Michel Meuret

Cette synthèse dresse un état des lieux des connaissances sur les systèmes et territoires pastoraux en France au prisme des principaux enjeux qui les traversent. Le repli pastoral en situation d’intensification de la production et d’agrandissement des troupeaux, l’adaptation au changement climatique et aux fluctuations des marchés, ou encore le retour de prédateurs sauvages sont particulièrement discutés. Cinq champs de recherche prioritaires ont été dégagés : l’animal en milieu pastoral ; le pastoralisme comme modèle d’agroécologie avec ses forces et ses faiblesses ; les territoires pastoraux multi-acteurs, espaces de confrontation et de projets collectifs ; les métiers du pastoralisme et leur attractivité ; les données issues des méthodes de suivi de l’évolution des végétations, de la biodiversité et des systèmes d’élevage. Bien des sujets font écho avec les situations pastorales du reste du monde, notamment en Afrique de l’Ouest, sans pour autant les recouvrir exactement.

Local breeds are key components of livestock farming systems. They are part of livestock biodiversity and this diversity has been threatened since the second half of the 20th century by their replacement with animals from specialized breeds. The multiple benefits of farming systems using local breeds – provision of goods, landscape and environmental management, and uses related to cultural and heritage dimensions – have long been recognized and used to argue for their conservation. However, the notion of ecosystem services is rarely used to analyze those benefits. This article presents a qualitative approach to the provision of ecosystem services by farming systems that use livestock biodiversity. Based on diverse case studies of breeds from several species, we propose an analytical framework that accounts for how a service is qualified, who is concerned by the services identified, the role of the breed in the process of service provision, and interactions between services. Finally, the framework considers the links between the provision of services and the management of the breeds. We discuss to what extent the notion of ecosystem services is useful in dealing with the multiple benefits from farming systems using local breeds.

Wolves were exterminated in France in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, livestock breeders and herders were unprepared when wolves arrived from Italy in 1993, the year after France committed to the European Union (EU) to protect wolves. Today, ~580 wolves, whose numbers are growing exponentially, are present in over one-third of France. During the last 10 years, livestock deaths from wolves have grown linearly from 3215 in 2009 to 12 451 in 2019, despite France implementing extensive damage protection measures since 2004, including reinforced human presence, livestock guard dogs, secured pasture fencing and electrified night pens. The failure to prevent damage is clear. Wolves enter mosaic landscapes where grazing livestock are abundant and easy prey. Wolves are intelligent and opportunistic. As a strictly protected species, it seems they no longer associate livestock with humans and humans with danger. Half of the successful attacks now occur during the day, notwithstanding the presence of dogs and humans. Considering the high costs of unsatisfactory protection, France recently modified its wolf management policy. In addition to non-lethal means of protection, breeders that have suffered several attacks by wolves are now permitted, by derogation to the law, to defensively shoot wolves. Based upon evidence from other countries, we suggest re-establishing a reciprocal relationship with wolves. Breeders and herders should be allowed to shoot wolves to defend their herds against wolf attacks, not after several successful predation events. Defence shooting would also upgrade the efficiency of non-lethal means, as warning signals for wolves to respect. Rather than passive coexistence, we need to embrace a dynamic and ever-evolving process of coadaptation between humans and wolves, relying on the adaptive capacities of both.

Predation by wolves affects all livestock farming systems, including those having different batches of animals being simultaneously grazed in distinct and sometimes distant fenced pastures scattered over a landscape. In the absence of a responsible human herding and watching over his flock or herd, livestock protection by the sole combination of fences and guard dogs is a new practice in France, that has not yet received much attention in public policy recommendations. We used several sources of knowledge, from the scientific literature to experiences of breeders interviewed in the Southern Alps, to analyse three issues to improve the effectiveness of the practice: the number of guard dogs required per batch of animals, the complementarity of dogs within their working group, and the land area to be protected by dogs. In each case, several dogs are necessary. Within their group, the guard dogs can play complementary roles and this optimizes protection. The rearrangement of dog groups during the year can cause difficulties. It may be appropriate sometimes to allow guard dogs to cross fences, so that they do not have to wait for wolves to jump or dig underneath. But in a densely populated and frequented country such as France, allowing protection by dogs on the periphery of fenced pastures faces a high risk of conflict with other land users. When grazing lands become risky areas for hikers or hunters confronted with guard dogs, the sustainability of outdoor livestock farming may be called into question.

La prédation par les loups affecte tous les systèmes d’élevage, y compris ceux avec plusieurs lots d’animaux mis à pâturer dans différents parcs clôturés, parfois distants et dispersés dans le paysage. La protection d’animaux en l’absence d’un humain responsable à leurs côtés, éleveur ou berger, et par la seule combinaison de clôtures et de chiens, est une pratique nouvelle n’ayant pas reçu beaucoup d’attention dans les recommandations de politiques publiques. À partir de plusieurs sources de connaissances, depuis les écrits de scientifiques jusqu’au recueil d’expériences auprès d’éleveurs des Alpes du Sud, nous analysons trois questions afin d’améliorer l’efficacité de la pratique : le nombre de chiens nécessaires, la complémentarité des chiens dans un groupe, l’espace à protéger. Plusieurs chiens sont en effet nécessaires. Au sein d’un groupe, les chiens peuvent assurer des rôles complémentaires et ceci optimise la protection. La recomposition des groupes au cours de l’année peut engendrer des difficultés. Il peut s’avérer pertinent de permettre aux chiens de parfois franchir les clôtures, afin qu’ils n’aient pas à attendre que des loups sautent ou creusent par dessous. Mais dans un pays densément peuplé et fréquenté, le travail des chiens en périphérie des parcs est confronté à un risque élevé de conflit avec d’autres usagers de l’espace. Lorsque les espaces de pâturage deviennent zones à risque pour des randonneurs ou chasseurs confrontés aux chiens, la pérennité des élevages peut être remise en question.

Introduction Comment penser le comportement animal face aux ressources alimentaires dans le cas des troupeaux mis à pâturer sur milieux naturels ? Lorsqu’on importe les paradigmes conçus en prairies cultivées, on se retrouve vite découragé : l’herbe se présente sous des formes très variées et de qualité incertaine et toute une série d’autres végétaux, lianes, arbustes et arbres, encombrent les pâturages. Le réflexe est alors de recourir aux engins et produits débroussaillants, afin de remettre...