Measures to protect and restore biodiversity in the EU depend on engagement from groups including businesses, researchers, non-governmental organisations and policymakers, and a new study has examined how these stakeholders think about pollinator conservation.
Researchers from France, Sweden and the UK interviewed 27 people drawn from businesses, research institutions, NGOs and policymaking bodies, and combined open-ended interviews with two structured exercises — rating agreement with nine statements and selecting the most and least important “values” of pollinators from a list, the European Commission informed on Thursday.
Most respondents agreed with several statements associated with what the researchers described as a “bio-ecocentric” worldview — including that animals and plants have a right to exist — and 25 disagreed that environmental regulations have placed unfair burdens on industry.
Answers diverged more on four other statements, including ones about nature’s ability to cope with human impacts, whether natural resources are sufficient to meet human needs, and whether agricultural chemicals are necessary, and eight participants showed notably anthropocentric views in this set of questions.
Food, biodiversity and 'right to exist' among top priorities
When asked to prioritise values, respondents most often selected pollinators’ role in sustaining nature and biodiversity, followed by their role in producing a wide variety of human foods.
A “non-use” value — pollinators’ fundamental right to exist — was chosen by 10 participants, while cultural values such as pollinators’ contribution to art, leisure and recreation, and their natural beauty were most commonly selected as least important.
Participants tended to rate both “use” values (how humans benefit from pollinators) and “non-use” values (why pollinators matter in their own right and in ecosystems) as important regardless of worldview, and respondents across sectors recognised pollinators’ intrinsic right to exist.
The researchers said the study’s participants were selected to represent influential sectors and for expertise rather than chosen at random, meaning the findings are unlikely to reflect the views of other groups such as consumers, farmers and local enterprises.
The study was published in "People and Nature" by Uwingabire and colleagues in 2025.
