The Decline of Pollinators in Pittsburgh: Mapping Stakeholder Relationships
Assignment #2: Mapping Stakeholder Relationships
Carnegie Mellon University, Transition Design Seminar 2023
Team Complexity: Nikita Khanna, Matthew Huber, Joanne Chin, Ilona Altman
Wicked problems are always embedded within the social relationships between groups of people and living entities, and result from the conflicts and power imbalances between stakeholder groups. Effective solutions to wicked problems will require collaboration between groups that have different hopes, fears, and statuses. Nuanced stakeholder relationships must be understood clearly, so that they can serve as the basis for problem resolution. Understanding complex dynamics between stakeholders and working through them will allow us to overcome the barriers that will allow for us to transition to more sustainable and desirable long-term futures together.
Our Mapping Process
To create a map of stakeholder relationships related to the wicked problem of pollinator decline in Pittsburgh, we focused on the questions “who are the stakeholders affected?” , “What does each stakeholder group fear?”, “what does each stakeholder group hope for?”, and lastly, “what are the power imbalances between stakeholders?”.
Being able to articulate the hopes and the fears of stakeholders is important because it allows us to empathize with each of those affected by the problem. Through noticing the points of agreement between the hopes and fears of stakeholders, we are able to see where easy points of intervention might be, where different stakeholders could work together to manifest their hopes or soothe their fears. Through noticing points of conflict where the hopes and fears of stakeholders conflict, we are able to see where more difficult points of intervention are, which will require the greatest investment of time and energy to resolve.
Working to articulate the power dynamics between stakeholders is important in order to uplift voices that are often marginalized or neglected. Power in our society is almost always unequally distributed between groups, and often those that are in the position of framing a problem will put their own needs and concerns above other groups. By acknowledging the disparities between the power of different stakeholder groups affected by a wicked problem, we can better find ways to amplify voices with less power.
Because of the limited time we had to work on our assignment, we were unable to make a stakeholder map with as much depth and breadth as we would if working with communities on designing solutions for sustainable transition. If we had more time, we would conduct interviews with all of the affected stakeholders, instead of just doing secondary research. Additionally, to create a more holistic stakeholder map of all those affected by pollinator decline, we talk to a more diverse set of stakeholders. Instead, we chose to focus on five key stakeholder groups specifically related to agriculture and pesticide use. (Our system of traditional agriculture is a key part of the decline of pollinators, which you can see in our earlier post on our wicked problem map).
Who are the stakeholders affected by the decline of pollinators?
Though innumerable stakeholders are entangled in the wicked web of relations that contributes to pollinator decline in Pittsburgh and Western PA, we have chosen five to examine in detail: Native Bees of Western Pennsylvania (representative of many more nonhuman, pollinator stakeholders), the Pennsylvania Department of the Environment, Monsanto (as representative of the Agro-industrial complex), Victory Farms (as representative of small organic farms), and Sankofa Farm customers (as representative of consumers in underserved communities where access to affordable, nutritious food is challenged). Others that could easily have been included in the analysis are Suburban Developers (especially of housing on farm land or native habitat), HomeOwners Associations (where non-native species are often specified and toxically maintained monocultures enforced), Garden Clubs, Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority (PWSA as representative of utilities that control significant infrastructure, policies, and landscapes), Academic Institutions and the Scientific Establishment (as communicators and researchers), Indigenous Peoples (as representative of knowledge outside of traditions of Western Scientific Positivism), Environmental Activists and Advocates like Tree Pittsburgh, Phipps, or the Sierra Club (especially those fighting for non-human personhood), as well as many alternative representatives within our more general categories. Below we explain each of the five we’ve chosen in detail.
Native Bees
Native Bees are the most iconic and charismatic of the pollinators, participating in the pollination of an expansive variety of flowering plants. However, they are only one of many species playing important roles. Beetles, birds, bats, flies, and others also contribute directly to pollination; further yet, countless additional non-human species play roles up and down the food chain in support of pollinator well being. We specifically chose native bee species, of which there are many, because domesticated honey bees play only a supplemental role to feral insects (Garibaldi, et. al., 2013). This is not to underplay the Domesticated European Honey Bees as an important stakeholder. They too make significant contributions to pollination, face widespread colony collapse, and face many of the same perils as native bees. But the diversity of native species offers resilience and covers an even wider set of flowering plants. In some cases, apiaries containing domesticated bees, when not properly managed, can harbor diseases that spread to native populations. Most importantly, we believe that as stakeholders, native bees must be recognized as holding intrinsic value and rights as beings in their own right. In other words, we seek to avoid the anthropocentric fallacy that native bee species should only be evaluated in terms of their utility for human society.
