The management of sensitive natural areas: functioning and
perspectives
A compromise between nature and agriculture
Three management models
The management logics
Encadré : management structures
France has one of the richest natural heritages in Europe and thus has a
great responsibility and role to play in preserving biological biodiversity.
Nature conservation policies have been implemented since the 1970s, and these
have led to the creation of structures to preserve natural areas (see box
hereafter).
In a biodiversity-enhancing perspective, these structures aim to maintain
open environments. Grasslands, which essentially result from ancient
agro-pastoral practices, are of great interest for the landscape and are
ecologically very rich. However, agricultural abandonment of these environments
has induced a spontaneous evolution process, i.e. extension of woodland resulting
in loss of biodiversity.
The managers of such areas may choose between different possibilities, more
or less adapted to the sites: grazing by animals, cutting, burning, chemical
weeding, mechanical cutting of scrub vegetation, etc. None of these options
are entirely satisfactory, yet some are slowly developing. Therefore, the
last fifteen years has seen the development of original and challenging
experiments aimed at restoring and maintaining natural areas with the help
of domestic animals.
The growing importance attributed to the actors at the base of these approaches
and the success of their experiments have challenged the interest the French
National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) and its Environment and
Society Mission (ME&S). Using domestic animals to manage natural areas
is a complex phenomenon that is worth exploring. Surveys were therefore carried
out at different sites managed by grazing, with the twofold objective of
studying the way they function and identifying the new issues generated by
these experiments.
[R] A compromise between nature and agriculture
These practices consist in turning domestic animals away from their familiar
conditions and reintegrating them in their rightful place, i.e. as animal
species that are part of ecosystems. Thus, the management of sensitive natural
areas can be considered as a compromise between "all ecological" and "all
agricultural" systems (Le Neveu and Lecomte, 1990).
The position of the "all ecological" is not realistic, as in natural environments
wild species live in unlimited and heterogeneous areas, populations are regulated
spontaneously and herbivores are the antagonists of natural plant dynamics.
Such situations can no longer be replicated, as the wild species in question
are now extinct (aurochs, tarpan...). The areas available are limited to
a few dozen hectares and only concern a small number of environments. Moreover,
the large predators or necrophages able to ensure the regulation of populations
no longer exist.
Managers are thus obliged to step in to control the system. The difficulty
lies in choosing the level of intervention with the risk of turning to "all
agricultural" systems: as regards livestock farming, the productive domestic
species graze in limited and homogeneous areas, and their numbers are regulated
by culling old animals and selling young animals. Herbivores are a source
of income. Such systems cannot be used to manage natural areas: modern domestic
species are too fragile to survive in harsh living conditions, there is not
enough grass to feed them all, regulating numbers is arbitrary and artificial.
There is no management objective for plant dynamics. The "all agricultural"
position is not adapted to the ideology of management via grazing.
Managers cannot accept such a system. They can however use livestock farming
techniques to reach a compromise: ecological management via grazing will
thus lie between these two extremes and rely on "primitive" or hardy domestic
species or breeds feeding in limited but more heterogeneous areas. Animal
numbers will be regulated by "natural" deaths, offtake or sales. Herbivores
will thus become a management tool and provide a service.
In surveys we carried out at different sites (Tab. 1, below), we observed
that there are different levels of compromise: some sites are close to the
"all ecological" and certain tend to be more agricultural. These different
situations have different objectives based on the assets and constraints
of each site.
Three models were developed out of the survey data. They show the manager's
specific objectives, the main site characteristics, the management system
implemented and the way it is managed.
The aim of naturalist management is to restore, increase and preserve
biodiversity at a low cost.
It mainly concerns biologically rich marshlands, which are protected by strict
conservation measures. Animals have been grazed on these sites for a fairly
long time. Besides the site is part of a network of technical support and
scientific monitoring. The person responsible for the site is usually an
academic with sound ecological knowledge and empirical notions in agriculture.
The management of the site is strongly inspired by Thierry Lecomte's work
in the Marais Vernier (Seine estuary). The herds consist of cows or of
"primitive" or extremely hardy horse breeds. The livestock farming equipment
is reduced to strictly essential materials, such as fences, traps, restraining
pens and possibly a weighing machine.
