COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS EU Pollinators Initiative
Date: 2018-06-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU initiative, apiculture, biodiversity, ecosystem, environmental impact, environmental protection, insect, plant health product, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 4.6.2018 SWD(2018) 302 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  EU Pollinators Initiative   {COM(2018) 395 final} - {SWD(2018) 303 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 
Pollinators ...................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1. 

2.  Pollinator decline ........................................................................................................ 2 
Pollinator decline at EU level .......................................................................................... 3 
Pollinator decline at national, regional and local level ..................................................... 5 

2.1. 
2.2. 

3. 

Importance of pollinators ............................................................................................ 7 

4.  Causes of pollinator decline ...................................................................................... 10 

5.  Current action and challenges ................................................................................... 13 
Actions in EU Member States ........................................................................................ 13 
5.1. 
Action at EU level .......................................................................................................... 16 
5.2. 
5.3. 
Action at global level .................................................................................................... 19 
5.4.  Main challenges ............................................................................................................ 20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Wild pollinators are declining in occurrence and diversity in the EU and numerous species are 
threatened  with  extinction.  This  is  a  serious  cause  for  concern  because  pollinators  are  an 
integral  part  of  healthy  ecosystems.  Without  them,  many  plant  species  would  decline  and 
eventually disappear, along with the organisms that depend on them. 

This phenomenon has attracted worldwide attention, leading to persistent calls for action. The 
decline  of  pollinators  will  have  far-reaching  consequences  on  terrestrial  ecosystems  where 
animal-pollinated plants play a vital role, and will lead to their collapse in the long term. This 
will  inevitably  hinder  the  EU’s  path  to  sustainable  development  and  threaten  human 
wellbeing.  

The European Commission has therefore launched the first-ever comprehensive EU initiative 
on pollinators. The initiative will tackle the decline of pollinators through three priorities: 

Improving knowledge on pollinator decline, its causes and consequences 
Tackling the causes of pollinator decline 

I. 
II. 
III.  Raising awareness, engaging wider society and promoting collaboration 

Besides  addressing  the problem  in  the  EU,  the  initiative  will  also  contribute  towards  global 
action on pollinators. 

This  document  presents  evidence  about  the  decline  of  pollinators  in  the  EU,  its  causes  and 
consequences, and links the evidence base to the actions under the initiative. It also outlines 
existing measures and challenges under various EU policies that relate to the conservation of 
pollinators. 

1.1. 

Pollinators 

Pollinators are a functional group of animals that pollinate plants. Pollination — the transfer 
of pollen (male gametes) between the male and female parts of flowers — enables fertilisation 
and reproduction of plants. As many plants do little to no self-pollination, they rely on vectors 
like wind, water and animals for pollination. The vast majority of flowering plants (87.5 %) 
worldwide  are pollinated by animals1.  The pollinator-plant  relationship is a  mutualistic one. 
Plants provide pollinators with food resources (pollen, nectar, oils), fragrances and resins (for 
nest  construction).  In  Europe,  pollinators  are  dominated  by  insects,  in  particular  bees  and 
hoverflies. 

Bees are the most prolific pollinators. There are almost 2 000 wild bee species in the EU. The 
most well-known bee species is the western honeybee (Apis mellifera), a domesticated species 
essential  to  the  beekeeping  sector  and  the  production  of  honey  and  other  beehive  products. 
Besides honeybees, some bumblebee and solitary bee species are also actively managed. 

Non-bee  pollinators  are  also  vitally  important  for  plant  reproduction  and  the  functioning  of 
ecosystems.  Different  species  of  flies  dominate  crop  pollination  in  many  colder  and  high-
altitude  environments6.  The  most  important  pollinating  fly  species  are  hoverflies.  Besides 
providing vital pollination services, some hoverfly species are also biocontrol agents as they 
feed on pests. Other insect pollinators are butterflies, moths (important for night pollination), 
some beetles, wasps and thrips. Mammals (particularly bats), birds (e.g. hummingbirds) and 
lizards are important pollinators of certain flowers in subtropical and tropical environments. 

1 Ollerton, J., Winfree, R. and Tarrant, S. (2011), How Many Flowering Plants are Pollinated by Animals?, Oikos 120: 321-
326 

1 

 
                                                 
Such creatures are generally regarded as playing a marginal role in European environments, 
although they might be locally important2. 

2.  POLLINATOR DECLINE 

Our  understanding  of  the  status  and  trends  of  pollinators,  the  threats  they  face  and  the 
consequences  of  their  loss  has  significantly  improved  in  recent  times  thanks  to  a  growing 
body of research. Although we do not yet have the full picture, the evidence has shown that 
the decline of pollinators is a serious cause for concern and primarily a consequence of human 
activities. While pollinators are a broad group of animals, their decline has been dominantly 
reported by data on bees, in particular honeybees3,4,5. 

In  2016  the  Intergovernmental  Science-Policy  Platform  on  Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem 
Services (IPBES) published the first global assessment of pollinators (see Box 1). 

Box 1: The IPBES report on pollinators, pollination and food production6 

The  IPBES  provides  governments,  the  private  sector  and  society  with  scientifically  credible  and 
independent up-to-date assessments of available knowledge so that they can make informed decisions 
at local, regional, national and international levels. 

The report, published in 2016, is the first-ever global report on pollinators. Experts from around the 
world assessed key issues facing decision makers, including the value of pollination and pollinators, 
status, trends and threats to pollinators and pollination. It also provides a list of strategic responses to 
the  risks  and  opportunities  associated  with  pollinators  and  pollination.  By  analysing  a  large  body of 
existing evidence the report represents a major milestone in the consolidation of current knowledge on 
pollinators. 

The  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity,  to  which  the  EU  and  all  its  Member  States  are  a  party, 
endorsed  the  report’s  key  messages  and  encouraged  the  parties  to  use  its  recommendations  for  the 
conservation and sustainable management of pollinators7.    

The report confirmed that the pollinator decline is not limited to Europe and North America 
—  it  is  a  global  phenomenon.  While  in  the  rest  of  the  world  data  on  wild  pollinators  are 
scarcer,  preventing assessment of their regional status, declines  in  populations at local level 
have been recorded. National and regional assessments of wild pollinators reveal a high level 
of  threat  to  insect  pollinators.  National  Red  List  assessments  on  bees  often  show  that  more 
than 40 % of species are threatened with extinction. The report warned about major data gaps 
and  called  for  long-term  monitoring  of  wild  pollinators  in  order  to  provide  information  on 
their status worldwide. 

2 Ollerton, J, (2017), Pollinator Diversity: Distribution, Ecological Function, and Conservation, Annual Review of Ecology, 
Evolution, and Systematics No 48 (1), 353-376. 
3 Brodschneider, R., et al., (2016), Preliminary analysis of loss rates of honey bee colonies during winter 2015/16 from the 
COLOSS survey, Journal of Apicultural Research 55: 375–378. 
4 VanEngelsdorp, D. and Meixner, M.D., (2010), A historical review of managed honey bee populations in Europe and the 
United States and the factors that may affect them, Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 103: S80–S95. 
5 Van der Zee, R., et al., (2012), Managed honey bee colony losses in Canada, China, Europe, Israel and Turkey, for the 
winters of 2008-9 and 1009-10, Journal of Apicultural Research and Bee World 51: 100–114. 
6 Potts, S.G., et al., (2016), The Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and 
Ecosystem Services on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production, Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy 
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany. 552 pp. https://www.ipbes.net/document-library-
categories/assessment-reports-and-outputs 
7 https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-dec-15-en.pdf  

2 

 
                                                 
2.1. 

Pollinator decline at EU level 

While  the  availability  of  the  data  and  information  in  Europe  is  significantly  better  than  in 
most other regions of the world, the gaps are still significant. Among a number of relevant EU 
projects,  two  in  particular  contributed  to  the  better  understanding  of  the  pollinator  decline: 
ALARM and STEP (see Box 2). 

Box 2:  The ALARM and STEP projects 
The  ALARM8  project  (2004-2009)  provided  the  groundwork  for monitoring  pollinators,  quantifying 
their losses and identifying key risks. It also helped to set a broader agenda on pollinators by including 
work on wild species at a time when public attention was focused on the loss of honeybees (Colony 
Collapse Disorder).  The key outputs of the project were also published in the form of an atlas9. 
The  STEP10  project  (2010-2015)  took  over  where  ALARM  left  off.  The  project  characterised  the 
nature  and  extent  of  the  pollinator  decline,  examined  the  relative  importance  of  its  potential  drivers 
and  their  interaction,  and  the  impacts  this  can  have  on  society  and  mitigation  options.  STEP 
underpinned  the  development  of  the  European  Red  List  of  Bees  and  provided  a  major  source  of 
evidence for the IPBES report.  

The  European  Red  List  (see  Box  3)  is  currently  the  key  tool  providing  information  on  the 
status and trends of pollinators at the EU level (and in Europe as a whole). These assessments 
showed that around 9 % of bee and 7 % of butterfly species are threatened with extinction. 

