Toward a wild pollinator strategy for Canada: expert-recommended solutions and policy levers

Invertebrate pollinators are in trouble: particularly documented among the best studied taxa are bees and butterflies (IPBES 2016; Kopec and Burd 2017; Forister et al. 2019). Pollinator declines are alarming, not only because pollinators possess intrinsic value but they are bellwethers for the integrity of ecological communities (Kevan 1999). Flowering plants have coevolved with pollinators and pollination is essential for almost all of them (Ollerton et al. 2011). Disruptions in this process between plants and pollinators undermine the stability of terrestrial ecosystems and the ecosystem services that are essential for the perseverance of life on earth, including our own species (Aizen et al. 2009). Globally, 70% of the major flowering crop plants that produce our food depend on animal pollination (Klein et al. 2007). Thus, pollinators are vital for food security and are of economic importance; pollination services for food crops are estimated to comprise an annual global market value worth hundreds of billions of USD (IPBES 2016).

Pollinator declines are due to a multitude of converging pressures including disease caused by pathogens (i.e., bacteria, protozoa, mites, viruses, and fungi), habitat loss, pesticides, climate change, and invasive species (Kearns et al. 1998; Potts et al. 2010; Colla 2016). These stressors can also interact, compounding challenges for pollinators (Vanbergen 2013). While there continue to be knowledge gaps about stressors and species-specific conservation assessments, we know enough about the problem and attendant solutions to act with sound conservation policy.

With no international agreements that specifically address what Forister et al. (2019) call the “multicontinental crisis” of pollinator declines, national and subnational governments are adopting their own policies to target pollinator declines (Hall and Steiner 2019). These policies include stand-alone legislation or top-down frameworks that coordinate subnational actions to address pressures on pollinators and sometimes contain measurable targets. Over the last decade, numerous countries have adopted national strategies, plans, or initiatives to specifically protect pollinators, including Belgium, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands, France, Mexico, Ireland, Colombia, Nigeria, and the US. The UK has also issued a strategy that coordinates pollinator conservation actions across England, Scotland, Wales, and N. Ireland, some of which also have their own strategies. To date, at least 32 US states have developed subnational pollinator plans with more plans in development (US EPA OIG 2019).

Canada does not have a strategy nor does it have adequate protective legislation to support pollinator conservation (Tang et al. 2007). At the time of this publication, there are no Canadian provinces or territories with pollinator plans. In 2015, Ontario implemented their Pollinator Health Strategy but it was short-lived despite being strongly supported by the public; the province's ruling party canceled it less than 2 years after it was adopted with nothing to replace it (Nicholls et al. 2020; Officer of the Auditor General Ontario 2020). There is intense interest from the public and civil society for strong leadership and a sweeping coordinated government response to protect Canada's pollinators (Nicholls et al. 2020; van Vierssen Trip et al. 2020; GBC 2021).

If a national pollinator conservation strategy for Canada is imminent, what actions should be prioritized and can barriers to those actions be anticipated? How should it be structured and duties delegated? Though needed to advise policy-makers about potentially successful designs and implementation approaches, there are currently very few empirical studies comparing insect pollinator policies or analyzing the degree to which these policies are evidence based or informed by science (Hall and Steiner 2019; Stack-Whitney and Burt-Singer 2021). The development of a Canadian strategy could be informed by current national frameworks by taking stock of the “lessons learned” and course changes that have come about as a result of interim evaluations, audits, and the couple of analyses of active strategies or action plans that do exist (see Underwood et al. 2017; US EPA OIG 2019; Stack-Whitney and Burt-Singer 2021). However, the political ecology of pollinator decline (and biodiversity loss in general) in Canada differs from other countries in key ways that should inform not only the content of a pollinator strategy but also how it should be implemented if it is to serve as a scientifically sound and sustainable conservation strategy.

First, a conservation strategy needs to centre the health of wild, native pollinator communities. In North America, many national policies, US state plans, and Ontario's defunct provincial plan focus mainly on European honey bee health (Colla and MacIvor 2017; Hall and Steiner 2019). While some actions targeting honey bees and beekeeping can be interpreted as conservation in regions in other continents where the honey bee is native, in North America honey bees were and continue to be imported to pollinate field crops and produce honey. They did not evolve within native flora and fauna and are thus not essential for ecosystem functioning and in many cases less efficient than wild pollinators at pollinating crops and wild plants (Breeze et al. 2011; Garibaldi et al. 2013).