Table I. Characteristics of the sites surveyed
| Site |
ManagementOrg. |
Stat. |
ManagementObj. |
N° of ha | Date | Type of environment | Animal breeds |
Type of management |
| Vallée du BranlinYonne | CSNB |
AEFFI |
Biodiv. |
17 |
95 |
Marsh grasslands |
Könik polski (Eq) | "Naturalist" |
| Camargue Bouches du Rhône | SNPN |
NR |
Biodiv. |
13117 |
27 |
Fresh water Mar |
Camargue (Eq) |
"Naturalist" |
| Côte Dijonnaise Côte d'or |
CSNB |
AEFFI AICB |
Biodiv |
. 450 |
94 |
Chalk grassland |
Mérinos de l'est (Ov) | "Agricultural with a traditional approach" |
| Côte Sainte Hélène Somme |
CSNP |
VNR |
Biodiv |
14 |
.92 |
Chalk grassland |
Suffolk (Ov) Alpines (Cap) |
"Agricultural with a traditional approach" |
| Goulien-Cap Sizun Finistère |
SEPNB |
ANR |
Broom |
25 |
86 |
Acidophile heathland | Ouessantins et Landes de Bretagne (Ov) | "Naturalist with a traditional approach" |
| Jasseries de Colleigne
Loire |
Privately owned |
Partial VNR |
Broom |
200 |
85 |
Heathland Bogs |
Bretons PN (Bov) Mérens (Eq)Corses (Ov) |
"Naturalist with a traditional
approach" |
| Mannevilles Eure |
RNP of Brotonne | NR |
Biodiv. |
72 |
79 |
Marsh grassland | Ecosse (Bov) Camargue (Eq) |
"Naturalist" |
| Marais de Lavours Ain | EID |
NR |
Biodiv. |
109 |
87 |
Marsh grassland | Ecosse (Bov) Camargue (Eq) |
"Naturalist" |
Bov : bovine
Cap : caprine
Eq : equine
Ov : ovine
NR : Natural Reserve
ANR : Associative Natural Reserve
VNR : Voluntary Natural Reserve
SNB : Conservatoire des sites naturels bourguignons (Association for the
Protection of Natural Sites in Burgundy)
CSNP : Conservatoire des sites naturels picards (Association for the Protection
of Natural Sites in Picardy)
EID : Entente interdépartementale pour la démoustication
(Interdepartmental Service for Mosquito Eradication)
RNP : Regional Natural Park
SEPNB : Société pour l'étude et la protection de la
nature en Bretagne (Society for the Study and Protection of Nature in
Brittany)
SNPN : Société nationale pour la protection de la nature (National
Society for the Protection of Nature)
AEFFI: Area of Ecological, Faunistic and Floristic Interest
AICB : Area of Importance for the Conservation of Birds
The general tendency in herd management is to minimise human interventions.
The herd can graze wherever its likes, except when limited by the field pattern
situation. The animals are given no supplements, except in especially harsh
weather conditions. Breeding is controlled inasmuch as the manager identifies
the father and mother of the calf or foal. He does not intervene at birth,
even when the mother is having difficulties, nor does he intervene to preserve
weak young animals. Systematic sanitary interventions are excluded and the
animals are only treated when absolutely necessary. There are no artificial
shelters as these are considered useless. Animal numbers are regulated by
removing certain animals and taking them to another site. Old animals are
not culled but are left to die of old age.
Naturalist management relies on a scientific set of references and is based
on the natural sciences and ecology. The aim is to establish a relatively
autonomous system, which does not require much outside intervention.
The aim of naturalist management with a traditional approach is
to restore traditional practices, supposedly less aggressive for the environment,
and thus to reintroduce past biological balances when the land was regularly
used as grazing land. It mainly concerns heathland, a landscapewise interesting
environment which is often subject to various conservation measures. Animals
have been grazed there for a long time, without any technical support or
scientific monitoring. The person responsible for the site is more or less
competent in ecology and is a competent livestock farmer. He is usually extremely
independent and is attached to traditions; the management of the site is
strongly marked by local habits and customs. The manager has opted for endangered
hardy local breeds to graze there and thus actively participates in their
preservation. The site is sparsely equipped and there are several run-down
buildings to shelter sick animals and store fodder.
The herd is managed via traditional methods: transhumance, no machinery…
The animals are fed during the winter months. Mating is controlled to avoid
inbreeding and to preserve the genetic potential of the species. The manager
resorts to certain systematic treatments such as anti-parasitic treatments
and delivers others when necessary and depending on cost. Animal numbers
are regulated through the sale of young animals, either as quality meat,
or as breeders to marginal livestock farms. Old animals, however, are not
culled but live on the site until they die.
Naturalist management with a traditional approach is based on cultural references
and traditional savoir-faire. The aim is to introduce a system close to those
that existed several decades ago.
Agricultural management with a traditional approach results from the converging
objectives of the naturalist manager (preserving a natural heritage at a
low cost) and the livestock farmer (taking advantage of rough grazings and
making a profit). This will be materialised by a management convention.