While this is already worrying, a high proportion of bee and butterfly species with a declining 
population indicates an even bleaker picture. A species population trend is key to assessing its 
Red List status. However, good population trend data are often lacking for many species and 
in many countries. For example, where no accurate trend data existed for butterfly species (in 
particular  in  eastern  European  countries),  the  assessors  usually  reported  trends  as  stable.  In 
countries where the trend data are better, more threatened species are reported. Furthermore, 
for more than half of the bee species there were not enough data to evaluate their status. The 
actual  proportion  of  threatened  species  may  therefore  lie  anywhere  between  4 %  and  60 %, 
depending on the status of the data-deficient species. Only 21 % of bee species have known 
population trends, and 37 % of those are declining. 

The case of bumblebees provide a good example of the importance of good data for informing 
us about the state of pollinators. They are the best studied group of bees, with less than 10 % 
of data-deficient species. Their status is considerably worse than for bees in general: almost 
24 %  of  species  are  facing  extinction,  while  more  than  45 %  of  them  have  a  declining 
population trend. 

All of this shows that the lack of data limits our understanding of the status of pollinators. But 
more  importantly  it  very  likely  conceals  a  considerably  worse  situation  than  currently 
perceived.  Therefore  long-term  monitoring  of  pollinators  to  ensure  robust  data  is  not  only 
indispensable, but also urgent, as the monitoring data are needed to guide mitigation actions. 
For  insect  pollinators  other  than  bees  and  butterflies,  the  data  are  inadequate  to  provide 
information  on  the  status  and  trends  at  EU  level.  At  the  moment  there  is  no  Pan-EU 
monitoring scheme for any pollinator group. 

8 Assessing LArge-scale environmental Risks for biodiversity with tested Methods (ALARM), http://www.alarmproject.net  
9 Settele, J., et al., (2010), Atlas of Biodiversity Risk, Pensoft Publishers, Sofia-Moscow, 280 pp. 
10 Status and Trends of European Pollinators (STEP), http://www.step-project.net/  

3 

 
                                                 
Box 3: European Red List 

The European Red List is a review of the status of European species according to the Regional Red 
Listing  guidelines  of  the  International  Union  for  Conservation  of  Nature  (IUCN).  It  identifies  those 
species that are threatened with extinction11 at European level (both Pan-European and in the EU) so 
that appropriate conservation actions can be taken to improve their status. The Red List assessed so far 
two groups of insect pollinators: bees12 and butterflies13. The European Red List assessments of bees 
and butterflies are presented in detail below (European level).   

IUCN Red List status of European bees (left) and bumblebees - the best studied group of bees (right) 

Compiled  by  the  IUCN  in  2014,  this  first-ever  assessment  of  all  European  bee  species  showed  that 
4 %  out  of  1 942  species  are  threatened  with  extinction.  For  56 %  of  species,  however,  the  status  is 
unknown. If only species with a known status are considered, the proportion of threatened species is 
9.2 %. Bumblebees, the best studied group of bees, are in a significantly worse situation, with almost 
24 %  threatened.  Population  trends  show  that  the  status  of  bumblebees  is  likely  to  get  worse  in  the 
future, while for bees in general trends are to a large extent unknown (79 %). 

IUCN Red List — population trends of European bees (left) and bumblebees - the best studied group 
of bees (right) 

11 It includes the following IUCN Red List categories: critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable. 
12 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/bees/status.htm  
13 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/butterflies/status.htm  

4 

 
 
                                                 
For  butterflies,  the  data  availability  is  significantly  better,  with  an  unknown  status  for  only  1 %. 
However,  8.5 %  of  species  are  threatened  with  extinction,  while  almost  a  third  have  declining 
population trends. The Red List highlights that this is likely an underestimate due to lack of good trend 
data in many countries.   

IUCN Red List status of European butterflies (left) and their population trends (right) 

2.2. 

Pollinator decline at national, regional and local level 

Only grassland butterflies are systematically monitored at national or regional level in the EU. 
The European Butterfly Monitoring Scheme14 brings together data from national and regional 
butterfly  monitoring  schemes  in  15  EU  Member  States15.  Figure  1  shows  a  total  decline  of 
33 % in grassland butterflies in those countries from 1990 to 201516. 

Many  EU  countries  have  published  national  lists  of  threatened  species based  on  IUCN  Red 
List  criteria.  Some  of  these  focus  specifically  on  pollinators  like  bees  and  butterflies.  For 
example,  more  than  half  of  wild  bee  species  are  threatened  with  extinction  in  the 
Netherlands17 and almost one third in Ireland18.  

A significant part of the evidence on these declines comes from research projects and studies. 
While various countries are covered by the research, the focus is predominantly on north-west 
Europe.  Regions  like  the  Mediterranean  have  been  under-researched  even  though  they  are 
biodiversity  hotspots.  Studies  on  pollinator  declines  often  provide  insights  into  changes  in 
species  richness  (number  of  species)  and  more  rarely  into  changes  in  abundance,  which  is 
more data intensive. 

The ALARM project quantified the loss of pollinators at national and local level. It showed 
parallel declines  in  the  species richness of bee  and hoverfly communities in  Britain and the 
Netherlands:  around  30 %  fewer  species,  accounting  for  half  of  the  post-1980  observation 

14 http://www.bc-europe.eu/index.php?id=339  
15 Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Lithuania,  Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, 
Sweden, the Netherlands, United Kingdom. 
16 Van Swaay, C., et al., (2016), The European Butterfly Indicator for Grassland Species 1990-2013,Wageningen, p. 19. 
17 Reemer, M., (2018), Basisrapport voor de Rode Lijst Bijen, EIS Kenniscentrum Insecten Leiden, Ministerie van 
Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit rapportnummer EIS2018-06, 
http://www.bestuivers.nl/Portals/5/Publicaties/RodeLijst/Basisrapport_Rode_Lijst_bijen_2018_Compleet.pdf?ver=2018-03-
13-114054-730  
18 Fitzpatrick, Ú., et al., (2006), Regional Red List of Irish Bees, National Parks and Wildlife Service (Ireland) and 
Environment and Heritage Service (N. Ireland). 

5 

 
 
 
                                                 
records19. While observation records did not allow for the assessment of population densities, 
the research under the ALARM project showed that pollinator communities were increasingly 
dominated by a smaller number of species. A number of studies confirmed this trend, also in 
other countries:  

  Great Britain: 

o  decline in butterfly and bee species richness before 1990 and slowing down in 

the recent decades20; 

o  75 % decline in species richness of bees and wasps across 17 sites in England 

over the past 80 years21; 

  decline  in  species  richness  of  large  moths  in  the  Netherlands  between  1985  and 

201522, in particular nocturnally active species; 

  decline  in  species  richness  of  bumblebees23  and  butterflies24  in  Belgium  during  the 

20th century, with 30 % of native butterflies having gone extinct in Flanders; 

  decline in species richness of butterflies25 and bumblebees in Denmark, with 42 % of 

long-tongued bumblebees no longer being observed compared to the 1930s26; 

  decline  in  bumblebee  species  richness  in  Sweden:  two  short-tongued  bumblebee 
species  dominating  present  communities,  with  relative  abundances  of  89 % 
compared to 40 % in the 1940s27; 

  decline  in  bumblebee28  and  butterfly29  species  richness  in  Spain,  with  a  90 % 
decrease  in  butterfly  species  richness  in  the  Sierra  de  Guadarrama  region  between 
1967-1973 and 2004-2005 

In  addition  to declines  in species richness,  declines in  abundance of some pollinator  groups 
have  been  also  recorded.  In  the  UK,  66 %  of  larger  moth  species  declined  in  abundance 
between  1968  and  200730  and  72 %  of  monitored  butterfly  species  declined  in  abundance 
between 2000 and 200931. The total abundance of larger moth species declined by 28 % for 
the given period. 