Native bees are facing intense extinction pressures. Habitat loss, decrease in biodiversity in terms of food sources, changing weather patterns and average temperatures due to anthropogenic climate change, novel diseases, competition with invasive species, pesticides, and overuse of other harmful agricultural chemicals all contribute not only to decline in population, but to live’s consistently stressed (Mull et. al., 2022). Relative to human industry, bees and other pollinators provide an ecosystem service by increasing crop yield and in some instances providing the only viable pathway for plant fertility (Gallai et. al., 2009). It is difficult to calculate the true value provided by the pollinators’ services to agriculture, but it can certainly be measured in the billions of dollars, and billions of human lives. While many crops can exist without pollinators, such as cereals, the rich diversity of nutrients and flavors essential to human health and culture, would collapse with the complete collapse of pollinators.
The Pennsylvania Department of the Environment
The Pennsylvania Department of the Environment (DEP) is situated within an ecosystem of governmental actors, including the EPA, FDA, and NIH at the federal level, as well as municipal and county levels, and adjacent non-governmental organizations authoring and executing policy on the environment. While the purview of the DEP is the environment, it is specifically tasked with human health and wellness as pronounced in its mission statement (Department of Environmental Protection, 2023). It speaks of restoring natural resources, not natural systems or beings, betraying an intractably anthropocentric world view. Even so, many initiatives benefiting native bees and other pollinators elide human environmental concerns: eliminating pollutants, conserving habitat, combating climate change, all come into the agency’s pursuit. Stymying these pursuits, however, political division and stonewalling (enabled by voter suppression and gerrymandering), lobbying, and legal limitations conspire to constrain the power and agency of the DEP.
Monsanto
Monsanto was a massive transnational corporation focused on genetic engineering and chemical production for the agriculture industry. It was purchased, beginning in 2016, by Bayer and no longer exists in its own name. However, we chose to use Monsanto rather than Bayer because of the name’s infamy and near synonymous connotation with pesticides and monoculture. It is most famous for the production of RoundUp, DDT, Agent Orange, and genetically engineered seeds making up 26% of the global market. Its practices have often been labeled “bio-piracy” for patenting engineered seeds, leading to severe reductions in biodiversity and introduction of invasive species. Perhaps more than any single entity, Monsanto has devastated pollinators globally.
Victory Farms
Victory Farms is representative of a network of farms in the rural hinterlands of Pittsburgh where small farmers are practicing organic and regenerative agriculture. They offer CSA subscriptions to residents within the city, providing locally grown, nutrient rich produce. Farms such as Victory’s plant diverse species, use fewer or no chemicals that harm pollinators, and intermingle crop plantings with other native habitats. They draw on indigenous knowledge and practices in conjunction with modern plant science to support best practices. They directly compete with the large industrial agriculture operations served by the seeds patented by Monsanto. While their values include environmentalism, they must also be able to operate successfully within an economic framework. Supporting operations like this by leveling the playing field with Big Ag is an essential piece of the regulatory work that must be done to reverse pollinator decline.
Sankofa Farm
Sankofa Farm is an urban farm located in Homewood, an underserved neighborhood disproportionately composed of underrepresented minorities. Homewood is a food desert. We chose to include Sankofa Farm Customers as a stakeholder group because we want to include the perspective of those impacted by limited access to affordable, healthy, fresh produce as well as to the natural world and biodiversity. Residents of food deserts are often the most severely impacted by increases in costs of produce and therefore most impacted by catastrophic decreases in pollinator populations since these declines are directly linked to food prices via crop yield. Residents of food deserts are also likely to have little option but to purchase lower cost produce coming from industrialized farming procedures utilizing monocultures and chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Organic groceries are a luxury inaccessible to many in the American economy. Understanding the dominance of Monsanto in the marketplace means understanding broader systems of economic injustice. We can not look only at solutions that work for affluent eco-warriors shopping at Whole Foods or the East End Coop. Sankofa seeks to rectify this inequality by promoting local urban farming that connects people with the source of their food, natural processes, and offers food at affordable rates.