The environments concerned are generally dry grasslands having a biological
and patrimonial importance. They are listed areas (areas of ecological, faunistic
and floristic interest ) or areas that benefit from protection measures based
on voluntary work. Management via grazing is relatively recent and is subject
to significant scientific follow-up. The person responsible for the site
is an ecologically highly competent academic. The livestock farmer is left
to manage the herd at will, while the manager gives instructions according
to the state of the environment. This management type is inspired by Thierry
Dutoit's work. The livestock farmer's motivations are cultural and affective;
he has opted for a traditional life style but he keeps relatively productive
modern species in order to earn a reasonable income. Buildings and equipment
are conventional, but not overplentiful.
Herds are managed on an extensive basis, except regarding precautions taken
to limit the inputs. The animals are grazed on each plot for a few days per
year only. They are left to range freely on the site only when it is large
enough. When the area is too small, the livestock farmer does whatever he
likes outside the periods when the animals are grazed on the site. The animals
are fed fodder in winter and are given mineral and vitamin supplements. Cereal
and pellets provide energy and are fed to females at parturition. Breeding
is traditional and the farmer only intervenes when maintenance of production
is threatened. Animal health is monitored conventionally. However, the animals
are treated outside the site to avoid introducing undesirable elements. Animal
numbers are controlled by culling old animals and selling the offspring.
Quality is not especially important.
Agricultural management with a traditional approach associates
the manager's scientific reference base with the farmer's agricultural reference
base. Their common point is that of cultural references and the respect of
traditions. The aim is to co-ordinate distinct systems.
Ecological management via grazing is not purely fortuitous: it is based on
the reasoning of managers. The surveys carried out have led us to identify
the logic underpinning each individual management mode as well as a common
logic they. I will describe the latter first.
The common logic
Several arguments induce the manager to opt for management via grazing. In
most cases, information on this management technique, which promises to be
efficient and moderately costly, is what attracts the manager's attention.
Unfortunately, little data is available allowing a comparison of the different
management modes. It would be useful to develop sets of references on the
cost and efficiency of the different management modes. These could then be
translated into decisional grids, and allow a rationalisation of choices.
Moreover, managers generally consider that the present state of these sites
results from former grazing and produced the present rich biodiversity. Besides,
a favourable management organisation and a manager with agricultural
competencies, or even the possibility of establishing a contract with the
livestock farmer, are all arguments encouraging the implementation of management
via grazing.
A typology of the people in charge of these sites, i.e. their training, former
jobs and personal references, could well help explain the implementation,
success or failure of management via grazing. This type of management seems
to require a range of competencies seldom found in a single person. One solution
to this problem would be to establish a contract with the livestock farmer,
but this would raise other problems. A method to evaluate the relevance of
these solutions according to the different situations would make the construction
of coherent decision systems much easier.
As regards the choice of domestic species to be used at these sites,
it is essential to find a species that is suited to the environment considered
and vice versa.
The conclusion is that cattle and horses are suited to wet environments,
whereas sheep, goats and certain horses are better suited to dry environments.
However, this choice will also be influenced by regional traditions, the
ability to acquire the species and its cost, as well as the personality of
the person in charge of the site.
Certain species such as cattle, sheep, goats and horses are frequently used,
whereas others, such as geese and carps, are rarely used and some, especially
pigs, are not used at all. In the Mannevilles natural reserve, T. Lecomte
is thinking of associating elks to the horses and cattle that already graze
there. Thus, there are still many possibilities to be explored and wild species
may very well be amongst these, although they are more difficult to control
than domestic species. Detecting relevant wild species and characterising
them would undoubtedly extend the range of "useable" species.
The number of species chosen rests on efficiency considerations. The use
of several animal species optimises the use of plant resources as each species
eats different plants. Yet, although this complementarity is interesting,
it makes the management of the site more complex: a mixed herd is clearly
more difficult to manage. It is nevertheless essential to identify and evaluate
possible combinations, as well as their respective efficiency, so as to optimise
the associations that have already been implemented.
The specific logics
All three management types have their own logic entailing distinctive
characteristics. The comprehensive logic of naturalist management
consists in integrating domestic animals into the ecosystem so as to
simulate spontaneous phenomena and thus obtain a certain autarky. The aim
of naturalist management with a traditional approach on the other
hand is to reproduce the practices and savoir-faire of the early XXth century
as these are considered to be non-aggressive towards the environment.
Agricultural management with a traditional approach for its part mainly
aims to combine two apparently different logics: that of the manager whose
aim is to restore and maintain a sensitive natural environment, and that
of the livestock farmer whose aim is to make a profit.
Our surveys have shown that differences mainly concern the chosen options
regarding animal breeds, equipment and buildings, as well as herd management.
These choices depend on the strategies implemented by the managers.
The first concern for a manager planning to adopt this type of management
is the choice of a breed. In the case of a naturalist management
strategy, the manager opts for "primitive" breeds capable of withstanding
extreme conditions. This choice also concerns the desire to conserve the
genetic potential of certain features that disappear with domestication.