19 Biesmeijer, J., et al., (2006), Parallel Declines in Pollinators and Insect-pollinated Plants in Britain and the Netherlands, 
Science 313.5785: 351-354.  
20 Carvalheiro, L.G., et al., (2013), Species Richness Declines and Biotic Homogenisation have Slowed Down for NW-
European Pollinators and Plants, Ecology Letters, 16(7): 870-878. 
21 Senapathi, D., et al., (2015), The Impact of Over 80 years of Land Cover Changes on Bee and Wasp Pollinator 
Communities in England, Proc. R. Soc. B. 282(1806). The Royal Society. 
22 Langevelde, F., et al,. (2017), Declines in Moth Populations Stress the Need for Conserving Dark Nights, Global change 
biology. 
23 Rasmont, P. and Mersch, P., (1988), Première Estimation de la Dérive Faunique Chez les Bourdons de la Belgique 
(Hymenoptera: Apidae), Annales de la Société Royale zoologique de Belgique, 118(2), Société royale zoologique de 
Belgique. 
24 Maes, D.. and Van Dyck, H.. (2001), Butterfly Diversity Loss in Flanders (North Belgium): Europe’s Worst Case 
Scenario?, Biological conservation 99(3): 263-276. 
25 Eskildsen, A., et al., (2015), Ecological Specialisation Matters: Long Term Trends in Butterfly Species Richness and 
Assemblage Composition Depend on Multiple Functional Traits, Diversity and distributions 21(7): 792-802. 
26 Dupont, Y. L.,Damgaard, C and Simonsen, C., (2011), Quantitative Historical Change in Bumblebee (Bombus spp.) 
Assemblages of Red Clover Fields, PloS one. 
27 Bommarco, R., et al., (2011), Drastic Historic Shifts in Bumble-bee Community Composition in Sweden, Proceedings of 
the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences: rspb20110647. 
28 Ploquin, E. F.,Herrera, J. F. and Obeso, J. R, (2013), Bumblebee Community Homogenization After Uphill Shifts in 
Montane Areas of Northern Spain Oecologia 173(4): 1649-1660. 
29 Wilson, R. J., et al., (2007), An Elevational Shift in Butterfly Species Richness and Composition Accompanying Recent 
Climate Change,  Global Change Biology 13(9): 1873-1887. 
30 Fox, R., et al.,(2013), The State of Britain’ Larger Moths, Butterfly Conservation and Rothamsted Research, Wareham, 
Dorset, UK. 
31 Fox, R., et al.,(2015), The State of the UK’s Butterflies 2015, Butterfly Conservation and the Centre for Ecology & 
Hydrology, Wareham, Dorset. 

6 

 
                                                 
Recently  a  dramatic  decline  of  flying  insects  has  been  reported  in  Germany32.  The  insect 
biomass declined by more than 75 % over 27 years (1989-2016) in 63 nature protection areas. 
While  the  study  also  covered  non-pollinating  insects,  its  results  provide  important  insights 
into  the  status  of  pollinators.  Due  to  lack  of  systematic  monitoring  processes,  such  studies 
based on long-term observation of pollinator abundance (biomass) are exceptional. 

Figure 1: Grassland Butterfly Indicator for 15 EU Member States (Source: Butterfly 
Conservation Europe16) 

3. 

IMPORTANCE OF POLLINATORS 

Actions to mitigate pollinator decline are underpinned by the  recognition that in addition to 
their  intrinsic  value,  pollinators  are  important  contributors  to  human  wellbeing.  They  also 
play  a  central  role  in  the  maintenance  of  ecosystem  functioning33.  Without  pollinators, 
animal-pollinated  plants  would  decline  and  eventually  disappear  and  with  it  all  organisms 
directly  or  indirectly  depending  on  them.  This  would  inevitably  lead  to  the  collapse  of 
terrestrial ecosystems in the long term9.  

The majority of European flowering plants (78 %34) are pollinated by animals. By supporting 
wild plants, pollinators underpin wider biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. It is estimated 
that  5–8  %  of  current  global  crop  production  is  directly  attributed  to  animal  pollination6. 
Around  84 %34  of  European  crop  species  benefit  to  various  extents  from  insect  pollination. 
Among them the following have a medium to high need35: apple, orange, pear, peach, melon, 
strawberry,  raspberry,  plum,  apricot,  cherry,  kiwifruit,  mango,  currant,  turnip,  pumpkin, 

32 Hallmann, C. A., et al., (2017), More Than 75 percent decline over 27 Years in Total Flying Insect Biomass in Protected 
Areas, PloS one, 12(10).  
33 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program), (2005), Ecosystems and human well-being, Washington, D.C: Island Press. 
34 Potts, S., et al., (2015), Status and Trends of European Pollinators. Key Findings of the STEP Project, Pensoft Publishers, 
Sofia, 72 pp. 
35 Corbet, S. A., Williams, I. H. and Osborne, J. L, (1991), Bees and the pollination of crops and wild flowers in the 
European community, Bee World, 72(2), 47-59. 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
various  beans,  squash,  cucumber,  sunflower,  almond,  chestnut,  oilseed  rape,  white  mustard, 
buckwheat,  alfalfa  and  clover.  Many  herbs  like  basil,  sage,  rosemary,  thyme,  coriander, 
cumin,  dill,  chamomile  and  lavender  also  fall  into  this  category.  Other  crops  like  tomato, 
pepper, aubergine, cotton, soybean, lemon and orange benefit as well from animal pollination. 
Significant  knowledge  gaps,  however,  exist  and  further  research  is  needed  to  determine  the 
level of dependency of different crops and the most effective pollinators for them. 

Although  many  insect  species  are  known  to  provide  pollination  services,  it  has  long  been 
considered that honeybees (Apis mellifera) provide the majority of crop pollination. This view 
has,  however,  been  challenged36,  including  through  research  under  the  STEP  project37,38,39 
which showed that managed pollinators like honeybees supplement rather than substitute wild 
pollinators. While it is now increasingly recognised that wild pollinators play a central role in 
crop pollination, the real focus should be clearly on the diversity of pollinator communities. 
Species  richness  and  abundance  of  pollinators  enhance  effectiveness  of  pollination  across 
time and space and in this way can improve the quantity and quality of crop yields6.  

The  importance  of  pollinators  for  food  security  is  widely  acknowledged.  However,  beyond 
food provisioning, animal pollination of crops and wild plants underpins multiple benefits to 
people. Pollinators contribute directly to medicines, biofuels, materials, culture, art, traditions, 
technology  and  education6.  These  benefits  provide  significant  economic  values  that  are 
seldom  captured  in  markets.  Figure  2  illustrates  different  types  of  values  provided  by 
pollinators and pollination services. 

Figure 2: Total economic value of pollinators and pollination services (Source: IPBES6) 

Consumptive direct-use values like crop production are relatively straightforward to express 
in  monetary  terms  due  to  the  existence  of  markets.  The  value  of  the  direct  contribution  of 
insect pollinators to EU agricultural output has been estimated at around EUR 15 billion per 
year40. In France the value was estimated at between EUR 2.3 and EUR 5.3 billion41 while in 

36 Mallinger, R. E. and Gratton, C., (2015), Species Richness of Wild Bees, but not the use of Managed Honeybees, Increases 
Fruit Set of a Pollinator-Dependent Crop, J Appl Ecol, 52: 323-330. 
37 Breeze T.D., et al., (2011), Pollination Services in the UK: How Important are Honeybees?, Agriculture, Ecosystems & 
Environment, 142(3-4): 137-143. 
38 Garibaldi, L. A., et al., (2013), Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of Honey Bee Abundance, Science, 
340(6127), 1608-1611. 
39 Garibaldi, L. A., et al., (2011), Stability of Pollination Services Decreases with Isolation from Natural Areas Despite 
Honey Bee Visits, Ecology Letters, 14: 1062-1072. 
40 Gallai, N., et al,. (2009), Economic Valuation of the Vulnerability of World Agriculture Confronted with Pollinator 
Decline, Ecological Economics 68(3): 810-821. 

8 

 
 
 
                                                 
Poland bee pollination alone was estimated at EUR 0.7 billion (200742). Around 20 % of total 
farmgate crop value in the UK was calculated to come from insect-pollinated crops37.  

Monetary  values  of  insect  pollination  have  been  estimated  also  for  specific  crops: 
EUR 112 million (£ 92.1 million) to the apple industry in the UK in 201243 (75 % of the value 
is attributed to wild pollinators), while the contribution of pollinators to apple and blueberry 
orchards in the Netherlands, may amount to the half of the profits44. Even in crops that depend 
on  animal  pollination  to  a  lesser  extent,  pollinators  can  have  a  decisive  impact  on  the 
economics of production. In Ireland the economic value of insect pollination to oilseed rape 
was  estimated  at  EUR  3.9  million45.  Pollinators  are  required  to  reach  high  yields  and  seed 
quality  in  oilseed  rape,  and  20 %  of  its  market  value  may  depend  directly  on  insect 
pollination46.  

Pollinators  impact  not  only  the  quantity,  but  also  the  quality  of  yield.  For  example  insect-
pollinated strawberries have higher quality and a longer shelf life than those that are self- or 
wind-pollinated,  which  translates  into  higher  market  value.  In  the  EU,  half  of  the  market 
value of strawberries — over EUR 1 billion — is attributed to pollinators47.     

Honeybees provide a range of products for human use: honey, bee wax, royal jelly, pollen and 
propolis.  Beekeeping  provides  important  rural  livelihoods  in  the  EU.  There  are  more  than 
600 000 beekeepers and 17 million beehives, which produce around 250 000 tonnes of honey 
per year48.  

