Bumblebee strategy review

A Conservation Strategy for the Shrill carder bee, Bombus sylvarum in England and Wales 2020-2030


 Stakeholder engagement


  • There was a separate Shrill carder bee conservation planning workshop with stakeholders which is referred to in the strategy as well as Threat analysis workshop
  • Strategy steering group was set up There was a list of partners and stakeholders provided in a form of everyone’s logos


  • Individual stakeholder groups were not listed in the strategy, the separate publication about conservation workshop is available from the charity on request and therefore it was hard to assess how well the stakeholders were consulted and involved
  • No details on stakeholders in terms of their roles or their rating

 Situation analysis

  • In this strategy document, biodiversity targets were defined as 6 individual Goals


  • Scope and biodiversity targets defined really well
  • Biodiversity target researched well and included sections on species status, distribution and abundance, species ecology
  • Behaviours identified for the main threat to the species and some of these had groups assigned
  • Some confidence was assigned in a form of highlighting knowledge gaps and research needed (I guess these would similar as low confidence actions)


  • Threats were identified but not rated in terms of extent, irreversibility and severity
  • Only the main threat had causal behaviours identified and not the other
  • No contributing factors identified to go with behaviours, no barriers or benefits of these
  • Analysing threats and behaviours would be clearer if it was presented in a figure rather than only text form

Planning the work

  • In this strategy document, each Goal (defined biodiversity target) was subdivided into Actions (Work packages)


  • This section of the document was very nicely presented in colour-coded tables and well defined, each previously defined Goal had a number of Actions assigned to it
  • Each Action was subdivided into Action type, which nicely correlated with Work package type, in their case these covered Policy, Awareness, Habitat Management (which would correlate with enabling condition, behavioural change and target restoration work)
  • Each action also had clearly assigned Responsible organisation, timeline, resources, and a scale of action (national / local)
  • Control was assigned in a form of listing responsible organisations for each action


  • Some rating categories were missing from each action including strategic confidence, cost and impact
  • No confidence levels assigned

Setting the monitoring approach

  • Monitoring and evaluation plan is yet to be created – to be done in the first year of the strategy (2020)


  • Many of the principles well adhered to especially
    • Keeping it wild
    • Look up – the strategy is subdivided between 5 core species stronghold, each will have its own Local Implementation Plan with separate steering groups; the whole strategy is also feeding into Biodiversity Species Action Plan and is a national strategy
    • Listen to the people – seems to be well followed with a number of participatory workshops and reviewed by many partners before creating the strategy. However this strategy didn’t include many contributing factors which might mean the behaviours were not analysed very well
    • Do no harm
    • Think big
    • Look forward – this is a 10 year strategy but also included 30 year vision