However, the manager's decision is also influenced by other factors: in
particular, the increasing interest of the general public for attractive
or unusual breeds. But the high cost to be paid for these animals and the
difficulty to acquire them often leads managers to turn to other breeds.
Naturalist management with a traditional approach especially reflects
this issue. Managers prefer to use local hardy breeds with low and sometimes
very low population numbers. These animals are resistant and capable of surviving
in harsh living conditions. And the managers thus contribute to the conservation
of a genetic heritage.
In the case of agricultural management with a traditional approach,
the site manager has no say in the choice of the breed as the animals belong
to the farmer who generally chooses a modern species in order to ensure adequate
productivity. However, the breed is generally hardy enough to withstand permanent
outdoor life. This management system is not concerned with the conservation
of genetic heritage, since the main objective is that of profitability and
not that of ideology.
It is obvious that choosing the right breed is important and is the result
of lengthy reflection on the managers' part. At many sites, the choice of
the species and breed is also influenced by the objective to preserve low
number local hardy breeds. Breeds evolve over time: they are subject to a
more or less conscious continuous selection process linked to what the farmers
expect of the animal. For example, carthorses owe their characteristics to
the fact that the animals that were kept were always those with the best
draft abilities. Using these horses to graze natural grasslands may introduce
a bias in the conservation of these breeds, that would appear only in the
long term. It is essential to evaluate the consequences of ecological grazing
and especially the possible effects on the evolution of species. Thus, we
could better focus the role to be played by ecopastoralism in the conservation
of endangered low-number domestic breeds.
The expressions "primitive breeds" and "hardy breeds " often came up when
we interviewed people; these notions are subjective and refer to both scientific
and cultural knowledge. Exploring these notions would help clarify the
classification of the criteria for choosing a breed. T. Lecomte gives some
arguments towards choosing primitive species: increasing domestication implies
a loss of the genetic potential of the original species, and more particularly
the potential to adapt to difficult living conditions. Assessing this phenomenon
and producing decision grids would help to implement conservation schemes
for endangered species.
There are many choices and combinations, and breeds and species can be assigned
to many different areas; their relevance depends both on the environment
to be managed and the aims of this management.
The choice of the breed will also directly influence the choice of buildings
and equipment.
Naturalist management generally resorts to rudimentary equipment; however,
the surveys showed that the degree of equipment varies from one site to another.
As regards shelters, the management logic is to build none as the breeds
selected can live in harsh conditions. However pressure from "outside opinion"
induces and sometimes forces the manager to build "makeshift" shelters to
avoid criticism. Besides, many sites are equipped with a trap, a handling
pen and sometimes a weighing machine. Managers justify this equipment by
the need to ensure the safety of people handling the animals as well as for
zootechnical monitoring, which involves recapturing the animals from time
to time.
In the case of naturalist management with a traditional approach, the
sites have fairly limited equipment and generally very old livestock buildings.
The latter mainly reflect habits and traditions rather than real necessity.
They are nevertheless useful to store fodder and provide shelter for parturating
animals. However equipment and housing facilities are better designed than
in naturalist management systems owing to more frequent recapture
and handling of animals, and also because the manager is more knowledgeable
in agricultural issues and is well-informed in technical matters. Yet, this
choice is rarely adopted due to the often high cost of buildings and
equipments.
As for agricultural management with a traditional approach, the fields
at these sites are only grazed several days per year, most often during the
summer months, making shelters unnecessary. In the winter months, the animals
are sheltered in more or less functional buildings owned or leased by the
farmer who also uses them to store fodder.
There is a clear discrepancy between the managers' discourse (shelters are
unnecessary) and the actual situation, as in nearly all cases, a more or
less rudimentary shelter is present on the site. Shelters are therefore at
the heart of a controversy and a study being carried out on the impact of
shelters on the behaviour and health condition of animals could well validate
the reasoning of the people in charge of these sites.
Another phenomenon, which surprisingly has not been evoked by the managers,
concerns the stress undergone by animals when they are being handled as they
are not used to being restrained. Capture and penning of the animals has
consequences on their behaviour (the animals tend to keep away from the capture
places)21. A study of accident risks in animals might help to improve capture
and restraining techniques and to design equipments better adapted to ecological
management.
While carrying out the surveys, we observed that managers constantly complained
about the difficulties encountered in handling animals. The observation,
description and diagnosis of the capture and penning operations carried out
at these sites, particularly regarding allegedly dangerous cattle, would
contribute to improving the safety of people who are seldom in contact with
these animals: when recapturing animals, managers often resort to temporary
workers and are constantly under the threat of accident risks. Therefore,
the study of practices could help to develop better techniques, either by
redesigning the techniques, either through adaptation of livestock husbandry
methods.
Feeding management is still at the core of all management logics.