Other  benefits  of  pollinators  are  more  challenging  to  express  in  monetary  terms,  but  their 
value  is  well  recognised.  Pollinators  enable  diversity  of  crops,  underpinning  a  diverse  and 
healthy  human  diet.  Animal-pollinated  crops  are  vital  sources  of  nutrients  —  in  particular 
micro-nutrients  like  vitamins  and  minerals49  —  and  provide  an  important  contribution  to 
nutritional  security6.  Besides  pollination  services,  pollinators  can  enhance,  especially  at 
landscape scale, other ecosystem services like pest control, soil and water quality, landscape 
aesthetics and contribute towards biodiversity conservation50.   

41 Beyou, W., et al., (2016), Le Service de Pollinisation, L’évaluation française des écosystèmes et des services 
écosystémiques (EFESE), Service de l’économie, de l’évaluation et de l’intégration du développement durable 
Sous-direction de l’économie des ressources naturelles et des risques (ERNR). https://www.ecologique-
solidaire.gouv.fr/levaluation-francaise-des-ecosystemes-et-des-services-ecosystemiques#e1 
42 Zych, M. and Jakubiec, A., (2006), How Much is a Bee Worth? Economic Aspects of Pollination of Selected Crops in 
Poland, Acta Agrobotanica 59(1): 289. 
43Garrett, M. P. D., et al., (2016), Apple Pollination: Demand Depends on Variety and Supply Depends on Pollinator 
Identity,, PloS one 11(5) 
44 De Groot, G. A., et al., (2015), De bijdrage van (wilde) bestuivers aan de opbrengst van appels en blauwe besse,. Alterra, 
Wageningen UR, Alterra rapport 2636. 
45 Stanley, D.A., Gunning, D. and Stout, J. C., (2013), Pollinators and Pollination of Oilseed Rape Rrops (Brassica napus L.) 
in Ireland: Ecological and Economic Incentives for Pollinator Conservation, Journal of Insect Conservation 17(6): 1181-
1189. 
46 Bommarco, R., Marini, L. and Vaissière, B.E.,.(2012), Insect Pollination Enhances Seed Yield, Quality, and Market Value 
in Oilseed Rape, 169: 1025. 
47 Klatt, B. K., et al., (2014), Bee Pollination Improves Crop Quality, Shelf Life and Commercial Value, Proceedings of the 
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 281: 2013-2440. 
48 European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/honey_en 
49 Eilers E. J., et al., (2011), Contribution of Pollinator-Mediated Crops to Nutrients in the Human Food Supply, PLOS ONE 
6(6). 
50 Wratten, S, D., et al., (2012), Pollinator Habitat Enhancement: Benefits to Other Ecosystem Services, Agriculture, 
Ecosystems & Environment 159: 112-122. 

9 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
Pollinators are also a source of inspiration in art, music, literature, religion and technology, in 
social  relations  and  for  education  and  recreation6,  and  represent  symbols  of  identity  as 
aesthetically significant landscapes and animals. 

The  decline  of  pollinators  puts  at  risk  the  benefits  arising  from  the  ecosystem  services  they 
provide. The degree of dependency on insect pollination for crop production varies across the 
EU, but the Mediterranean countries — Italy, Spain and Greece — are particularly dependent 
and  therefore  vulnerable  to  pollinator  losses6.  While  EU  crop  production  has  not  yet 
experienced  large-scale  repercussions  from  pollinator  decline,  global  examples  provide 
invaluable insights into what could happen.  

In  some  parts  of  China,  apples  have  been  human-pollinated  after  the  decline  of  native 
pollinators.  Alternative  strategies  failed  and  many  farmers  replaced  apples  with  other 
crops51,52.  

In California, almond orchards — representing around 80 % of world almond production — 
depend  on  honeybees  for  pollination.  High  levels  of  overwintering  colony  losses  and 
increased  demand  for  pollination  raised  concerns  about  the  dependency  on  one  pollinator 
species. While wild pollinators could provide a solution, they would require natural habitats 
in what is otherwise a very intensive agricultural landscape53. 

The  contribution  of  pollinators  to  nutritional  security  and  a  healthy  diet  is  potentially 
significantly higher than reflected in estimates of their contribution to the quantity of yield or 
its market value. The decline of pollinators could lead to malnutrition and associated health 
problems, especially in poorer areas of the world54,55. 

The  decline  of  pollinators  also  impacts  wild  plants.  Recorded  declines  of  animal-pollinated 
wild  plants  have  mirrored  the  decline  of  pollinators,  and  this  relation  has  been  highlighted 
especially by local extinctions of functionally linked plant and pollinator species19,56.  

4.  CAUSES OF POLLINATOR DECLINE 

The  current  scientific  knowledge  suggests  that  there  is  no  one  single  driver  of  pollinator 
decline.  The  IPBES  report6  lists  the  following  threats  to  pollinators:  land-use  change, 
intensive agricultural management and pesticide use, environmental pollution, invasive alien 
species,  diseases  and  climate  change.  The  report  provides  a  comprehensive  review  of  the 
existing  evidence  on  these  direct  drivers.  The  European  Red  List  also  presents  a  valuable 
source  of  information  as  it  identifies  threats  per  species.  This  section  provides  a  brief 
description of each direct driver.  

51 Partap, U. and Ya, T., (2012), The Human Pollinators of Fruit Crops in Maoxian County, Sichuan, China, Mountain 
Research and Development 32(2):176-186. 
52 Partap, U.M.A., Partap, T.E.J. and Yonghua, H.E., (2001), Pollination Failure in Apple Crop and Farmers’ Management 
Strategies in Hengduan mountains, China, Acta Hortic, 561, 225-230. 
53 Klein, A., et al., (2012), Wild Pollination Services to California Almond Rely on Semi‐Natural Habitat, Journal of Applied 
Ecology, 49: 723-732. 
54 Smith, M. R., et al., (2015), Effects of Decreases of Animal Pollinators on Human Nutrition and Global Health: a 
Modelling Analysis, The Lancet 386.10007: 1964-1972. 
55 Chaplin-Kramer, R., et al., (2014), Global Malnutrition Overlaps with Pollinator-Dependent Micronutrient Production, 
Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 281:20141799. 
56 Vanbergen, A.J., et al., (2014), Status and Value of Pollinators and Pollination Services, Department for Environment, 
Food and Rural Affairs, 53pp. 

10 

 
                                                 
Pollinators  are  negatively  impacted  by  land-use  changes,  which  increase  landscape 
fragmentation and reduce the availability of pollinator habitats and their connectivity. These 
impact land cover important for pollinators (vegetation) and are driven by different types of 
land uses — agriculture, forestry, urbanisation and infrastructure. Habitats provide food and 
nesting resources for pollinators, and their loss or deterioration in quality reduces pollinator 
richness and their abundance. Particularly vulnerable are specialist species which depend on 
specific  types  of  plants.  The  effects  are  manifested  at  different  spatial  scales.  The  link 
between  declines  of  pollinators  and  historical  landscape  alterations  is  well  established,  in 
particular  for  agricultural  landscapes  in  north-west  Europe21,57.  A  number  of  studies58,59 
reported  negative  impacts  resulting  from  urban  sprawl  and  infrastructure  development  on 
pollinators. The latter is also listed on the European Red List as a significant threat to  bees. 
However,  the  impact  depends  on  the  context:  urban  areas  could  also  act  as  a  refuge  to 
pollinators in a wider landscape deprived of floral resources60. 

Intensive  agricultural  management  practices  such  as  high  use  of  agrochemicals 
(pesticides61  and  fertilisers)  and  intensively  performed  tillage,  grazing  or  mowing  are  well-
established  pressures  leading  to  the  decline  of  diversity  and  abundance  of  pollinators.  They 
reduce food and nesting resources by creating homogenous landscapes, and affect pollinators 
directly through the use of pesticides. High use of fertilisers and herbicides, overgrazing and 
too intensive mowing reduce wild plant diversity in arable land and grassland. This leads to 
the  disappearance  of  diverse  surrounding  flora  and  in  this  way  the  loss  of  season-long 
flowering  resources,  which  threatens  the  viability  of  pollinator  populations,  especially  in 
monoculture landscapes with little surrounding (semi-)natural areas. Tillage negatively affects 
ground-nesting bees as it disturbs soil surface. 

Farmland  abandonment  may  also  negatively  impact  pollinators.  Extensively-managed 
agricultural areas often support high-quality pollinator habitats like herb-rich grasslands. The 
abandonment of agricultural activities — like grassland mowing and grazing — leads to their 
disappearance. 

