Written evidence submitted by Dr Siobhan Maderson (INS0016)

Evidence for inquiry into insect decline and UK food security

I hold an MSc in Food and Water Security, and a PhD in Human Geography.  My research has focused on the environmental knowledge of long-term beekeepers, and how this knowledge can be utilized to support sustainable agri-environmental practices.  I am currently a Research Associate on the EU-funded Horizon 2020 Food Trails project, which aims to enable cities to develop and implement sustainable, healthy and inclusive food policies.

On the current evidence base for insect abundance in the UK, and the gaps in scientific understanding that require further research:

The overwhelming majority of research into insect abundance and their wellbeing is carried out through the life sciences.  Much of this data suggests that insects in the UK are in serious decline, due to habitat loss, the increase of monocultures and agrochemical usage, various pathogens, and climate change. While this information in and of itself suggests an urgent need to address the factors driving insect decline, the reliance on entomological and ecological data overlooks the potential role of other forms of environmental understanding, which can give a temporally rich, and situated understanding of environmental changes and challenges.  Through working with long-term beekeepers and other land-based practitioners, current knowledge gaps can be addressed.  In my research with long-term beekeepers, I have found that many have an important form of hybrid environmental knowledge, combining formal study – often of STEMM subjects such as biology, chemistry, ecology, botany and genetics – with their tacit practice of beekeeping.  This knowledge is operationalized in specific localities, with beekeepers highly informed of the interrelationships between microclimates, land use changes, agrochemical impacts, and the impact on insects of the phenological changes that are occurring in our rapidly changing climate. 

While my research has focused on beekeepers, it is known that other land-based practices also generate significant environmental knowledge that can be used alongside formal ecological surveys.  This approach is recognized by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Patform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), who call for better utilization of the environmental knowledge of Local Communities.  The role of Multiple Evidence Bases, which incorporate different forms of environmental knowledge, is central to a more thorough, accurate, and inclusive form of environmental knowledge, which can address current gaps in knowledge, as well as support long-term monitoring of environmental changes.

On the effects of pesticides, such as neonicotinoids or other agricultural control methods on insects including pollinators and their impact on UK food security:

Neonicotinoids (aka neonics) are now scientifically recognised as highly problematic in the agri-environment, and they should be banned. My research has found that the past 70 years have seen a repetitive cycle of the development of ‘new’ agrochemicals which are initially marketed as environmentally safe, but are subsequently proven to be dangerous to insects and other species. This is showing itself to be the case with neonics, which were initially perceived, and marketed, as a ‘safe’ alternative to earlier pesticides, but have gradually been proven to be harmful to many species in the environment. There is a strong preference amongst beekeepers to situate their colonies in organically managed agricultural areas, but there is a lack of sufficient availability for such sites.

My interviews with beekeepers also highlighted some counterintuitive paradoxes in this communities’ perceptions of neonics.  Some described them as ‘clean poisons’, on the grounds that they do not show the immediate mass die-offs associated with earlier agrochemicals.  Some interviewees expressed a concern that the banning of neonics would lead to the reintroduction of what they see as ‘more dangerous’ chemicals.  This seems an unfortunate compromise to force upon insect populations.  Other beekeepers benefit from careful management of their colonies amidst crops such as Oil Seed Rape (OSR), which is frequently treated with neonics.  Skilled, experienced beekeepers can benefit from placing their colonies amidst OSR to build them up early in the season, and then move their colonies to other sites when the OSR stops flowering.  This is an instance where the environmental observations of beekeepers can be in conflict with wider ecological understandings.  It is solely due to the capacity for honey bees to be intensely managed by beekeepers, that the potential negative effects of neonics can be counterbalanced.  Beekeepers move their colonies to different sites, combine weak colonies to ensure that honey bee abundance is maintained, treat honey bee illnesses, and feed their bees with sugar syrup.  This is why the abundance of honey bees should not be confused with wider insect abundance.  While environmental challenges to multiple environmental challenges are often similar (habitat loss, negative impacts of agrochemicals, climate change), it is imperative to remember that the overwhelming majority of insects are scientifically and culturally invisible to humans.  Proxy evidence is available, but must be carefully scrutinised and understood within a wider socio-economic and practical context.  Honey bees can be seemingly managed in a way that counters the negative impact of many agrochemicals. In contrast, most solitary bees, and other insects, are found to suffer a loss of abundance and resilience.  Extensive scientific data has shown that excessive reliance on managed pollinators for food security is unreliable and ecologically and economically unsustainable. 