Honey bee health is important, but some have argued that focus on the honey bee in places like North America and Australia where the honey bee is not native has, in essence, provided domestic livestock with plans that the public conflates with species conservation, siphons resources, and monopolizes media attention away from native pollinators, some of which are actually in great peril and others in decline (Nicholls et al. 2020; Ford et al. 2021). Although some actions that help honey bees can also support wild pollinators, broad-scale policies and resources directed toward honey bee management are not necessarily protective of wild pollinators and can, without discernment, actually harm them (Colla and MacIvor 2017; Geldmann and González-Varo 2018; Ford et al. 2021).

The success of a strategy that endorses science-based solutions for native pollinators hinges on the ability of those solutions to be implemented. Canada faces unique challenges enacting robust biodiversity conservation due to a system of governance that is defined by an anomalous degree of decentralized authority exacted by provinces/territories over natural assets and resources (Ray et al. 2021). The Canadian federation's orientation around protecting systems that enable natural resource extraction can result in a conflict of interest within and between jurisdictions (Cairns 1992). There is no evidence of an integrated approach to biodiversity protection that is enacted through a “bewildering” array of policy instruments administered by different levels (federal, provincial/territorial, municipal) of government (Ray et al. 2021). This fragmentation may complicate the ability to coordinate the multiscale, multisector actions needed to achieve national conservation goals (Buxton et al. 2021). Underlying our research is the assumption that overall success implementing science-based solutions depends a great deal on understanding how and where to exact policy levers in existing governance structures.

The goal of our study was to provide, in essence, a needs assessment to support the development and adoption of science-based policy solutions for wild pollinators in Canada. By surveying experts on the desirability and feasibility of conservation actions generated within the study group as well as on research priorities to support native pollinator conservation policy, we aim to identify both opportunities for immediate action and hindrances or knowledge gaps that may impede it. We anticipate that many desired solutions will echo those already supported within the larger scientific community. Relying on the opinions of Canadian-based experts or those with professional reach in Canada, we aim to shed light on important issues germane to conservation in this country including the tension and synergies between managing for commercial bees and wild pollinators and how to reconcile the urgent need for large-scale, coordinated changes in a policy landscape shaped by weak federal leadership.

The main objectives of this study were to identify and evaluate expert-generated solutions for wild pollinator conservation in Canada that were considered highly desirable and considered feasible to implement according to the surveyed group. Our secondary aim was to identify research priorities that would support these solutions. We designed and administered a Policy Delphi to facilitate experts in the generation of these solutions as well as in an anonymous evaluation of the solutions suggested by their peers.

Survey results shed light on the most desirable and feasible actions within each stressor category to help protect native pollinators in Canada. We present high consensus solutions that are either “Strongly Supported” (SS) or supported (SS-WS) as well as select feasibility rating justifications to provide a deeper understanding around perceived challenges in implementing some of those solutions in a Canadian context. We also present research gaps that, if addressed, will contribute to reducing the stress on Canada's native pollinators according to Delphi participants. The response rate for Round One was 84%. In Round Two, the response rate was 59% (evaluating pesticide solutions) and 38% (evaluating pathogens, habitat loss, and nonnative species).

Through the research presented here, we have identified solutions to counteract ongoing wild pollinator decline in Canada that are both highly desired by experts and considered feasible to implement. We have also identified knowledge gaps that, if addressed, will help inform and implement some of those supported conservation solutions. We found that overall, our selected group of expert participants supported the solutions suggested by their colleagues but the group was less certain about the feasibility of those solutions. They were also more divergent from one another in their feasibility rankings as compared with their support ranking. Still, almost 60% of the 83 solutions were supported and feasible at a high consensus. Since discussing each solution in detail is not possible here, we will discuss solutions that closely align with policies endorsed by the broader scientific community and are supported and considered feasible to implement by survey participants. For science-based recommendations, we rely on the policy forum: “Ten Policies for Pollinators” by Dicks et al. (2016) as key authors of the first global thematic assessment from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on the state of knowledge about pollinators and pollination, which is the most extensive and comprehensive assessment on the topic to date (IPBES 2016). The 10 policies listed are those that the authors think governments should adopt to protect pollinators and secure pollination services and were chosen in part due to their potential for successful adoption (Dicks et al. 2016).