Pesticides  can  affect  pollinators  directly  (this  is  the  case  of  insecticides  or  fungicides)  or 
indirectly  (herbicides).  Herbicides  reduce  the  availability  of  floral  resources  on  which 
pollinators  depend  (see  the  previous  paragraphs)  in  the  intended  areas  of  use,  while 
insecticides have the highest potential to harm pollinators. The impacts are determined by the 
toxicity of the active substance and the level of exposure. Exposure depends on the use and 
properties of the active substance, the environment and the biology of pollinators. The effects 
can be lethal or sub-lethal. ‘Sub-lethal’ effects reduce the vitality of pollinators, for example 
by  impairing  foraging  behaviour  or  immunity,  and  make  them  more  susceptible  to  other 
pressures.  Pollinators  can  be  exposed  to  a  mixture  of  pesticides  rather  than  just  one,  which 
may lead to combined effects (known as ‘cocktail effects’). Such interactions are complex and 
not fully researched. While the wide effects of pesticides on pollinators are well-established 
through studies in controlled conditions, field studies are rare and inconclusive. In particular, 
further research is needed on sub-lethal effects in realistic conditions over the long term. In 
recent times, research has focused on the impacts of neonicotinoid insecticides.  

57 Goulson D., Lye, G. C., and Darvill, B., (2008), Decline and Conservation of Bumble Bees, Annual Review of 
Entomology;53: 191-208. 
58 Ahrne, K., Bengtsson, J., and Elmqvist, T., (2009), Bumble Bees (Bombus spp) Along a Gradient of Increasing 
Urbanization, PLoS ONE, 4. 
59 Bates, A.J., (2011), Changing Bee and Hoverfly Pollinator Assemblages Along an Urban-Rural Gradient, PLoS ONE, 6. 
60 Hall, D. M., et al., (2017), The City as a Refuge for Insect Pollinators, Conservation Biology, 31: 24-29. 
61 The term ‘pesticides’ in this document refers to plant protection products as defined in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. 

11 

 
                                                 
While  the  impact  of  environmental  pollutants  other  than  pesticides  has  not  been 
comprehensively  researched,  their  impact  on  pollinators  has  been  reported  for  heavy 
metals62,63,  air  pollution64,  toxic  chemicals  (e.g.  selenium65)  and  light  pollution22,66,67.  Light 
pollution affects nocturnal pollinator species like moths, particularly in the urban areas.   

The effects of invasive alien species on pollinators depend on the context, i.e. on the species 
in  question  and  the  environment  in  which  it  operates.  An  example  of  an  invasive  alien 
predator  that  predates  directly  on  pollinators  is  the  yellow-legged  hornet  (Vespa  velutina), 
which was recently introduced to Europe and has now been added to the list of invasive alien 
species of union concern under the EU Invasive Alien Species Regulation. The yellow-legged 
hornet  is  harmful  to  honeybees68,  while  its  impacts  on  wild  pollinators  are  not  yet  well 
understood.  Invasive  alien  plants  can  change  native  plant-pollinator  relations  in  the 
ecosystem.  They  can  outcompete  native  plants  for  flower  visitation,  which  might  lead  to 
lower reproduction success by the latter. The implications of the spread of alien plant species 
for  pollinators  as  well  as  for  the  ecosystem  are  complex  and  uncertain,  and  require  further 
research.  Finally,  the  introduction  of  invasive  alien  pollinators  can  harm  native  pollinators 
through competition for food and nesting resources or spread of diseases and pathogens. 

Diseases  (parasites  and  pathogens)  are  considered  to  impact  primarily  managed  pollinators 
like  honeybees.  While  the  spread  of  diseases  from  managed  to  wild  pollinators  has  been 
demonstrated and shown to present a threat to some wild species, the impacts are not yet well-
known. Parasites and pathogens are not new to wild pollinators as they are naturally exposed 
to  native parasites  and pathogens, but  strong exposure to non-native  species  in  combination 
with other pressures like poor nutrition, pesticides and other pollutants can make them more 
susceptible to this threat.      

Climatic  conditions  are  the  main  factor  determining  the  European-wide  distribution  of 
pollinators.  Climate  change  already  impacts  pollinators  both  through  gradual  shifts  and 
extreme weather events69,70,71,72. In response to climate change, many pollinators have already 
shifted  their  distribution  and  ranges73  and  will  likely  continue  to  do  so.  Their  adaptation 
success will depend on the dispersal ability of the species and on the availability of suitable 
habitats  along  the  migration  route.  Conversely,  some  studies  point  to  pollinators  enhancing 

62 Nieminen, M., et al., (2001), The Effect of Metals on the Mortality of Parnassius apollo Larvae (Lepidoptera: 
Papilionidae), Journal of Insect Conservation 5(1): 1-7. 
63 Moroń, D., et al., (2012), Abundance and Diversity of Wild Bees Along Gradients of Heavy Metal Pollution, Journal of 
Applied Ecology 49(1): 118-125. 
64 Fuentes, J.D., et al., (2016), Air pollutants degrade floral scents and increase insect foraging times, Atmospheric 
Environment 141: 361-374. 
65 Hladun, K. R., et al., (2012), Selenium Toxicity to Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Pollinators: Effects on Behaviors and 
Survival, PloS One 7(4). 
66 van Langevelde F., et al., (2018), Declines in Moth Populations Stress the Need for Conserving Dark Nights, Glob Change 
Biol. 24: 925-932. 
67 Geffen, K.G., et al., (2014), Artificial Light at Night Causes Diapause Inhibition and Sex-Specific Life History Changes in 
a Moth, Ecology and Evolution 4(11): 2082-2089. 
68 Monceau, K., et al., (2014), Vespa Velutina: a New Invasive Predator of Honeybees in Europe, Journal of Pest Science 
87(1): 1-16. 
69 Ploquin, E.F., Herrera, J.M. and Obeso, J.R, (2013), Bumblebee Community Homogenization After Uphill Shifts in 
Montane Areas of Northern Spain, Oecologia 173(4): 1649-1660. 
70 Wilson, R.J., et al., (2007), An Elevational Shift in Butterfly Species Richness and Composition Accompanying Recent 
Climate Change,  Global Change Biology 13(9): 1873-1887. 
71 Pöyry, J., et al., (2009), Species Traits Explain Recent Range Shifts of Finnish Butterflies, Global Change Biology 15(3): 
732-743. 
72 Settele J., Bishop J. and Potts S.G., (2016), Climate Change Impacts on Pollination, Nature Plants, 2 (7) 16092. 
73 Parmesan, C, et al., (1999), Poleward Shifts in Geographical Ranges of Butterfly Species Associated with Regional 
Warming, Nature 399(6736): 579. 

12 

 
                                                 
plant  yield  recovery  after  extreme  weather  events72.  Therefore  choices  related  to  land-use 
changes and land management will play an important role in the abundance and composition 
of pollinator communities, with effects on ecosystem functioning and resilience.      

Direct  drivers  of  the  pollinator  decline  usually  do  not  act  in  isolation,  but  in  combination. 
Their  interaction  can  produce  synergistic  effects  exerting  additional  pressure  on  pollinator 
populations. Figure 3 illustrates potential avenues for single and combined impacts of these 
drivers. 

Figure 3: Single and combined impacts of different pressures on pollinators and 
pollination (source: IPBES6) 

5.  CURRENT ACTION AND CHALLENGES 

5.1.  Actions in EU Member States 

There  are  a  number  of  national  and  regional  pollinator  strategies  in  EU  Member  States.  A 
recent  report  for  the  Commission74  shows  that  there  are  at  least  six  national  or  regional 

74 Underwood, E., Darwin, G. and Gerritsen, E., (2017), Pollinator Initiatives in EU Member States: Success Factors and 
Gaps, Report for European Commission under contract for provision of technical support related to Target 2 of the EU 
Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 — maintaining and restoring ecosystems and their services ENV.B.2/SER/2016/0018. Institute 
for European Environmental Policy, Brussels. 

13 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
strategies  or  action  plans  addressing  wild  pollinator  conservation  in  EU  Member  States.  A 
number of others are planned or in preparation. 
Belgium has the Federal Bee Plan 2017-201975, which aims to halt the loss of both wild and 
domesticated pollinators. However, it focuses on honeybees. There are no regional strategies 
focused on wild pollinators. Red lists of bees in Belgium are being prepared. Flanders has a 
butterfly  monitoring  network.  The  Federal  Pesticide  Reduction  Programme  (2013-2017)  set 
up  coordinated  monitoring  of  the  effects  of  pesticides  on  bees76.  Awareness  of  wild 
pollinators in Belgium has increased in recent years, in particular since 2015 thanks to both 
public and non-governmental organisation (NGO) initiatives and campaigns. 
France  started  implementing  a  national  action  plan  for  pollinators77  in  2017.  The  Plan  de 
developpement  durable  de  l’apiculture  (2013  -2018)  also  promotes  pollinator  habitats  and 
addresses  the  impact  of  pesticides  on  honeybees.  The  Ecophyto  II  programme78  aims  to 
reduce pesticide use by 25 % by 2020 (and by 50 % by 2025), which is expected to ease the 
pressure  on  pollinators.  Several  initiatives79  support  research  and  monitoring  of  pollinators. 
France has also undertaken several awareness raising and collaboration initiatives such as the 
meadows  award80  or  the  LIFE  project  URBANBEES81.  Other  initiatives  address  the  road 
network, sand quarries, electricity grids and urban areas.  