The aim is essentially to control the impact of animals on the environment,
while regulating all other parameters in the best possible way.
In the case of naturalist management, the managers try to establish
a certain balance in which the vegetation dynamics will serve as guidelines
for managing animal grazing. Therefore, "management via grazing is the art
of perpetuating the first stages of scrub encroachment which enrich biocenoses,
although they are ephemeral in a vegetation dynamic progressing towards a
forested stage" (Lecomte, 1995). In this situation, the animals graze freely
on the whole site throughout the year, except when field availability or
flooding do not allow this practice. The herd is thus managed in such as
way as to adjust the stocking rate more or less empirically to the state
of the environment. One major difficulty is, however, to assess the proper
stocking rate for both the winter and summer periods.
If there are too many animals, "overgrazing" ensues, which in turn leads
to deterioration of the environment; the surplus animals will then need to
be removed. If the herd is not large enough, scrub invasion follows, which
also entails a certain impoverishment of the environment: the number of animals
will need to be increased. With an appropriate number of animals, the vegetation
is kept under control during the summer months; in the winter, as there are
far less resources, the herd consumes woody plants, thus preventing scrub
progression. In these conditions herbivores need to mobilise their body reserves
and lose weight: "they are like yoyos" (Lecomte, 1995). By drawing on and
rebuilding their body reserves, the animals buffer environmental
fluctuations.
The qualitative aspect of intake is estimated through botanical inventories
and, unavoidably, animals will not consume undesirable plants but go for
remarkable or protected species. The managers were observed to display a
degree of naivety on this point!
The aim of the naturalist manager with a traditional approach is to
encourage maintenance of the landscape's "traditional" aspect and to avoid
depleting feed resources. As a consequence, rotational grazing systems are
encouraged. The manager removes the animals from the fields when he considered
that they have been sufficiently grazed. Preserving species (an ecological
objective) is not what dictates this decision: the main purpose is to encourage
plant regrowth. The manager establishes the stocking rate according to the
number of animals the site can withstand during bad years. Therefore, the
risk of "overgrazing" is extremely low.
The person in charge of the site is attentive to the body condition of the
animals, as this ensures good marketing of breeding animals while also satisfying
his self-respect as a good farmer. The animals need to be fed during the
winter months, and provided with supplements such as minerals and vitamins.
The logic behind agricultural management with a traditional approach is
to achieve an optimum environmental stage while at the same time meeting
the feeding requirements of animals: this type of management is mostly applied
in dry environments with a weak plant dynamic. The management logic is based
on work by Dutoit (1995).
Therefore, the fields are intensively grazed once a year for several days
and then left to their spontaneous vegetation dynamic. The surveys have however
shown that the people in charge of these sites find it difficult to determine
and express the stocking rate/presence combination corresponding to the ideal
intake, i.e. no "over-" or "under-grazing" or standing places where the animals
hadn't stand long enough to cause excrement accumulation.
The feeding logic of livestock farmers is mainly based on obtaining animal
output and, although they are happy enough to have unpaid access to rough
grazings, they also feed fodder to their herds, as well as minerals, vitamins,
and even adds cereals at parturition, so as to obtain an acceptable number
of offspring.
Although the different feeding strategies are clearly defined, managers appear
to be at loss in this matter. There are many questions and the answers remain
empirical and disorganised…
As regards feeding practices, the "stocking rate" concept is perhaps not
ideally suited to assessing the grazing pressure exercised by animals. There
is, indeed, a in this matter a basic difference between farming and ecological
management: in livestock farming, definition of the stocking rate is based
on grass crop productivity and on obtaining an output from animals. Managers,
on their part, establish the stocking rate in relation to an optimum stage
of the environment to be achieved and disregard the condition of the animals,
although these play a role in buffering vegetation variations. The managers
must therefore deal with successive weight gains and losses in animals according
to variations in food resources. This is a normal phenomenon in wild animals,
but not all domestic species have the same capacity to stock and destock
reserves. A study of this issue could contribute valuable insights for managing
the grazing pressure.
Moreover, the stocking unit - AU/ha - is defined after assessing animal
requirements and the grass crop productivity with a common unit, the Fodder
Unit (FU). This unit cannot be used in management via grazing (FU values
of heterogeneous vegetation, variation of these values over time…).
It would be more rational to develop reference data specifically adapted
to this kind of management. Besides, some site managers use environmental
indicators empirically and alter animal numbers according to this data.
As regards animal feeding, defining standards and benchmarks is not the sole
concern of managers. Feeding supplements to the animals is never indifferent
and generally leads to over-frequented and trampled areas ecologically
detrimental. To avoid this, some managers refuse to resort to supplementation.
Evaluating the impact of supplementation on the health condition of animals
and the environment would certainly clarify the on-going controversy in this
field.