By its nature, the quality of information gathered through the Delphi method is limited, in part, by the knowledge and experience of the participants (Frewer et al. 2011). Since our goal was to put forward solutions that were rooted in science, we chose participants that could primarily be identified as scientists engaged in basic and applied research. Depending on their professional vantage point and experience, participants’ varying degrees of understanding related to the design and implementation of policy may limit the value of assessments. For example, a participant may support a peer's solution from a scientific perspective but disagree with the mechanism suggested to achieve it. Limitations may be compounded by the fact that depth of knowledge can forego breadth (de Loë 1995), a trade-off that may bear on participants’ ability when evaluating policy on diverse topics from land management to animal health. The diverse geographical representation of participants can also complicate interpretations of what is possible. For example, using economic thresholds as a requirement for accessing certain pesticides may be desirable but more difficult to establish for crops typical to particular provinces or because a standing policy using a different method has already been established (e.g., Quebec vs. Ontario). We recognize that what experts think of as desirable and possible can differ greatly from what practitioners or policy-makers think can be achieved—especially those in politicized environments with their own resource limitations. To maximize the usefulness of the data generated in this Delphi, we recommend that it is combined with other approaches that invite practitioners and decision-makers in relevant government agencies and departments as well as other stakeholders to evaluate the highly desired solutions for feasibility and work to remove barriers to implementation. In the case of rightsholders in Canada, these science-supported solutions can be evaluated in conjunction with other ways of knowing and adapted to serve or cocreate further pollinator conservation efforts.

On the topic of pesticides and the threat they pose to pollinator health, suggestions from Delphi participants are aligned with recommendations posed by Dicks et al. (2016) including the focus on raising regulatory standards to ensure that risk assessments consider sublethal and indirect effects to a range of pollinator species, not just the honey bee. Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) is responsible for performing risk assessments on pesticides prior to their authorization and periodically re-evaluates the impacts of approved pesticides to see if the risk of continued use is acceptable. Participants were optimistic that assessments could be bettered through PMRA procedural changes aimed at raising the quality of industry submissions, and almost half of the identified research priorities were related to work that would inform comprehensive risk assessment protocols for nonhoney bee pollinating species. Upon the cyclical re-evaluation of approved pesticides, supported solutions that could aid in realistic field and landscape level studies (e.g., national pesticide use surveys) face feasibility challenges in terms of the logistics, value-for-money considerations and privacy concerns linked to the collection of georeferenced data.

The agricultural sector is by far the largest user of pesticides in Canada, yet participants were also concerned with the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes mainly herbicides for turf and turf industries which include, inter alia, golf courses, sports fields, sod farms, residential and commercial lawns, and cemeteries. Access to nationally approved pesticides can be restricted or banned at the provincial level or municipal level (in the case of cosmetic pesticide use only) as long as there is not a provincial ban that disallows municipalities from adopting more restrictive measures. Jurisdictions often take divergent approaches that can be broadly or narrowly scoped (e.g., applying to residential lawn care only). About half of Canadian provinces/territories have cosmetic bans and all make exceptions or conditional exceptions for certain uses including for golf courses, plant nurseries or for reasons related to public health and safety (Bachand and Gue 2011). Through the enactment of cosmetic bans and their exceptions for industry, provincial governments engage in what Millington and Wilson (2016) refer to as “environmental managerialist” decision-making which attempts to simultaneously promote the often incompatible dual mandate of economic growth and environmental sustainability. Aside from fulfilling one mandate at the expense of the other, a result of this approach is that certain industries can be favoured over others and foster a perceived arbitrariness of exemptions (Millington and Wilson 2016; Taylor 2022). In general, Delphi participants are strongly supportive of cosmetic pesticide bans enacted uniformly across the federation and exemptions for industry eliminated. We would add to this discussion that municipalities should retain their ability to regulate more restrictively if they wish; predating provincial bans, the anticosmetic pesticides momentum started with municipal bylaws and the local policy innovation demonstrated during this movement was considered remarkable under federalism and remains example of what is possible to achieve from the ground up (Pralle 2006).

Overall, Delphi participants were strongly supportive of measures that encourage a paradigm shift to more sustainable farming methods with reduced pesticide inputs. Under this general theme, Dicks et al.’s (2016) “Top Ten Policies for Pollinators” recommends the adoption of IPM as a widely supported organizing principle to guide pesticide use (Lemay 2019). Delphi participants demonstrated strong support for IPM principles and practices but voiced concerns consistent with other criticisms that have been directed at IPM. These criticisms include that IPM has strayed in concept and practice from the ecological roots upon which it was founded decades ago and that the “quasi-infinite” definitions and emergent interpretations cause unnecessary confusion at best, and render the term meaningless at worst (Peterson et al. 2010; Deguine et al. 2021). As one participant commented, “I think IPM has so many different definitions, I'm afraid this would get watered down, which is why I weakly oppose it”. Despite the goal of IPM to relegate agrochemical use to the last possible resort, plant health programs still largely revolve around chemical control (Deguine et al. 2021). Canada is no exception; where IPM was once well conceived and supported, infrastructure has largely been dismantled and more narrowly scoped programs centre mainly on ushering the registration of lower risk pesticides (MacRae et al. 2012; MacRae 2021).