Germany  does  not  have  a  dedicated  pollinator  strategy  at  national  level  but  pollinator 
initiatives  take  place  under  the  national  biodiversity  strategy.  NGOs  recently  developed  a 
proposal  for  a  national  action  plan  for  bees82.  The  Helmholtz  Centre  for  Environmental 
Research  (UFZ)  has  been  monitoring  butterflies  since  2012.  Several  initiatives83  have  been 
launched  to  improve  knowledge.  The  ‘Deutschland  summt!’  initiative84  (bee  projects  in 
German cities), the ‘Wildbienenschutz’ project85 (on protecting wild bees), and others seek to 
raise  awareness  and  improve  collaboration  on  pollinators.  The  new  government  has 
announced the development of a national action plan to counter the disappearance of insects, 
which is now being prepared.  

In  Ireland  and  Northern  Ireland  pollinators  are  addressed  by  the  All-Ireland  Pollinator 
Plan86  (AIPP).  It  was  launched  by  a  multi-stakeholder  steering  group  and  published  by  the 
National Biodiversity Data Centre (NBDC). It identifies 81 actions to make farmland, public 
and  private  land  pollinator  friendly,  raise  awareness  of  pollinators,  support  beekeepers, 
expand knowledge on pollinators and collect evidence to measure success. The AIPP has been 
used  as  a  model  for  developing  national  pollinator  plans  in  Norway  and  the  Netherlands87. 
The NBDC also set up the All-Ireland Bumblebee Monitoring Scheme88 in 2011.  

75 Le Plan fédéral Abeilles 2017-2019 at https://www.health.belgium.be/fr/le-plan-federal-abeilles-2017-2019  
76 Le programme fédéral de réduction des pesticides pour la période 2013-2017 at 
https://www.health.belgium.be/en/sustainable-use  
77 http://www.insectes.org/opie/pdf/3993_pagesdynadocs570e1d6156925.pdf  
78 http://agriculture.gouv.fr/sites/minagri/files/151022_ecophyto.pdf  
79 Examples are the Spipoll programme at http://www.spipoll.org/ and FlorArbeilles at http://www.florabeilles.org/  
80  http://www.concours-agricole.com/concours/les-prairies-fleuries  
81  http://www.urbanbees.eu  
82  https://www.bund.net/umweltgifte/pestizide/bienen-und-pestizide/bienenaktionsplan  
83 Examples are the BienABest at http://www.bienabest.de/index.php?id=59035, and the Institute for Bee Protection at 
https://www.julius-kuehn.de/bienenschutz/ 
84 http://www.deutschland-summt.de  
85  https://www.wildbienenschutz.de/  
86 http://www.biodiversityireland.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/All-Ireland%20Pollinator%20Plan%202015-2020.pdf  
87 http://www.biodiversityireland.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/All-Ireland-Pollinator-Plan_progress-report-year-1_Dec-
2016.pdf  
88 http://www.biodiversityireland.ie/record-biodiversity/surveys/bumblebee-monitoring-scheme/  

14 

 
                                                 
The Netherlands adopted a national pollination strategy89 in January 2018, which focuses on 
wild  bee  species.  The  ‘Action  Programme  Bee  Health’90  also  addresses  the  impact  of 
pesticides on food supply and biodiversity. Butterflies and night moths have been monitored 
since 1990. The project ‘Nederland Zoemt’ launched in 2017 identified hundreds of local and 
regional  pollinator  initiatives  throughout  the  country,  such  as  information  dissemination 
platforms91,  and  several  public  awareness  campaigns.  These  mostly  bottom-up  and  multi-
stakeholder approaches have brought in public and private partners such as beer brewers, road 
builders, mayors of municipalities, supermarket chains and drinking water companies. 

While it has no specific pollinator strategy, different initiatives have taken place in Slovenia, 
and  public  interest  in  and  awareness  about  pollinators  is  high.  Pollinators  are  primarily 
protected  by  the  conservation  of  their  habitats.  Natura  2000  sites  currently  cover  37 %  of 
Slovenia,  and  other  nationally  protected  areas  cover  13 %.  In  2014,  the  Slovenian 
Beekeeper’s Association launched an initiative to declare 20 May as a World Bee Day. With 
the support of the Slovenian government, the proposal was adopted by the UN in 201792. 

Spain  is  currently  preparing  a  nationally  coordinated  initiative  for  wild  pollinators.  Several 
research93 and awareness raising94 initiatives are being carried out by research institutes. The 
national  biodiversity  database95  contains  species  records  of  threatened  pollinator  species  on 
the  Spanish  Red  List,  and  the  Spanish  National  Council  for  Research  (CSIC)  is  currently 
updating the atlas of bee fauna in Spain. Butterfly abundance has been monitored in Catalonia 
since 199496. 

In the UK, there are three regional pollinator strategies (England, Wales, and Scotland). The 
UK government funded a review of research on the status and value of pollinators in the UK, 
which informed these regional strategies. A pollinator-monitoring programme recently started 
(see  Box  4).  Butterflies  have  been  monitored  in  the  UK  since  1976.  The  UK  has  also 
developed  a  national  indicator  of  pollinator  population  change  (see  Box  4).  Similar  to  the 
Wild Beeline initiative in the Netherlands, the B-Lines initiative97 in the UK aims to create a 
network of wildflower-rich areas providing routes across the country for pollinators. 

Box 4: UK pollinator monitoring scheme approach and pollinator indicator 

The UK scheme combines three approaches for gathering information98:  
1) Systematic sampling of pollinator diversity and abundance in 75 1 km2 grid squares, varying in % 
of  farm  and  semi-natural  land  cover,  using  a  1-person,  1-day  protocol  comprising  pan  trapping, 
flower-insect timed counts, floral abundance counts and rapid habitat classification, targeting 4 visits 
per site per year; 

89 https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/rijksoverheid/documenten/rapporten/2018/01/22/nationale-bijenstrategie-bed--
breakfast-for-bees/DEF+webversie+Nat+Bijenstrategie_jan+2018.PDF  
90 https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/rijksoverheid/documenten/brieven/2013/11/11/actieprogramma-
bijengezondheid/actieprogramma-bijengezondheid-1.pdf  
91 www.bestuivers.nl  
92 https://www.worldbeeday.org/en/  
93 Examples are Poll-Ole-GI SUDOE at http://pollolegi.eu/es/; BEEFUN project at https://bartomeuslab.com/beefun/;  and 
Agripa at http://p-rta2013-00042-c10-00.agripa.org/entidades-participativas 
94 Examples are the Real Jardin Botanico at 
http://www.rjb.csic.es/jardinbotanico/jardin/index.php?Cab=6&SubCab=587&len=es&Pag=697; and the GEPEC at 
https://gepec.cat/informat_fauna_flora.php  
95 http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/servicios/banco-datos-naturaleza/Eidos_acceso.aspx  
96 Catalan Butterfly Monitoring Scheme, http://www.catalanbms.org/  
97 https://www.buglife.org.uk/b-lines-hub  
98 Vanbergen, A. J., (2017), "A Potential EU Framework for Pollinator Monitoring?", Presentation at KIP-INCA workshop 
23 October 2017, DG Environment, Brussels. 

15 

 
                                                 
2)  Flower-insect  timed  counts  carried  out  by  volunteers  in  any  urban  or  countryside  location  who 
observe  insect  flower  visitation  for  a  standard  amount  of  time  with  online  submission  using  the 
iRecord platform; 

3)  Support  to  the  ongoing  non-systematic  collection  of  pollinator  occurrence  by  volunteer  expert 
taxonomists belonging to biological recording societies, with refinement and development of statistical 
models by scientists/statisticians to extract trend estimates and develop indices from these long-term 
datasets. 

UK national indicator status of pollinating insects99 

The  indicator  illustrates  changes  in  pollinator  distribution  (bees  and  hoverflies)  in  the  UK.  The 
indicator is based on 389 species (147 species of bee and 242 species of hoverfly) of pollinator, and 
measures changes in the number of 1 km grid squares across the UK in which they were recorded in 
any given year — this is referred to as the ‘occupancy index’. 