As the animals are free, they follow daily grazing circuits that change over
the year. Exploring what dictates these circuits would help to manage the
trampled areas and areas where animal excrement has accumulated. Moreover,
there seem to be links between this spatio-temporal distribution and the
animals' eating habits, which need to be studied. The first point concerns
the likes and dislikes of animals regarding certain plant species. The causes
need to be determined: a particularly attractive or repulsive component,
possibly linked to the plant vegetative stage; its accessibility. These species
should also be considered in relation to other, more accessible plants. This
would enable us to highlight behavioural rules in the food choices of
animals.
There is also most probably a link with qualitative aspects: deficiency in
some element probably encourages the animals to eat more plants that are
rich in this particular element. All organisms possess a certain amount of
resources and, when necessary, physiological mechanisms are triggered off
and induce self-protection behaviour. Supplements would inhibit such responses.
Thus, better knowledge of eating behaviours would help improve herd
management.
The feeding logic necessarily entails regulating animal numbers, as
the manager tries to reach a balance by adjusting numbers to the environment
condition.
The herd size is thus considered to result from an input flow stemming from
births and the imports of animals into the herd, and an output flow due to
deaths and exports. The regulation logic is therefore determined by the
destination of the offspring. In the case of naturalist management,
the offspring are mainly intended as replacements for the herd. Thus, the
manager hardly intervenes on breeding and simply identifies the parents.
To avoid overpopulation he does not seek to increase the number of offspring.
Old animals are left to die a natural death and decompose on-site, thus
encouraging the completion of biogeochemical cycles. To avoid animal surpluses,
these are exported to other sites belonging to the managing organisation
and are either sold or donated.
The same can be said of naturalist management with a traditional approach
in which the destination of offspring induces the logic underpinning
the regulation of animal numbers. The manager intervenes on breeding, especially
at mating. The animals produced thus have a good genetic value. This meets
the objective of species conservation. However, since income is another major
concern, the manager also intervenes at parturition time to avoid pointless
losses. On the other hand, the output flow is limited as older animals are
not culled and are left to die on-site. The results obtained are therefore
acceptable for the farmer, both ideologically and financially, without
deteriorating the natural environment.
As regards agricultural management with a traditional approach, the
farmer manages the numbers of animals in his herd and, insofar as his objective
is to achieve an income, he naturally tends to maximise the production of
offspring and thus intervenes on breeding. As regards mating, the farmer
chooses the breeders and possibly the parturition time (out-of-season breeding).
He is also present when the animals give birth, and the young are taken care
of from birth (artificial feeding). To optimise income, the livestock farmer
cannot afford to keep aged, low productive females, or even to loose animals.
Old animals are therefore culled and sold through conventional channels.
The logics underpinning the regulation of animal numbers are not clearly
defined by managers. They waver from traditional solutions to solutions that
depart radically from those of the livestock farmers. For example, leaving
an animal to die "naturally" is in total contrast to a system where animals
are culled when they are considered to be too old and thus less productive.
The causes of death (old-age, disease, accidents) raise many questions. Indeed,
there have been no studies on the phenomena linked to ageing of domestic
animals. Such studies would most probably be of great value (evolution of
the locomotive system with age, wear and loss of teeth, alteration of sight,
consequences on the feeding mode and resistance to diseases and parasites).
Knowledge of the diseases or parasites directly responsible for an animal's
death could justify (or not) the biological recycling of dead animals and
would make it possible to evaluate the health risks involved in this practice
and eventually to draw up appropriate regulations.
One should add that managers dread the accidents that often occur with young
animals or animals belonging to the same stock and which seem to occur more
frequently than in conventional farming conditions: animals drown, are struck
by lightening, gored, in addition to falls frequently caused by dogs.
Nevertheless all accidents are not fatal and spontaneous healing does occur,
as opposed to the prognostics of specialists. The study of these phenomena
and the biological mechanisms at stake would encourage (or not) managers
in their intervention strategies.
Breeding induces specific types of behaviour: the presence of several males,
generally adult and young males, leads to fighting and dominance behaviour.
The site managers explain that young females are sometimes not sired because
they evade the mating male, as older males are too heavy; young males are
chased away by older ones and cannot get near the females. Identification
and description of such behaviours would contribute essential knowledge to
back the use of different techniques. It would also be interesting to draw
up a typology to characterise the types of breeding management and to evaluate
the compatibility between the aim of managing the area and the farmer's aim
of securing an income which depends on the production of young animals. This
would justify developing coherent systems that combine both objectives.
When studying the system functioning, we also observed that animal sales
were not satisfactory. However, at a time when the beef market is in dire
trouble, the sale of extremely healthy meat could find a niche on the market.