Delphi participants also agree that it is highly desirable and definitely feasible to reinvigorate IPM extension services that have largely been replaced with mass communications that target growers and other stakeholders with synthesized knowledge rather than field-level advice (Dixon et al. 2014; Lemay 2019). Extension would provide more education, training, on-site visits and technical advice so growers have the skills and knowledge to implement IPM strategies and respond effectively to specific pest activity and trends. In-person interaction with rural landowners is more likely to inspire behavioural changes and innovation on the farm as opposed to one-way forms of communication (e.g., “fact sheets”, web-based information, recorded phone messages) (Milburn et al. 2010).

Although a federal IPM program including extension activities would require resources, much of the required network of grower organizations, provincial minor use pesticide coordinators, and researchers already exist and could be broadened to include regional IPM expertise to liaise with a (ideally larger) group of provincial IPM extension specialists to set priorities and devise knowledge mobilization strategies (MacRae et al. 2012). Current policy and programmatic federal–provincial scaffolding can be leveraged (e.g., Canadian Agricultural Partnership, Pesticide Management Centre) to provide coordination and funding.

According to IPBES (2016), the science documenting the passing of pathogens between and among managed bees and wild pollinators is “established” and Dicks et al. (2016) stress the adoption of policies that address the risks involved with moving managed pollinators around the world. In Canada, the honey bee is by far the most used managed pollinator but managed bumble bees are a growing industry with inadequate oversight in which B. impatiens (native to Canada east of Manitoba) are used in many regions where they are not native to pollinate greenhouse crops and, to a lesser extent, field crops. Escaped or improperly disposed B. impatiens have now established nonnative populations in the wild in these regions, which poses a great risk to surrounding native bee communities (Palmier and Sheffield 2019). Solitary bees are also reared to pollinate various crops and include the nonnative alfalfa leafcutting bee and the blue orchard mason bee.

Honey bees are subjects of Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) regulations. Other commercial bees are either reared within Canada or imported (sometimes directly to an end user through the mail) without any required screening. Voluntary Farm-Level Biosecurity Standards exist for the most commonly used managed bees and serve as guidance for producers and end users, but it is ultimately up to the issuing company to ensure that their pollinators are not diseased. In the case of the commercial bumble bee industry, there is low level of transparency regarding where bees are being shipped, and what kind of screening they underwent prior to leaving the facilities. As of now, there is limited or no tracking on any managed bees, so there is often no chain of accountability or way to trace their physical path to study the impact of any outbreak.

The IPBES report (IPBES 2016) states that the risk of harm to pollinators could be reduced by “better regulation of their trade and use”. Our study participants support establishing a “clean stock” program that tracks the movement and quantity of independently tested pathogen-free bumble bees. Delphi participants also consider this solution feasible; groundwork for a program has already been laid. The Bombus task force of the North American Pollinator Partnership Campaign has established a clear foundation for the development of a clean stock certification program for commercial bumble bees that recommends protocols for bumble bee screening, and the Colla Native Pollinator Research Lab at York University, Toronto, has submitted commissioned work to Environment and Climate Change Canada that situates a clean stock program for bumble bees within the Canadian policy landscape (MacPhail et al. 2022; Strange et al. 2022).

Most of the supported and feasible actions according to participants inferred or explicitly referred to more regulation (e.g., tracking commercial bee movements, the requirement of queen excluders on all managed bumble bee colonies and requirements for proper disposal of those colonies). Bee keeping is regulated under provincial Bee Acts or Animal Health Acts and refers almost exclusively to honey bees. These Acts could be amended or expanded to strengthen regulations or codify some of the federal Farm-Level Biosecurity Standard best practices related to the management, disease reporting, transporting and record-keeping for all managed bees, not just honey bees. Federal body coordination would most likely be required to standardize and oversee tracking efforts due to the sheer scale of honey bee movements.

