Pastoral Husbandry in Ariège: Animal Vulnerability on Rangelands, Adaptations to Accompaniment Measures of the Brown Bear (Ursus artos) Reintroduction and Conservation Plan in French Pyrenees 2006-2009 and Farming System evolutions

3.1.3 Mountain Summer Pasture what is?

The answer of this question is neither a sentence nor a short nor medium length film but a feature film which puts on stage many actors in the midst of which the beasts (livestock and dogs). In the whole Pyrenean chain, MSP is a culture, a tradition/custom (transhumance feast); is the jewel or the representation of a professional identity. Mountain summer pasture is also a period of the year (from June to September) during which herdsmen are in activity, transports by helicopter and by packsaddle enterprises are service providers to farms. It's in addition a geographic milieu (mountain (at least 1200m) to High Mountain (up to 3200m) with special environmental conditions (flora and fauna). It's further more a phase in the production's cycle, which consists of sanitation system (the only possible in the year), alimentation process (cheapest, richer and special), and constitution of feedstuffs, fencing, fence and diverse maintenances. Because we are talking of land anyway, it's a national, communal/council or private property where breeders have rights to send their livestock free or with variable charges for admission. For some farmers, it's first and foremost the holidays^18(*) for beast and their «resting» or relaxation period. For others, MSP is neither only the extension of their farm nor a place of temporal grazing but, a field or plot of their farm which respects the encircling grazing model of the system. In summary, MSP is all that at the same time; it's all one in the midst of which there is a certain wealth (and I will even say a wealth full stop), movement, life but especially life loss for certain beasts, disturbances of a functioning, frustration, anxiety and fear^19(*). Breeders seem to define MSP with unanimous talks yet, when you look deeper into considerations, you see contradictions. For all, MSP is obligatory because it's economical, enables feeding autonomy and to make a product: «Broutard». The number of users is decreasing because breeders are not too many now and some are in retirement. Some contradictions like we can stop summering because of bear and predation, to make «Broutard», animal should be «quiet», with bear we lose some portion of the mountain and the beasts come down in poor body condition, in the mountain animal have one's way... are some talks of bear opponents totally opposite to that of pro-bear.

3.1.4 How does bear intervenes in a rural and professional milieu?

Bear psychosis in rural milieu is not only present in the midst of those whose livestock are attacked by the wild animal. Because husbandry activity and precisely pastoralism creates opened environments and marvellous landscapes, support many families, much more professional and non-professional groups are engaged in this situation either by media effects, by actual experiences or by conflict of interest.

Table 1: Argumentation between pro and bear opponents

We have examined the talks of those closely concerned by bear problem and it appears that to support their position in relation to bear, farmers use more non technical (custom, patrimony, frustration...) than technical (mortality, reproduction, sanitation...) arguments. In each position, farmers clamour for biodiversity, animal body condition, animal health and loss and their future (see opposite table 1). Whatever the position, the reason is more socio-economical than environmental. Even if the management of a territory cannot be satisfied by simple commercial regulation mechanisms (Beuret, 1998), the actual conflict for and with the bear is due to authorities who have neglected that decision-making follows two rationalities: substantive rationality (intelligence motivated by self-interest for the optimization) and procedural rationality (systemic intelligence). In fact, consideration of the definition of functions and competencies, delimitation of the system and consideration modes is essential to avoid lack of understanding. In this work, it appears that for breeders, to produce is the fundamental function not groundskeeper and well tend the beasts the moral imperative not to work the land. Likewise, rights of use (not always free of charge) and property rights provide a greater legitimacy than that of the predator. At last, a good job with a certain life and products' quality in addition to free will and independence^20(*) are higher consideration modes. Hence, reconciliation supposes to have agreement on an equivalent principle enabling to compare each others point of views, which will, may be serves as common higher principle. In the specific case, territorial agreement between agriculture and community put on stage actors using different legitimacy principles of their acts on professional future and biodiversity questions. For the two non-commercial products, biodiversity produces interactions between «supplyers» and «demanders» and between «supplyers» on one side and «demanders» on other side.

In order to check evolutions of either bear project or pastoralism it is necessary to answer these questions: How breeders integrate bear presence in their stocking system? Are there any evolutions? Accompaniment measures do they induce evolution of practices or remunerate what breeders have been doing since? Knowing the opponents on this field of patrimony and territory, we can also search for the answer of the following questions: What are the common higher principles here? Can agreement be set on a basis of consensual choice of one of these principles or by the means of arbitration clause? Considering that for professional future, summering custom, feeding autonomy, animal «quietness» and body condition, frustration and economic precariousness are concerns; that biodiversity is only species related for the actors, we suggest:

· An imperative faith restoring which will lead to contracts and regulations

· Information process to teach actors what is biodiversity in the most liberal sense of the word and why and how to preserve it, what services we benefit from it in return?

· Definition of conventions:

- Professional convention or convention of qualification to fix socio-technical norms

- Sacrifice/efforts convention to fix the referent point

- Supports convention to cheer results

- Products convention to fix results

· Conception of the assessment method to maximize the internal and external coherence of conventions.

If we can draw the scenarios, which lead to a decision-making of those, engaged in the bear polemic, it is more difficult to differentiate between true justification and conflict of interest. Nevertheless, bear have at the same time divided and joined Pyrenean all over the massif. Generally, it is thought that pastoralism have on one side breeders and on other side shepherds, but this study has reveal that between breeders and shepherds were a special group known as breeder-shepherds. Special because of the look they have on cohabitation and the reasons of their choices. Examining the interviews done for this work, breeder-shepherds are more prompt to be pro-bear than to be opponents and shepherds are closer to the position of their employers (PG). This does not signifies that a breeder, a breeder-shepherd and a shepherd will always work with those of the same point of view even if he is willing to so do. Because in the whole Pyrenean massif, more than 90% of farmers are opponents and the bear not present everywhere, the scenarios of relationship between breeders, shepherd-breeders, shepherds and Pastoral Groups according to each one position are as follow (see diagram 4 below).

Diagram 4: Scenarios of relations between breeders, breeder-shepherds, shepherds and PGsIn this work it has appear a very similar situation like that of the wolf in the Alps as mentioned by Benhammou and Salvador (2003) whereby positions within each group are not monolithic; there are no in one side farmers against cohabitation with predator and in other side ecologists taking bear as the supreme symbol of biodiversity. Some farmers and farming related activity professionals are struggling to enhance the breeders' situation establishing a partnership with actors of environment. Breeders should take note that predator problem will amplify in Pyrenees and that there should be reaction right now without shutting oneself up in radical speech and technically unproductive in practice. However, technical solutions are brought without real field assistance and answer on the polemic of social frustration. The ministry of agriculture is almost absent and even hesitant to put effort into tricky questions. The authorities' communication in the bear topic in Pyrenees shows more a communication strategy problem than voluntary opacity.

* ¹⁸ We sends the beasts there up so that they should take their holidays not to put them in prison because when they are not disturbed or under stress, is there they profit; they put weight because there up, there is a special flora and only the beasts know where they can find it (Discussion 6, May 2008).

* ¹⁹ MSP, is also bear; that thing presence have being imposed to us by those who think that animal husbandry in mountain region works like music's paper. At MSP season approach, we do not last thinking of how will be the results at the beasts coming down? (Discussion 1&3, May 2008).

* ²⁰ Independence: A claimed autonomy vis-à-vis natural and human local environment, but a subordination accepted vis-à-vis professional partners; value of which modernisation have restrict the decision power of farmer and that does not apply oneself to the same things (Beuret, 1998).