On the extent that biodiversity initiatives, such as creating reservoir populations, are addressing insect decline and whether there is sufficient co-ordination with the UK food system:

A concern regarding biodiversity initiatives is that it tends to be the ‘higher tier’ programmes that result in notable positive ecological impact.  Such programmes tend to be highly competitive, with limited accessibility.  If such projects are to truly have a positive impact, they need to be made more accessible, with participation being easily facilitated and less bureaucratic.  The recent confusion over the introduction of ELMS has increased the sense amongst farmers and land managers of a lack of governmental clarity and direction regarding environmental priorities. This must be urgently rectified if the UK is to increase insect abundance. My research has found beekeepers noting severe challenges to their bees, and other insects, in areas of intense food production.  Many beekeepers see agricultural areas as a far less attractive habitat for their bees and other insects, than urban or peri-urban areas. Given that public and political attention to the plight of the honey bee is often framed within a context of the threat to food security, it is ironic at best, and potentially disingenuous, that a disproportionate number of efforts at supporting bees and other insects take place in urban and/or peri-urban areas, rather than in the agri-environment where the majority of this country’s food production takes place.  This suggests a lack of coordination of efforts which risks serious negative consequences for our food system.

On whether the threat to UK food security from insect decline receives sufficient cross-government priority:

The threat to UK food security from insect decline is absolutely not receiving sufficient cross-government attention.  My research found beekeepers concerned about the ‘grubbing out’ (permanent destruction / removal) of orchards in the late 20th century.  These orchards provide food and habitat for insects, as well as providing food for humans.  The current economic instability in the agricultural sector is leading many landowners to grub out remaining orchards.  In urban and peri-urban settings, which also have an important role in food production and food security, insects are declining due to a range of negative management practices, including the paving over of lawns and gardens, the introduction of Astroturf and other plastic imitations of grass, and the overuse of garden agrochemicals.  It is worth noting that many European cities have banned the domestic and municipal use of agrochemicals, and now insist that these should be used at minimal levels, solely for food production in an agricultural context.  It is also worth noting that domestic application of agrochemicals, which can be purchased at any garden centre or hardware store, requires no training in safe usage or storage.  Throughout my research, it became clear that many beekeepers are concerned about the overuse of agrochemicals in all settings.  Many of these are used not to ensure food security, but to guarantee a particular, uniform aesthetic appearance of fruits and vegetables. This leads to a wholly unnecessary excess usage of agrochemicals, which damages insects.  Interviewees also noted the ecological damage caused by development of greenfield sites, and the development of properties which lack gardens.

Additional policy initiatives and solutions needed in the UK and internationally to reduce and reverse the trends in insect decline

In summary, there are many things that the UK can do, and can be done internationally, to reverse trends in insect decline.

• Stronger engagement with beekeepers, farmers, and other land-users can provide valuable environmental knowledge that can be used alongside formal scientific evidence to understand insect abundance, and threats undermining invertebrate biodiversity.
• Neonics and other agrochemicals are known to be damaging insects, although this damage is not experienced equally by different species.  Close interrogation of Multiple Evidence Bases, coupled with an understanding of shifting base lines and historical changes in agrochemical impacts and developments, is crucial to ensuring insects are not damaged further.
• There is a need to address insect decline in food producing areas.  There are too many seemingly pro-insect actions that take place in areas that can play a potential role in our food systems, but are not, and never will be, the predominant food-producing areas.  Better integration and coordination of efforts is crucial.
• Cross-government actions on agriculture and urban planning are necessary.  There is also far too much reliance on voluntary initiatives. It is quite simple to ban superfluous agrochemicals, but there is a consistent failure of political will to confront vested interests which profit economically from damaging the environment, the long-term viability of our food security, and the myriad species we depend on to ensure our shared wellbeing.

28 April 2023