A study on the possible valorisation of carcasses from management via grazing
systems could justify the constraints of ecopastoralism in the eyes of livestock
farmers. At sites where sheep are grazed, it emerges that their wool is generally
not sold; first owing to unfavourable market conditions and second because
of its low quality: as the animals graze more or less scrub-ridden environment,
plants get tangled up in their fleece, making the wool extremely difficult
to clean. Last, the sale of breeder animals to other sites does not seem
to be a major problem for the moment as many sites are being set up and need
to purchase animals. However, it would be prudent to carry out a long term
evaluation of this market.
Table II. Summary view of options
| Management mode Choice |
Naturalist management |
Naturalist management with a traditional approach |
Agricultural management with a traditional approach |
| Species : Equipment: Buildings : Food : Type of grazing land supplementation Regulation of populations birth departures Heath control: |
primitive rudimentary none free none no intervention "natural" deaths to other sites strict minimum obligatory |
local hardy modest decrepit rotational fodder, minerals, vitamine avoid losses "natural" death sale of young animals essential antiparasites reasoning/cost, and/necessity |
modern acceptable functional 1 passage / yearfodder fodder, minerals, vitamins energy increase offspring cull sale of offspring systematic treatments but not on-site |
Although these surveys were carried out on a small number of sites they were
relatively complete and allowed us to identify and describe the main trends
in ecopastoralism. They underline both the assets and constraints of these
techniques. The management logics raise many questions and lead to debates
and controversies.
This brief survey of the management of natural areas by domestic animals
in terms of functioning and perspectives shows the remarkable evolution of
management techniques over a relatively short period of time. This study
nevertheless conveys a clear impression of empiricism: managers try things
out, adjust them and, in short, feel their way…
Therefore, this original context, at the confluence of ecology and agriculture,
opens a vast field of reflection. The surveys carried out should normally
contribute to encouraging co-operation between INRA (ME&S) and the people
in charge of managing natural sensitive sites.
It now seems important to establish a complete panorama of the compromises
existing between "all ecological" and "all agricultural" systems, as well
as evaluating the relevance of these systems with regards to their natural
and socio-economic environment. Generally speaking, this type of management
is bound to develop to combat invasion of abandoned agricultural land by
scrub vegetation. It is thus necessary to identify types of management that
display a degree of continuity and to encourage their development.
It may well be that the scientific issues raised by this new type of domestic
animals use will contribute knowledge on questions stemming from the necessary
evolution of economy-oriented livestock farming practices towards sustainable
agriculture.
This article is taken from the "Courrier de l'environnement
de l'INRA, n°37", by Catherine Proffit.
Translated from French by Nicole Scott.
[R] Encadré 1
management structures
Since the 1970s, a number of events have led to implementing nature conservation
policies, which in turn have led to the creation of structures to protect
natural areas.
The French National Parks (NPs) were the first structures to be created as
early as 1963, to protect exceptional natural heritages. Seven NPs exist,
covering a total area of 12 800 km2.
Natural Reserves (NRs), Associative Natural Reserves (ANRs) and Voluntary
Natural Reserves (VNRs) all contribute to the protection of interesting sites
that are part of the regional and national heritage; there are 137 NRs and
they cover 3 330 km2.
The first Regional Natural Parks (RNPs) appeared in 1969. They are contractual
structures between the State and territorial authorities and their aim is
to conciliate economic activity and the conservation of species and the
environment. There are 37 RNPs and they occupy 10% of the French territory.
As early as 1975, the CELRL (Conservatoire des Espaces Littoraux et des Rivages
Lacustres, an association active in all coastal areas) acquired endangered
coastal sites. The organisation intervenes on 58 000 hectares, i.e. over
780 km of coastal land.
The first CREN (Conservatoires Régionaux des Espaces Naturels, private
law associations that bring together individuals, associations and local
authorities) were created in 1976, on the initiative of nature conservation
associations and local organisations. They insure the conservation of the
biological resources of endangered environments, through land control or
management conventions. The 22 conservatoires manage over 900 sites,
spread over 30 000 hectares.
Anonyme, 1995. L'INRA et les parcs naturels régionaux.
Productions Animales, 312-313.
Audiot A., 1995. Races d'hier pour l'élevage de demain. INRA
Éditions, Paris, 229 p.
Bonneviale J.R., Jussiau R., Marshall E., 1989. Approche globale de
l'exploitation agricole : Comprendre le fonctionnement de l'exploitation
agricole. INRAP, Dijon, 329 p.
Bouchez T., 1994. Besoins de recherche des parcs naturels régionaux
et perspectives de collaboration avec l'INRA : Mém. stage INA-PG 2e
année, 32 p.
Bredin D. et al., 1992. Guide méthodologique des plans de
gestion des réserves naturelles. ATEN, Paris, 61 p.
Capillon A., Manichon H., 1991. Guide d'étude de l'exploitation agricole
à l'usage des agronomes. INA-PG- APCA, Paris, 65 p.