Whereas Victory Farms is located in a rural area with relatively significant habitat availability, Sankofa is located in an urban area where biodiversity is greatly diminished. The productivity of the farm is impacted directly by the health and wellbeing of urban pollinators. While pollinator populations are declining globally, their absence is particularly acute in cities. Urban initiatives within the city of Pittsburgh can help ameliorate this issue: Local pollinator gardens, DIY wildflower beds instead of lawns, bee housing, initiatives to expand urban canopies, urban farming, and educational initiatives aimed to destigmatize bees and promote organic gardening can all bolster urban pollinator populations. These alterations to the urban landscape can help not only to immediately increase pollinator population health, but also make readily visible pollinator species and their supporting vegetative habitats. Visibility can build awareness, nudge worldviews, and instigate further advocacy.
What is the power distribution of the stakeholder groups?
Power takes on many forms, but it seems the most influential types of power in this pollinator situation are that of the market and the government. First, we chose Monsanto, the DEP, and native bee species to represent stakeholders with high, medium, and low power respectively. We then decided to also include Victory Farms and Sankofa Farms consumers to further portray the varying power levels.
Native bees
Native bee species are labeled as the stakeholders with the least amount of power. They are very negatively affected by the issue (as the issue is with their deaths), and they have almost no power to stop it (since we’re causing it). Since they are bees, they cannot communicate their strife directly with us. One piece of leverage they might have is that their services are highly valuable, which means big things in the market. There is also growing support for them from nature-loving humans, especially from those who run educational programs. However, a good amount of people still fear them for their stinging capabilities.
The Pennsylvania Department of the Environment
The DEP is categorized to have ‘medium-high’ power. They are definitely connected to the problem, but are not super concerned with resolving it. This is because while the problem affects them, they are not in a dire enough position to prioritize a solution. However, if convinced, they wield a decent amount of power to help work it out. Being part of the government, their power is assigned. Their power is also limited by funding constraints. These monetary constraints only tie them up more when they have to be in charge of enacting as many dimensions of change as their resources allow, and to protocol. Money and protocol also makes this group vulnerable to pressures from Monsanto. Should Monsanto have a problem with the DEP directly, lobbyists and workarounds in the government can get involved.
Monsanto
Monsanto, as said before, is representative of the Agro-industrial complex. They hold the most power amongst the stakeholders chosen. This group exacerbates the problem, and has little to no interest in seeing it resolved since the issue helps their goals. Their power comes from their existing success in the market, and they are able to wield this monetary power to pressure other groups. As seed patent owners, they are also able to control farmers based purely on their product. Monsanto’s ultimate goal is to increase profits, so they hold onto/exercise their power in accordance. Being a large organization focused on a single clear goal makes it easy to mobilize.
Victory Farms
Victory Farms are stakeholders with ‘medium-low’ power. They are negatively affected by the decline of pollinators, as a lot of their crops are dependent on the survival of those species. They also are up against Monsanto in terms of market share. They do have a bit of social leverage as more people are more dedicated to supporting local farms, but it’s a slow growth, maybe too slow. It’s a good thing they are in a coalition, because divided they would have even less power. They also have a bit more mobility in terms of creating infrastructure that can support pollinators, but that is also a developing field of research.
Sankofa Farm
Sankofa Farm customers, representing anyone in underserved communities, are considered stakeholders with less power than Victory Farms. They are harmed by the decline of pollinators through the corresponding decline of the benefits of nature. Benefits can include better access to healthier/more sustainable foods, or even properly kept greenways. They do not have much mobility to help the problem because their main concerns are survival in the system. Unfortunately, that also means they depend on the Agro-industrial complex (not by choice), thus perpetuating it further.
What did we learn from our stakeholder map?
