Bonnemaire, J.

de Sainte Marie, C.

Jest, Corneille

English

University of Kentucky

University of Kentucky UKnowledge International Grassland Congress Proceedings XXI International Grassland Congress / VIII International Rangeland Congress Changes in Policy and New Challenges for Pastoral Activities: Insights from the French Experience J. Bonnemaire Corneille Jest C. de Sainte Marie INRA, France Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/igc  Part of the Plant Sciences Commons, and the Soil Science Commons This document is available at https://uknowledge.uky.edu/igc/21/18-1/12 The XXI International Grassland Congress / VIII International Rangeland Congress took place in Hohhot, China from June 29 through July 5, 2008. Proceedings edited by Organizing Committee of 2008 IGC/IRC Conference Published by Guangdong People's Publishing House This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Plant and Soil Sciences at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Grassland Congress Proceedings by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact UKnowledge@lsv.uky.edu. 瞯 ]908　 瞯 　 Multifunctional Grasslands in a Changing World 　 Volume Ⅱ 　Grasslands/Rangelands People and Policies——— Policy Issues for Grasslands/RangelandsChanges in policy and new challenges for pastoral activities :insights from the french experienceJ . Bonnemaire1 , C . Jest2 , C . de Sainte Marie 31 Enesad , BP 87999 , F 21079 Di jon cedex ; 2 23 , Quai Le Gallo , F 92100 Boulogne ;3 INRA‐Ecodevelop pement , A groparc , F 84914 A v ignon cedex 9j .bonnemaire＠ enesad .f r ; corneille .j est＠ wanadoo .f r ; csm＠ av ignon .inra .f rKey words : agri‐environment , rangelands , public policy , livestock systems , FranceFollowing the important rural crisis of the １９６０s , the development of livestock farming in some mountain and rangelands areasof France is mainly based on five driving forces : １ ) Man , his will , his know‐how and his organizational capacity throughcollective initiatives with both economic and local rural development goals ; ２) specific assets for local development , includinganimal resources , a product of rural history and local culture ; ３ ) public policies support and grants ; ４ ) local added valuethrough quality of origin labelled products ; ５ ) partnership of researchers with local stakeholders , including agriculturalex tension agents , in an interdisciplinary approach .While French and European Agricultural Policy ( CAP ) helped modernization of livestock farming in these areas , theenvironmental stakes came to the fore and the pastoral activities were faced with public policies that spread out in a verycomplexified framework ( including also regional development‐concerned ) . However , environmental concerns emerged as aresult of the evolutions of CAP the main driving force of which being the will of UK to get its money back (１９８０摧s) , then theneed to stop the grow th of agricultural support expenses ( １９９２ ) , and the World T rade Organization ( ２００３ ) . After thehistorical division between areas dedicated to production and areas dedicated to nature conservation , CAP increasingly promoted�ecologization" of farmlands and �agriculturalization" of protected areas ( by contracts between farmers and the State ) ,implementing a switch of the funding from market support to rural development and natural resources conservation ( ex .ex tensive grazing areas funded by ７０％ more in ２００３ ) , while turning from compulsory practices to an obligation for results .New ecological assessment criteria are tested , for ex .�meadows rich in species" ( more than ４ defined flower species as habitatdescriptors) in northern Alps .At present , french rangelands are faced with contrasting issues which can be focused on five leading sets of stakes :１ ) The acknowledgement‐quite recent‐of man as a�producer of ecosystems" that are both suppliers of food as well as of �viable ,liveable and reproducible" natural surroundings .２ ) The face‐to‐face contact of livestock farming with the society as a whole , its diversified expectations , its economy , itsterritories ; society witnesses its involvement and quite logically wants to enter the debate through various portals .３ ) Technical innovation is not a sufficient condition for ecological redesigning of livestock systems characterized by willingness tomove , risks management , adaptability and leading role devoted to internal regulations and to �immaterial engineering" of thesesystems , taking into account long term ,爥 Innovations first concern organizational aspects , such as the implementation ofinnovative legal tools ( agri‐environmental schemes ,爥) , partnership‐based new approaches ( including with local communities) ,new models for control of rangelands areas , improvement of accessibility and parcelling up , building shelters or transitaccomodation爥The involvement of natural resources managers ( parks , 爥) is another condition . Technical innovations support theseapproaches : improvement of rangeland areas ( scrub clearing , sowing , 爥) ; new facilities for milking or cheese processing inmountain ranges , introduction of defence dogs ; land management for production of biodiversity ; etc爥４ ) The need to depart from the rules of the classical standardised or industrialized approaches of the animal feeding on the onehand , of the assessment of animals�qualities and of their breeding improvement on the other hand ( ex . stirring browsing intakeby herding practices ; proportion of concentrates feeding ; �multipurpose" cow producing both origin labelled cheese andlandscapes ;爥) . Such re‐designed livestock systems undoubtly become more complex . The animal becomes a multifunctionaltool in support of enlarged aims for the farmer as well as for the society .５ ) The direct contact of pastoralists , through their practices , with other various users of rangelands areas 爥 but also withpredators ( wolves , bears ,爥) and with their protectors , in times where deep ecology as well as wild‐scope tourism question thelegitimacy of pastoralism for its present occupation of territories . For example , the wolves came back in the French Alps in１９９２ ; in ２００３ , the territory of wolves covered more than ４００ ０００ ha occupied by more than ３００ ０００ sheep ( Legeard , ２００６) .This situation causes a high increase in work for shepherds ( about ５０ hours per week in mountain grazing areas ) . Thus ,pastoral areas become abruptly and durably hazard areas : from accidental ( stray dogs , lightning ,爥) the hazard turns to becontinuous ,�structural" in the livestock farming systems .ReferencesBonnemaire J . , Jest C . , Osty P .L . , Verrier E . , ２００４ . Mountain livestock farming and sustainable development in France .４th Int . Congr . on Yak ( sept .２００４) Chengdu , P .R . China , １５ p .Legeard J .P . , ２００６ . in :Actualité et modernité du pastoralisme . C .R . Acad . Agric . Fr . ,２００６ , ９２ , n° ３ , １６p .

Changes in Policy and New Challenges for Pastoral Activities: Insights from the French Experience

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3787&context=igc

Changes in Policy and New Challenges for Pastoral Activities: Insights from the French Experience

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Kentucky