Chiffaut A., 1993. Les pelouses calcaires. Patrimoine naturel Bourgogne,
n°1, CREN Bourgogne, pp. 32-35.
CNSB, 1994. Les pelouses calcaires et leur gestion par le pâturage
: Rencontres régionales sur le patrimoine naturel. CSNB, Dijon, 11
p.
CREN, 1995. Annuaire de l'action des conservatoires régionaux d'espaces
naturels. Fédération CREN, 154 p
Doligez E., 1992. La protection des espaces naturels en France. CEREOPA,
9 pp.
Dumont B., 1995. Déterminisme des choix alimentaires des herbivores
au pâturage : principales théories. Productions animales,
8, 285-292.
Dutoit T., 1995. La gestion des pelouses calcaires. Patrimoine naturel Bourgogne
n°3, CREN Bourgogne, pp. 22?27.
Dutoit T., Alard D., 1996. Mesures agri-environnementales et conservation
des pelouses sèches : Premier bilan en Seine Maritime. Le Courrier
de l'Environnement de l'INRA, 25, 63-70.
Etienne M., Napoleone M., Jullian P., Lachaux M., 1989. Élevage
ovin et protection de la forêt méditerranéenne contre
les incendies : participation d'un troupeau de moutons à l'entretien
d'un réseau de pare-feu. Études et Recherches SAD n°15,
INRA Versailles, 46 p.
FPNR, 1984. Développement alternatif et gestion des espaces
naturels. Actes du séminaire de Wissant, 19-21 oct. 1983.
Fédération des parcs naturels régionaux, 39 p.
Girard N., Rossier E, Baudoin N., 1991. Utilisation des équidés
pour la gestion, la protection et la valorisation d'espaces en milieu difficile.
XVIIe Journée d'étude CEREOPA, pp. 43-53.
Girard N., Duncan P., Rossier E., Doligez E., Tesson J. L., Gleize J. C.,
Boulot S., 1992. L'élevage extensif de chevaux pour la gestion d'espaces
naturels. CEREOPA-ONF, 64 p.
IFEN, 1994. L'environnement en France. Dunod-IFEN, Paris, 399 p.
INPSA, 1992. L'écologie, l'écologisme et les sciences sociales.
Actes du séminaire INPSA, 9 au 13 mars 1992. ENESAD, Dijon, 280
p.
INRA, 1986. Espaces fourragers et aménagement : le cas des hautes
Vosges. INRA (Écologie et aménagement rural), Paris, 228
p.
Landais E, Bonnemaire J., 1996. La zootechnie, art ou science ? Entre nature
et société, l'histoire exemplaire d'une discipline
finalisée. Le Courrier de l'Environnement de l'INRA, 27,
23-44.
Landais E., 1991. Écopathologie et systémique. Études
et Recherches SAD n°21, INRA Versailles, 47 p.
Landais E., 1993. Pratiques d'élevage extensifs : identifier,
modéliser, évaluer. Études et Recherches SAD n°27,
INRA Versailles, 389 p.
Le Neveu C., Lecomte T., 1990. La gestion des zones humides par le
pâturage extensif.- ATEN, Paris, 107 p.
Lecomte T, 1995. Gestion écologique par le pâturage :
L'expérience des Réserves naturelles de France. ATEN, Paris,
60 p.
Lecomte T., 1994. La gestion écologique par le pâturage :
l'expérience des réserves naturelles. La Lettre des
réserves naturelles, 33, 7-13.
Legrand P., Perrier A., 1994. Une politique de l'environnement à l'INRA.
Le Courrier de l'Environnement de l'INRA, 21, 52-58.
MATE, 1995. Forum des gestionnaires : la gestion des milieux
herbacés. Min. Aménag. Terr. Envir., Paris, 102 p.
Maubert P., Dutoit T., 1995. Connaître et gérer les pelouses
calcicoles. ATEN, Paris, 65 p.
Perrier A., Legrand P., Sadorge J.L., 1996. Animaux domestiques et gestion
de l'espace. Dossier de l'environnement de l'INRA n°11, INRA
éditions, Paris, 106 p.
Tisserand J.L., 1994. Élevage et qualité de l'environnement
: Élevage et gestion de l'espace. ENSSAA.
[R]
The logics underpinning the regulation of animal numbers are not clearly defined by managers. They waver from traditional solutions to solutions that depart radically from those of the livestock farmers. For example, leaving an animal to die "naturally" is in total contrast to a system where animals are culled when they are considered to be too old and thus less productive. The causes of death (old-age, disease, accidents) raise many questions. Indeed, there have been no studies on the phenomena linked to ageing of domestic animals. Such studies would most probably be of great value (evolution of the locomotive system with age, wear and