In reference to creating and restoring wild pollinator habitat, Dicks et al.'s (2016) top pollinator policies include “Conserve and restore “green infrastructure” (a network of habitats that pollinators can move between) in agricultural and urban landscapes”. Participants strongly supported (and rated feasible) solutions that were in service of creating habitat networks including taking advantage of already established infrastructure corridors such as roads, train tracks and hydro lines as well as deliberately focusing on habitat connectivity between biodiversity “hotspots” when expanding or choosing pollinator habitat to protect. Since these solutions involve access to land managed under various tenure arrangements, creating habitat networks will involve leveraging existing partnerships amongst land trusts, conservation organizations, Indigenous groups, industry, community and landowner groups, and government as well as forging new relationships. Ray et al. (2021) fault a myopic approach to development and natural resource extraction in Canada that exacerbates threats to biodiversity posed by habitat loss. Development proceeds one project at a time, on a sector by sector basis and tacitly accepts the loss of wildlife habitat as something of a foregone conclusion (McCune et al. 2019; Olive 2019). While not addressing root causes as to why quality habitat might be fragmented or degraded in the first place under the current system of governance, participants’ focus on building networks inherently considers pollinator habitat at a landscape scale. This holistic approach could partially offset the cumulative effects of connected habitat lost as a casualty of the federal and provincial governments’ development planning and permitting processes.

In this study, participants generated more unique solutions for habitat loss that would fall under municipal jurisdictions and play out in urban or residential areas as opposed to agricultural lands or protected areas (e.g., municipal bylaws that reduce mowing). Save providing grants for community habitat projects, federal involvement would be limited. However, actions taken at the municipal level can support Canada as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the attendant Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and its Aichi Targets. Strategic Goal 1 calls for “mainstreaming” biodiversity, which involves embedding biodiversity considerations into policies and planning across all sectors and levels of society (CBD 2018). Canada has received a relatively low score on “mainstreaming” biodiversity when compared with other CBD signatory countries (Whitehorn et al. 2019); en masse implementation of supported and feasible municipal actions such as requiring native plant species in development and infill work and green roof policies that include forage for pollinators can model ways in which development and biodiversity protection can be integrated and shown not to be mutually exclusive goals.

Solutions related to ensuring habitat quality within restored or conserved habitat networks mirror solutions that intend to reduce the threat of nonnative species to wild pollinators. Generally speaking, participants want to adopt solutions that promote habitats with native plant species and discourage those that do not. This may include nonnative species that are not necessarily invasive (i.e., managing to reproduce and persist in new areas at high population densities) but may affect plant–pollinator networks to the detriment of wild pollinators all the same. Eradicating species that negatively affect pollinators can be expensive and is seldomly successful so action steps that reduce their impact as well as preventing new invasions are paramount (Mack et al. 2000). Participants strongly support (and deem feasible) general solutions that focus on pre-entry control as well as actions that would correct oversights that are antithetical to the goal of stopping the spread of invasive species. For example, seed mixes widely marketed to the public, such as wildflower mixes, often predominantly contain potentially invasive species and are a key pathway of new invasive plants into Canada (Brooks 2007; Tilley and Pickett 2017; ISCBC 2019). Participants endorse supporting native plant nurseries/producers that help ensure that the supply and demand of native seed stock evolves in tandem. The participants did not specify exactly how the native plant industry should be supported but all levels of government can play a role either through existing legislation (e.g., Seeds Act R.S.C., 1985, c. S-8), new strategies (see US National Strategy for Rehabilitation and Restoration), and procurement policies that would stimulate and help stabilize the developing market for native seeds and plants (Mock et al. 2016).

Lastly, Dicks et al. (2016) cite considerable knowledge gaps regarding the status of pollinators and recommend as a top policy priority the establishment of long-term, widespread monitoring. Participants cite the need for baseline data on pollinators as the most popular research theme to inform actions to restore/create habitat and reduce habitat loss. Indeed, monitoring is a common thread that weaves throughout participants’ suggestions for solutions and research needs across stressor categories. The execution of the vast majority of suggested research endeavours and supported actions are predicated on knowing more about where pollinators are in the first place (to design interventions) and to track changes over time (to refine and evaluate those interventions). There is no government program in Canada charged with the routine, widespread monitoring of wild pollinator populations or pollination services, and few studies exist that repeat sampling at the same locations using the same method. Monitoring is predominantly undertaken by nongovernmental organizations, research institutions, or large researcher networks that frequently have species or location-specific project goals, do not necessarily create or share standardized data in any one place, may use different sampling methods from one another, and do not systematically repeat their efforts. An important government undertaking would be a nationally spearheaded monitoring program that is targeted, well coordinated, and sustained. The objective would be to detect trends at different geographic scales and in priority areas by providing comprehensive data sets conducive to rigorous statistical analyses (Woodard et al. 2020).

Thank you to MacPhail, V. and an anonymous reviewer for their insightful comments during the process of writing and revising this manuscript.