Clearly, with such differing groups, there were a lot of viewpoints to have to consider. Specific to this exercise, since we did not have access to the stakeholders themselves, we had to speak on behalf of such polarized groups. We had to move past our own biases of the groups represented, and, to the best of our abilities, portray nuanced hopes and fears from each group. Bees were particularly difficult as they are a whole other species, but we did our best with the research we were able to find. A piece of good news, though, is that it was no more difficult to find agreements than disagreements.
The Key Agreements Between Stakeholders
While each Stakeholder has different needs and wants they all do come to a consensus on some overarching themes.
Food security is essential.
Food Security is integral to all stakeholders be it seed patent owners (Monsanto), organic farmers, economically distressed consumers, and even pollinators. Producing crops is integral to our ecosystem and the point of integration for all stakeholders even though the reasoning behind the importance of production might be unique to each. Seed patent owners’ key objective is economic profit and hence, they focus on the production of crops because the more seeds sold, the more profits the company would earn. Similarly, organic farmers want to grow nutritional, environmentally conscious crops so they can provide healthy products to their users and gain business.
Economically distressed consumers are highly affected by food insecurity and aim at providing nourishment to their families. Proper production of crops and availability are essential for their livelihood. Our non-human stakeholders, pollinators feed on the various plants during the pollination process and gain food and nourishment through these plants.
Food Security brings together the clashing stakeholders together and becomes a common future goal.
Reduction of pollution and improvement of environmental health is essential.
Human activities have negatively impacted all realms of nature be it the air, water, soil, etc. The effects of pollution can be felt every day and now are beginning to take a toll on not only the environment but the health of all living beings be it humans or animals. Growing awareness about pollution and the need to reduce the consequences of global warming brings all Stakeholders together.
Pollinators have no say in the changes being made to the environment they live in. The chemicals in the air and water exposed to these insects are negatively impacting both their physical and mental health and reducing their ability to pollinate and reproduce. Pittsburgh’s light pollution confuses the nocturnal creatures disrupting their movements and destroying their ability to find food.
Economically distressed consumers find it hard to find a supply of fresh drinking water and are forced to consume unfiltered water which leads to health problems. The impact of pollution and global warming can be felt by Seed Patent Owners (Monsanto) as well, as they need to produce healthy seeds. Providing good quality seeds requires chemical-free irrigation and a proper climatic atmosphere which has been disrupted by pollution and global warming which leads to monetary losses. Similarly, organic farmers struggle to grow healthy crops due to the drastic change in climate and temperatures. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) aims to create policies and improve the overall environmental health.
Pollution and global warming are having an ill impact on everyone and has become a common aspiration for all stakeholders.
The Key Disagreement between Stakeholders
Monetary Profits of large corporations are hindering the pollinator’s health and leading to a decline in their species.
The importance of profits in businesses has surpassed the needs of the environment and the pollination community. Larger corporations such as Seed Patent Owners, intensive farming practices, and mono-cropping aim at spreading their businesses and making maximum profits. Their key fears include losing business to organic farmers due to the rise in knowledge about the harmful effects of pesticides and chemicals used, exposure to their environmentally degrading practices, and governmental policies that would discourage artificially engineered farming and support organically grown crops.
These corporations hold much power and are able to influence governmental associations such as the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) against policies that could harm their economic profits. The organic farmers feel threatened despite their higher quality products as they can get overlooked by the lower rates of the artificially engineered seeds. Economically distressed consumers who might be aware of the ill effects of industrially grown crops are forced to consume them because of the lack of affordability of organic products.
While bees are essential to these industries, they often rely on bred species from different parts of the world instead of the wild pollinators specific to the area. For example, millions of queens of Africanized honey bees, a mixed African species, are shipped to different parts of the United States to replace those affected by winters, diseases, etc.
The demand for money over environmental health by a few Stakeholders is harming the livelihood of pollinators and negatively impacting the lives of many stakeholder groups.
In Conclusion…
The needs and wants of stakeholders are leading them to have different fears and hopes but common ground can be developed in a few areas that might help bring the groups together. Money stands as the biggest hindrance towards the coming together of these groups as factors that lead to the economic profits of one group can have detrimental effects on the other. Keeping that in mind, we can try and bring the stakeholders together on themes they agree upon and aspire for the future state and use that as a stepping stone into change at various levels.
