Pierre-Edouard Guillain FRB Director

1. Using infrastructures to protect and promote pollinators and pollination: opportunities and risks identified in the IPBES assessment Pierre-Edouard Guillain FRB Director

2. What is IPBES? • The Intergouvernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services wascreated in 2012, following a consultative, multi-stakeholderprocess. • It boasts 125 member states today, and hundreds of stakeholdersfollow and contribute to itswork. • One of IPBES keyfunctionis to synthesize and assessexistingknowledgeon biodiversity and ES to support decision-making. It identifies main knowledge gaps. • Assessments are undertaken by expert groups of 70-100 experts nominated by theirgovernements and stakeholders, with a geographical, disciplinary and gender balance. The Multidisciplinary Expert Group overviews the process. • Theyaim to alsoinclude non-academicknowledgesuch as practical and technicalknowledge. Governments’ delegates discussing with authors of the IPBES pollination assessment in Feb 2016. Credit: IISD/ENB

3. IPBES assessment on pollinators, pollination and food production • Fast-track, first thematicassessment (2014-2016): many data and good level of awarenessamong society. • 77 world expertsand about 3 000 papersreviewed • A report of about 800p. and a summary for policy-makers(SPM) synthetizingkeyfindings in 23 key messages • Adopted by governmentsat the 4th plenary session of IPBES in February 2016 • 3 main axis: • Values of pollinators and pollination • Status and trends in pollinators and pollination • Drivers of change and policy and management options and overview of strategicresponses to risks and opportunitiesassociatedwithpollinators

4. Some key messages Animal pollination plays a vital role as a regulating ecosystem service in nature. Globally, nearly 90 per cent of wild flowering plant species depend, at least in part, on the transfer of pollen by animals. The vast majority of pollinator species are wild, including more than 20,000 species. A few species of bees are widely managed. Wild pollinators have declined in occurrence and diversity (and abundance for certain species) at local and regional scales in North West Europe and North America. The abundance, diversity and health of pollinators and the provision of pollination are threatened by direct drivers that generate risks to societies and ecosystems. Threats include land-use change, intensive agricultural management and pesticide use, environmental pollution, invasive alien species, pathogens and climate change. Coordinated, collaborative action and knowledge sharing that builds links across sectors (e.g. agriculture and nature conservation), across jurisdictions (e.g. private, Government, NGO), and among levels (e.g. local, national, global) can lead to long -term changes that benefit pollinators.

5. Improving current conditions for pollinators: opportunities provided by infrastructures • IPBES SPM listsexamples of responses to risks and opportunitiesassociatedwithpollinators and pollination. • 2 are particularly relevant for infrastructures: • Manage road verges • Rights of way and vacant land in cities to support pollinators • Bothmeasuresprovideimmediateresponsesto pollinatorsdecline • IPBES points thatmanaging road verges might not benefitpollinators in the long term and might have potential adverse effects.

6. Manage road verges: mowing practices • Studiesanalysed by IPBES suggeststhatmowingcan have a negative impact on pollinatorsbecause of : • Direct mortality (esp. for butterflieseggs and larvae) • Lack of nesting sites if grassistoolow • Removal of all floral resourcesused for foraging • Increasingbutterflyroadkillobservedwhenroadsidemowingfrequencyincreased, as butterfliestry to find new habitat in the area • Options to mitigate the negative impact of mowinginclude: • Whenchoosingcarefully the time and frequency of mowing(e.g. avoidingflowergrowingseason), mowingcan have positive effects on plant diversity and thus on pollinators • Usingmowerswithoutconditionerreducesbeemortality by a factor of seven and increases chances of survival of otherinsects • Leavinguncut refuges and delayingmowingmitigate the impact of mowing on pollinators’ habitat and resources Pollinators’ habitat degradation

7. Habitat creation by right-of-way management 1/2 Effect of linear infrastructures on pollinators populations • Studiessuggest a highpotential for rights-of-way to provide refuge habitat to pollinators, representing a huge area. • Road verges • Butterflies and beesbenefitfrom the presence of native plants on roadside • Management efforts aimed to support pollinatorsshouldbedevelopped in collaboration withhighwayengineers • Restorationof native vegetation on roadsideswaspartlyfunded by road taxes in Iowa (USA) • Power-line corridors • More butterflyspecies and in higherabundanceunder power-line corridors • Tend to have more individuals of red-listspeciesthan road verges and pastures • Railwayembankments • Affect positivelybeespeciesrichness and abundance • Affect negativelybutterflypopulations Credits: Howard M. R. Williams

