No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Managed and wild bee populations are declining around the world, in part due to lost access to bee forage (i.e., nectar and pollen). As bee forage diminishes, the remaining acres become sites of contestation between beekeepers, land managers, ecologists, and regulatory agencies. This article applies a commons framing to contextualize these conflicts and attempts to resolve them. Drawing from the concepts of commons and commoning, I argue that nectar and pollen are common-pool resources for pollinators, beekeepers, and land managers, currently managed through varied access arrangements such as informal usufruct rights and pseudo-commoning practices. Like commoning, pseudo-commoning aims to collectively manage a resource through a set of protocols that involve equitable resource sharing and communication. However, because pseudo-commons are implemented from the top down, for example, from institutional actors driven in part by economic interests, they often do not result in widespread adoption on the ground. Through a case in California almond orchards, I make two additional arguments. First, because beekeepers are largely migratory and do not own the land they need for production, their subordinate position to landowners can challenge equitable bee forage management. Second, while floral pseudo-commons may aim to counter the negative effects of industrialized agricultural production (e.g., by limiting pesticide exposure to honey bees), they also provide a “fix” that supports and expands industrial agriculture by stabilizing managed bee pollination services. Increasing reliance on managed bee pollination services can thus disincentivize transitions to sustainable food production, such as adopting diversified practices that would support native bee populations and reduce the need for managed honey bees on farms.