5.2.  Action at EU level 

Like all biodiversity, pollinators know no borders. Species move freely across Europe and are 
affected by different pressures. The EU has already established a range of measures that are 
beneficial to all pollinators, notably under environment and health policies (in particular the 
Birds and Habitats Directives and EU legislation on pesticides) as well as under the common 
agricultural  policy,  the  cohesion  policy  and  the  research  and  innovation  policy.  In  addition, 
the  EU  supports  domesticated  pollinators  by  way  of  national  apiculture  programmes100  and 
bee health efforts101. This section outlines key EU policies for pollinators. 
The  EU  biodiversity  strategy  to  2020102  aims  to  halt  the  loss  of  biodiversity  and  the 
degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020. Pollinators play a vital part in this and 
benefit from various actions under the strategy, in particular (i) the full implementation of the 
Birds  Directive103  and  Habitats  Directive104;  (ii)  maintenance  and  restoration  of  ecosystems 
including  through  green  infrastructure105;  (iii)  integration  of  biodiversity  into  agricultural 
policies;  and  (iv)  combatting  invasive  alien  species106.  These  actions  help  maintain  and 
restore habitats for pollinators and mitigate direct threats like invasive alien species. However, 
the  mid-term  review  of  the  strategy107  in  2015  showed  that  insufficient  or  no  significant 
progress  has  been  made  on  these  actions  except  for  the  invasive  alien  species.  MAES 
(Mapping  and  Assessment  of  Ecosystems  and  their  Services)108  provides  an  integrated 
analytical  framework  and  set  of  indicators  for  mapping  and  assessing  the  condition  of 
ecosystems in the EU. It will enable an integrated assessment of the decline of pollinators, its 
impact on society and the economy, together with adequate policy responses. In this regard, 
KIP  INCA109  has  produced  a  first  experimental  pollination  account110.  These  accounts  are 

99 http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6851  
100 https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/honey/programmes_en   
101 https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/live_animals/bees/health_en   
102 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0244  
103 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0147  
104 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31992L0043  
105 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0249 
106 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1417443504720&uri=CELEX:32014R1143  
107 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52015DC0478  
108 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/index_en.htm  
109 KIP-INCA is an EU project aiming to design and implement an integrated accounting system for ecosystems and their 
services. The accounts use datasets which are regularly produced at EU level, such as land cover data and agricultural 
statistics, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/capital_accounting/index_en.htm  
110 Vallecillo S., et al., (2018), "Ecosystem Services Accounting: Part I — Outdoor Recreation and Rrop Rollination", 
EUR 29024 EN; Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 

16 

 
                                                 
based on pollinator distribution maps, the location of ecosystems that support pollinators, and 
the  distribution  of  a  selection  of  crops  that  are  dependent  on  pollinators.  The  accounts  use 
datasets  which  are  regularly  produced  at  EU  level,  such  as  land  cover  data  and  agricultural 
statistics.   
The  common  agricultural  policy  (CAP)  2014-2020111  provides  opportunities  to  support 
pollinators in agricultural areas and wider rural countryside, including in Natura 2000 areas.  
The  cross-compliance112  that  links  the  granting  of  CAP  support  to  the  application  of  basic 
environmental  requirements,  such  as  the  Habitats  Directive  and  Birds  Directive  for 
biodiversity and good agricultural and environmental conditions113 (GAEC 7 on retention of 
landscape features), may have positive effects on pollinators. 
Under the first pillar114, the greening practices accounting for 30 % of national direct payment 
envelopes  reward  farmers  for  respecting  three  mandatory  practices  that  cover  (i)  crop 
diversification;  (ii)  maintenance  of  permanent  grasslands  including  the  protection  of 
environmentally  valuable  permanent  grasslands  situated  in  Natura  2000  areas;  and  (iii) 
Ecological  Focus  Areas  (EFAs)115.  For  pollinators,  the  most  relevant  are  EFAs  —  in 
particular  landscape  features  —  and  the  permanent  grasslands  measure,  in  particular  those 
designated as environmentally sensitive permanent grasslands.  

Recent  evaluations  of  the  greening  measures  showed  that  the  impact  of  these  measures  on 
pollinators  is  still  unknown.  While  the  EFAs  were  implemented  on  10 %  of  the  arable  land 
falling under the obligation, uptake of the most beneficial measures for pollinators has been 
limited116.  However,  some  positive  examples  do  exist  in  several  countries.  Landscape 
features, multi-annual N-fixing forage crops and land lying fallow could be beneficial if their 
uptake is increased and appropriate management is followed. In 2017, the use of pesticides in 
on  productive  type  of  EFAs  has  been  prohibited117.  Furthermore,  land  lying  fallow  for 
melliferous plants (pollen- and nectar-rich plants) in EFAs has been introduced, offering more 
possibilities to strengthen the positive effects on pollinators118. 
Under the second pillar119, rural development programmes can support measures that deliver 
positive effects on habitats for pollinators or reduce the impacts of pesticides. These measures 
include  (i)  non-productive  investment  support  (e.g.  for  creating  new  hedges);  (ii)  agri-
environment  climate  measures  for  creating  a  favourable  environment  for  pollinators  or 
promoting  the  sustainable  use  of  pesticides  (integrated  pest  management);  (iii)  support  to 
Natura 2000 and to organic farming; (iv) knowledge transfer, education and training; (v) farm 
advisory  services  for  farmers;  (vi)  cooperation measures;  and  (vii) the European  Innovation 
Partnership120. 

The  most  relevant  measures  are  agri-environment  climate  measures,  Natura  2000  payments 
and  organic  farming.  A  number  of  rural  development  programmes  have  included  measures 
specific to pollinators, mostly in the form of flower strips. Horizontal measures like advisory 

111 https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-overview_en  
112 https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/cross-compliance_en  
113 https://marswiki.jrc.ec.europa.eu/wikicap/index.php/Good_Agricultural_and_Environmental_Conditions_%28GAEC%29  
114 Supported by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF). 
115 https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/direct-support/greening_en  
116 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52017DC0152  
117 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2017/1155/oj  
118 Regulation (EU) 2017/2393, OJ L 350/34 of 29.12.2017 
119 Supported by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). 
120 https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/european-innovation-partnership-agricultural  

17 

 
                                                 
services,  knowledge  transfer,  cooperation  and  LEADER121  measures  are  also  important  to 
strengthen the above measures. 

The  EU  legislative  framework  on  pesticides,  which  deals  with  their  approval  and  use, 
consists of two key components. Directive 2009/128/EC122 provides for a range of actions to 
achieve  a  sustainable  use  of  pesticides  in  the  EU  by  reducing  the  risks  and  impacts  of 
pesticide use on the environment, including pollinators. Member States were required to adopt 
national  action  plans  by  2012  and  review  them  at  least  every  5  years.  In  October  2017,  a 
Commission report indicated insufficient progress in the implementation of the Directive123. It 
concluded  among  others  that  Member  States  should  improve  their  plans  significantly  and 
establish more precise and measurable targets.  

Under  the  provisions  of  Regulation  (EC)  1107/2009,  an  active  substance  used  in  a  plant 
protection  product  can  only  be  allowed  on  the  market  if,  following  a  comprehensive  risk 
assessment, it is established that it has no unacceptable effects on honeybees and other non-
target  organisms.  Following  a  request  from  the  Commission,  the  European  Food  Safety 
Authority (EFSA) prepared and published a guidance document124 in 2013 to strengthen the 
current risk assessment scheme for honeybees and added schemes for wild bees. In the same 
year,  the  Commission  restricted  the  use  of  three  neonicotinoid  pesticides125  and  fipronil126 
after  evaluations  by  EFSA127  revealed  that  they  pose  a  high  risk  to  honeybees.  In  February 
2018, the EFSA published the updated assessment128, confirming that most uses of the three 
neonicotinoid  pesticides  represent  a  risk  to  wild  bees  and  honeybees.  The  Commission's 
proposal to further restrict the use of three neonicotinoid pesticides was endorsed by Member 
States on 27 April 2018129. 

The EU Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 supports investments in growth and jobs and European 
territorial cooperation. Environmental sustainability is an integral part of its socio-economic 
objectives. The funds underpinning the policy (ERDF, CF and ESF)130 provide opportunities 
to  support  pollinator  habitats  in  urban  areas  as  well  as  in  the  wider  countryside.  These  can 
come  in  particular  in  the  form  of  (i)  investments  in  protecting  and  restoring  nature  and 
biodiversity;  (ii)  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation;  and  (iii)  sustainable  urban 
development.  These  can  also  support  the  conservation  of  pollinators  at  landscape  scale  by 
deploying  green  infrastructure.  The  cohesion  policy  can  support  territorial  cooperation  and 
joint  actions  on  pollinators  through  Interreg131  (for  example  SAPOLL132)  and  local  actions 
through community-led local development133. 