8. Habitat creation by right-of-way management 2/2 Limitations and main knowledge gaps • Risks to pollinatorswhenmanagingrights-of-way • Presence of cars maydisrupt or killpollinators • Potential for heavymetalcontamination of nectar, honey and pollen collectedfromroadside plants • Riskswhenpesticides are used • Knowledge gaps • More assessmentson the effectivenessof infrastructures’ management measures for the benefit of pollinators are needed • Assessments of the effect of managed infrastructures on pollination services to surroundingfields are lacking • Large gaps in data on the status and trends of wildpollinators: infrastructure operatorscancontributeto the monitoring of pollinators

9. Examples of measures taken by French infrastructures operators • As part of its support to the dissemination of IPBES findingstowards French stakeholders, FRB collected feedback on pollinatorsmeasuresfromitsStakeholders’ AdvisoryBoard, made of +170 structures such as business, NGOs and local authorities. • 25 membersansweredwithexamples of actions theytookwhichcontribute to supportingpollinators and pollinators. • Examples for infrastructure operators (power lines) by Réseau de transport d’électricité: • Restoringnatural habitats at the base of towers, usingbees to support flower plants diversity • Use of wild local seedsfor revegetationwithinsubstations enclosure • Avoidusingchemicalweeding

10. Conclusions • In many countries, thereisinterest in managingrights-of-way habitats for biodiversity. • These area have a greatpotential to support pollinators and pollination, but limitations must betakenintoaccount and associatedrisksmitigated. • Somekey recommandations whenmanagingrights-of-wayaim to provideappropriateflowering and nestingresources for pollinators. • Management efforts aimed to support pollinatorsshouldbedevelopped in collaboration withengineersworking on infrastructures maintenance • IPBES SPM couldbe a reference for policymakers by provinding a synthesissharedat a large scale and build on recognizedknowledges, with an assessment of different possible responses • IPBES report provideddetailled information about whatisknownabout pollinators, pollinationyoucaneasilyrefer to.

11. IPBES summary of evidence for responses relating to urban transport and infrastructures

12. Selected references Berg et al. 2013 Butterflies in semi-naturalpastures and power-line corridors – effects of flowerrichness, management, and structural vegetationcharacteristics. Insect Conservation and Diversity6: 639-657 Bhattacharya et al. 2003 Are roads and railroadsbarriers to bumblebeemovement in a temperatesuburban conservation area? Biological Conservation 109: 37-45 Desender 2005 Assessment of nature quality and monitoring of grassland management along the ring motorwayaround Brussels. Bulletin de la Société Royale Belge d’Entomologie 140: 126-139 Frick and Flury 2001 BienenverlustebeimMähen mit Rotationmähwerken. Agrarforschung 8: 196-201 Gerell 1997 Management of roadsidevegetation: Effects on density and speciesdiversity of butterflies in Scania, southSweden. EntomologiskTidskrift 118: 171-176 Jablonski et al. 1995 Metal (Pb, Cd, Cu) contamination of nectar, honey and pollen collectedfromroadside plants. PszczelniczeZeszytyNaukowe 39: 129-144 Johst et al. 2006 Influence of mowing on the persistence of twoendangered large butterlyspecies. Journal of AppliedEcology. 43: 333-342 Hirsch 2000 Killing of wildbees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) by cars on roads in agricultural landscapes. ChronmyPrzyrodeOjczysta56: 103-105 Hopwood et al. 2015 Literaturereview: pollinator habitat enhancement and best management practices in highwayrights-of-way. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation in collaboration with ICF International. FederalHighway Administration, Washington D.C., USA Moroń et al. 2014 Survival, reproduction and population growth of the important pollinatorbee, Osmiarufa, along gradients of heavymetal pollution. Insect Conservation and Diversity 7(2) 113-121 Noordijk et al. 2009 Optimizinggrassland management for flower-visitinginsects in roadside verges. Biological Conservation 142: 2097-2103 Ries et al. 2001 Conservation Value of Roadside Prairie Restoration to ButterflyCommunities. Conservation Biology 15: 1523-1739 Russell et al. 2005 The potential conservation value of unmowedpowerlinestrips for native bees. Biological Conservation 124: 133-148 Saarinen et al. 2005 Butterflies and diurnal mothsalong road verges: Does road type affect diversity and abundance? Biological Conservation 123: 403-412 Skórka et al. 2013 Factorsaffecting road mortality and the suitability of road verges for butterflies. Biological Conservation 3: 487-500 Way 1977 Roadside verges and conservation in Britain: a review. Biological conservation 12: 65-74 Wocjik and Buchmann2012 Pollinator conservation and management on electrical transmission and roadsiderights-of-way: a review. Journal of PollinationEcology 7: 16-26

13. Thank you for your attention