sections of 50 m)
Guiding Questions
1. How can the EU best aggregate existing knowledge on pollinators' status and trends across the EU?
2. What are the current main gaps in knowledge about the status and trends of pollinators, and how can the EU and Member States address them?
3. What should be monitored by an EU-wide monitoring scheme for pollinators, and how could this be organised, structured, and financed?
4. How could the different EU policies and tools contribute to increasing the knowledge on the status and trends of pollinators across the EU?
Trends of 24 most abundant butterfly species in Germany Tagfalterarten
Population index of grassland butterflies
LepiDiv – compiling distribution data for more than just distribution atlases Martin Wiemers, Alexander Harpke, Oliver Schweiger, Josef Settele
1. How can the EU best aggregate existing knowledge on pollinators' status and trends across the EU?
Head Organisation: e.g. Research Institute & NGO: UFZ & GfS (hosting LepiDiv)
Observed northward shifts (Europe; average 1990 to 2010)
De Victor et al. (2012) Nature Climate Change
Temperature: 239 km Butterflies: 114 km (lag: 135 km) Birds: 37 km (lag: 212 km) “De-coupling“ of habitat and species; Core factors: Land use and mobility “Citizen Science“ involvement: 1,5 Mio. hours of observation
Observed northward shifts (Europe; average 1990 to 2010)
2, What are the current main gaps in knowledge about the status and trends of pollinators, and how can the EU and Member States address them?
Geographic gaps: e.g. Countries complete missing from schemes
2, What are the current main gaps in knowledge about the status and trends of pollinators, and how can the EU and Member States address them?
Resolution gaps & gaps of representative coverage (habitats, elevations etc.) Map: BMS Germany Distribution of transects
2, What are the current main gaps in knowledge about the status and trends of pollinators, and how can the EU and Member States address them?
Adressing: See question 3
3. What should be monitored by an EU-wide monitoring scheme for pollinators, and how could this be organised, structured, and financed?
Adressing: Initiation of national schemes with basic funding of: • coordinating entity (TMD: 5 people) • regional coordination (Germany: 10-15 people) EU wide coordination (like BCE; another 5 people?) For each group: bees, (hover)flies, butterflies, moths? For each status/distribution and trends
4. How could the different EU policies and tools contribute to increasing the knowledge on the status and trends of pollinators across the EU?
N2K and Emerald Network: Including Species and Habitats related to pollinators (besides butterflies and moths which are already there) Defining pollinators as core elements of calls (if it fits reasonably well) in the fields of agriculture, environment, urban planning etc....
Three approaches
2000 2010 2020 2030
Today
Planning
Monitoring Start Inventory
Results
Causal Analyses
Plan. A.
Retrospective Analyses
Results Data Collection A
A Results
Three approaches
2000 2010 2020 2030
Today
Planning
Monitoring Start Inventory
Results
Causal Analyses
Plan. A.
Retrospective Analyses
Results Data Collection A
A Results
Three approaches
2000 2010 2020 2030
Today
Planning
Monitoring Start Inventory
Results
Causal Analyses
Plan. A.
Retrospective Analyses
Results Data Collection A
A Results