The  EU  framework  programme  for  research  and  innovation  (Horizon  2020)  aims  to 
boost top level research in the EU that addresses major social, environmental and economic 

121 https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-development-2014-2020_en  
122 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32009L0128  
123 https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/pesticides_sup_report-overview_en.pdf  
124 https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3295  
125 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2013/485/oj  
126 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R0781  
127 EFSA Journal 2013;11(1):3067 [68 pp.], EFSA Journal 2013;11(1):3068. [55 pp.], EFSA Journal 2013;11(1):3066 [58 
pp.] and EFSA Journal 2013;11(5):3158 [51 pp.]. 
128 EFSA Journal 2018;16(2):5179 [59 pp.], EFSA Journal 2018;16(2):5178 [113 pp.] and EFSA Journal 2018;16(2):5177 
[86 pp.]. 
129 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1519297055872&uri=CELEX:32018R0113  
130 Support through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund (CF) and the European Social 
Fund (ESF). 
131 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/  
132 http://sapoll.eu/  
133 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/community_en.pdf  

18 

 
                                                 
issues  and  challenges.  Through  these  investments,  the  programme  can  support  research  on 
pollinators.  Actions  under  Societal  Challenge  2  (food  security,  sustainable  agriculture  and 
forestry)  and  Societal  Challenge  5  (climate  action  and  the  environment)  are  of  particular 
relevance.  A  number  of  projects  under  Horizon  2020  are  set  to  improve  knowledge  on 
pollinators, for example: 

 
 

 
 

 

‘Bee health and sustainable pollination’134; 
‘Functional  biodiversity  —  effective 
predators’135; 
‘Making European beekeeping healthy and sustainable’136; 
‘Biodiversity  in  action  —  B  —  Capitalising  on  native  biodiversity  in  farmland 
landscape’137; and 
‘Integrated health approaches and alternatives to pesticide use’138.  

interplay  of  crop  pollinators  and  pest 

the  European 

Innovation  Partnership 

The  previous  programmes  supported  the  ALARM  and  STEP  projects  (see  Box  2). 
‘Agricultural  Productivity  and 
Furthermore, 
Sustainability’  can  also  promote  innovation  and  knowledge  transfer  on  aspects  related  to 
biodiversity, including high nature value. 
LIFE139,  the  EU  programme  for  the  environment  and  climate  action,  can  offer  funding 
opportunities to develop and demonstrate best practices and solutions for the conservation of 
pollinators, including an integrated approach. It can also help improve the knowledge base on 
pollinators (e.g. by developing the European Red List) and raise awareness. Recent examples 
of projects include Urbanbees140 and PP-ICON141.  
In  addition, a number of  other  EU policies such as  climate action142, the National Emission 
Ceilings  Directive143  and  relevant  trade  and  import  rules144  make  important  contributions  to 
mitigating  threats  to  pollinators  (climate  change,  environmental  pollution  and  diseases 
respectively). 

5.3.  Action at global level 

In 2000, the Conference of Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 
established an international initiative for the conservation and sustainable use of pollinators145 
(the  International  Pollinator  Initiative).  The  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  (FAO) 
facilitates and coordinates the initiative together with other relevant organisations within the 
programme  of work on agricultural biodiversity. The initiative aims to promote coordinated 
worldwide action to: 

  monitor pollinator decline, its causes and impacts on pollination services; 
  address the lack of taxonomic data; 

134 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/sfs-16-2017.html  
135 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/sfs-28-2017.html  
136 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/sfs-07-2018.html 
137 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/sfs-01-2018-2019-2020.html  
138 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/sfs-04-2019-2020.html 
139 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2013.347.01.0185.01.ENG  
140 http://www.urbanbees.eu/  
141 http://www.pp-icon.eu/en/project  
142 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/index_en  
143 Directive (EU) 2016/2284 on the reduction of national emissions of certain atmospheric pollutants. 
144 https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/live_animals/bees/trade_en  
145 COP decision V/5 — Agricultural biological diversity: review of phase I of the programme of work and adoption of a 
multiyear work programme, https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7147  

19 

 
                                                 
  assess the economic value of animal pollination and economic impacts of its decline; 

and 

  promote  the  conservation,  restoration  and  sustainable  use  of  pollinator  diversity  in 

agriculture and related ecosystems. 

The  FAO  has  produced  regular  reports  to  summarise  key  contributions  and  outputs  (in 
2008146, 2012147, and 2014148). These reports show that the initiative has helped develop and 
implement national and regional pollinator initiatives149, produced several guidance manuals, 
and accelerated work on risk assessment methods for pesticides.  
At  the  13th  COP  meeting150  in  December  2016,  parties  requested  a  review  of  the 
implementation  of  the  initiative.  The  information  and  experience  gathered  in  the  first  phase 
(2000-2015)  of  the  initiative,  as  well  as  the  findings  of  the  IPBES  report,  have  shaped  the 
elements of a second plan of action for 2018-2030151. This will be discussed in the technical 
body of the CBD in July 2018.  

At  the  same  COP  in  2016,  the  Dutch  government  launched  the  Coalition  of  the  Willing  on 
Pollinators152  —  a  group  of  countries  that  already  have  or  plan  to  develop  a  pollinator 
strategy153.  The  coalition  has  21  signatories,  of  which  13  are  EU  Member  States154.  The 
members committed to share experiences and lessons learned, develop research on pollinator 
conservation, provide mutual support and collaborate.  

5.4.  Main challenges 

Knowledge 

While newly acquired knowledge in recent times — in particular thanks to the European Red 
List and STEP and ALARM projects — has significantly improved our understanding of the 
problem,  considerable  gaps  still  remain.  As  discussed  in  section  2,  it  is  likely  that  the  gaps 
conceal a problem that is far bigger than imagined. Moreover, the bulk of current knowledge 
comes from north-west Europe, while biodiversity hotspot regions like the Mediterranean are 
under-researched. The key  prerequisite  for effective EU action on pollinators is  to  fill these 
knowledge  gaps.  Systematic  monitoring  of  pollinators  and  greater  research  into  the  causes 
and consequences play a key role in this. These will provide data and information on the full 
extent  of  the  decline  and  apprise  us  of  the  most  effective  mitigation  measures  and  their 
success. They will also apprise us of the current impacts that the decline has on the society as 
well as future risks. Good quality data would enable the development of robust indicators that 
would  help  to  track  EU  progress  towards  the  UN  Sustainable  Development  Goals155.  The 

146 https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-09/information/cop-09-inf-24-en.pdf     
147 https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-11/information/cop-11-inf-29-en.pdf    
148 https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-12/information/cop-12-inf-37-en.pdf     
149  These include: African Pollinator Initiative; Oceania Pollinator Initiative; European Pollinator Initiative; North American 
Pollinator Protection Campaign; Brazilian Pollinators Initiative; Iniciativa Colombiana de Polinizadores; Pollinator 
Partnership Action Plan (USA); Canadian Pollination Initiative; The National Pollinator Strategy for bees and other 
pollinators in England; All-Ireland Pollinator Plan; Plan national d’actions «France Terre de pollinisateurs» pour la 
préservation des abeilles et des insectes pollinisateurs sauvages; Dutch Pollinator Strategy, and the Swiss National Action 
Plan for Bee Health. 
150 https://www.cbd.int/conferences/2016  
151 https://www.cbd.int/sbstta/sbstta-22-sbi-2/sbstta-22-ipi-draft.pdf    
152 https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-dec-15-en.pdf   
153 https://promotepollinators.org/  
154 Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, the Netherlands, UK, 
Ireland. 
155 Monitoring of some pollinator species is already set to contribute to the process: the grassland butterfly index has been 
included in the 2018 review of the monitoring framework for the sustainable development goals, 

20 

 
                                                 
 
research capacity will need to be strengthened to ensure adequate expertise to underpin these 
knowledge  processes.  The  European  Red  List  of  Bees  has  shown  that,  next  to  pollinator 
decline, we are also witnessing a decline in bee experts.    

Mitigation measures 

While  actions  for  maintaining  and  restoring  pollinator  habitats  were  not  systematically 
researched,  existing  evidence  suggests  that  their  success  is  mixed;  in  general,  they  require 
better  targeting  and  increased  uptake.  Better  knowledge  transfer  between  researchers  and 
managers  on  the  ground  (for  example  farm  advisory  services)  and  increased  investments  to 
provide pollinators  with  habitats  in rural  and  urban  areas  will  be  necessary.  These will also 
help to alleviate the impact of climate change on pollinators by providing migration routes for 
species that cannot adapt. Instruments for reducing the risks to and impacts of pesticides on 
pollinators need to be further strengthened122,124. While some direct threats to pollinators from 
invasive  alien  species  are  known  and  can  be  tackled  through  direct  action  or  awareness 
raising, further research is needed to better understand the complex patterns of their impact. 

Collaboration and awareness raising 

Exchange of knowledge and experience and joint actions between various stakeholders is key 
to developing cost-effective measures and maximising synergies. Such an integrated approach 
requires  sufficient  collaboration  between  scientists,  policymakers,  stakeholders  and  the 
general  public.  This  is  important  in  particular  for  landscape  scale  actions.  While  there  are 
already  a  number  of  relevant  platforms,  the  capacity  needs  to  be  further  strengthened.  The 
conservation  of  pollinators  requires  broad  societal  engagement.  While  the  problem  has 
already  drawn  considerable  public  attention,  it  will  be  necessary  to  further  raise  awareness 
and  engage wider  society  as  individuals  and the  private  sector  can  lend decisive  impetus  to 
conservation actions. 

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/276524/7736915/EU+SDG+indicator+set+2018+-
+public+web+version+with+cover+note/c86cd681-a537-4f0c-9680-197f04888f12  

21