Perception of livestock impacts on ecosystem services

Given the anthropocentric nature of the ES framework (D’Ottavio et al., 2017), stakeholder perception on ES provision requires to be considered and assessed, especially in relation to identification, recognition and valuation of ES. In this study, the extent of assessed impacts was found to be generally positive.

While supporting and regulating ES were perceived to be positive, cultural ES were found to be the most valued by the respondents. This result is most interesting as in comparison with other ES, cultural ones have been particularly poorly studied (Haida et al., Reference Hiernaux, Bielders, Valentin, Bationo and Fernández-Rivera2016; D’Ottavio et al., 2017), even if public generally recognized those as among the most important services provided in grazing areas (Bernués et al., Reference Bouwma, Schleyer, Primmer, Winkler, Berry, Young, Carmen, Spulerova, Bezak and Vadineanu2014; Garrido et al., Reference Garrido, Elbakidze, Angelstam, Plieninger, Pulido and Moreno2017a and Reference Guimet, Giroud, Guet, Jardin, Peppin and Bornard2017b). Regarding livestock breed and species more specifically, Marsoner et al. (Reference Marsoner, Vigl, Manck, Jaritz, Tappeiner and Tasser2017) suggested that, given the variety of cultural non-material benefits obtained from local livestock breeds, the diversity of livestock breeds within a given region could be considered as an indicator for cultural ecosystem services. Here the impact of livestock in terms of cultural, historic and natural heritage was generally perceived as positive (84% of respondents, several of them providing comments on the importance of livestock for local culture, lifestyle and livestock keepers’ prestige). For instance, one respondent noted that in Kenya the Kalemjin pastoralist tribes measure their wealth in number of cows, which are also used in traditional cultural celebrations, while in Slovenian national park in Bela Krajina region its managers were reported to revive the traditional knowledge in wool production from the local sheep breed.

The results of the PCA analysis showed a global positive correlation between impacts perceived from the different kinds of ES, which can be linked to the multiple synergies reported between ES in livestock farming systems (Bernués et al., Reference Bernués, Ruiz, Olaizola, Villalba and Casasús2011; Rodríguez-Ortega et al., Reference Rodríguez-Ortega, Oteros-Rozas, Ripoll-Bosch, Tichit, Martín-López and Bernués2014). Trade-offs may also exist, most of them occurring between non-provisioning and provisioning ES as suggested by Martín-López et al. (Reference Martín-López, Iniesta-Arandia, García-Llorente, Palomo, Casado-Arzuaga, Del Amo and González2012). However, our study did not consider provisioning ES. Multiple studies have identified grazing intensity as one of the major factors of ES provision (Ford et al., Reference Fraser, Moorby, Vale and Evans2012; Petz et al., Reference Petz, Alkemade, Bakkenes, Schulp, van der Velde and Leemans2014; Rodríguez-Ortega et al., Reference Rodríguez-Ortega, Oteros-Rozas, Ripoll-Bosch, Tichit, Martín-López and Bernués2014), often driving the trade-offs between provisioning and non-provisioning ES. In our surveys, several respondents indicated that the positive impact of livestock grazing on shrub growth dynamics also increased the environmental and recreational value of the grazing area. In the case studies analysed, information on stocking rate was provided only for a limited number of cases (13 cases), with stocking rates ranging from less than 0.02 to more than 2 Livestock Tropical Unit (TLU) per ha, stocking rates higher than 1 TLU/ha reported being all from Europe.

This survey reflects the nature of respondents’ perception of the provided ES. Understanding the perceptions between different stakeholders with different roles and interests is important when designing environmental policies aiming at promoting multifunctionality (Bernués et al., Reference Bouwma, Schleyer, Primmer, Winkler, Berry, Young, Carmen, Spulerova, Bezak and Vadineanu2014). This is especially true for NGOs, private actors and research institutes which may have an important role in influencing agricultural policy making (Carnol et al., Reference Carvalho and Batello2014). Stakeholder perception can be related to local knowledge (localized, experiential or indigenous knowledge), scientific knowledge (explicit knowledge that has been derived from applying more formal methods) (Raymond et al., Reference Raymond, Fazey, Reed, Stringer, Robinson and Evely2010), as well as the level of involvement in management of local environment and resources (Lamarque et al., Reference Lamarque, Tappeiner, Turner, Steinbacher, Bardgett, Szukics, Schermer and Lavorel2011). In the study of Carnol et al. (Reference Carvalho and Batello2014) on ES linked with forestry in Belgium, practitioners and scientists showed the difference in perception of importance of various ES. Similarly, in a study on grassland ecosystem services in three European mountain regions, Lamarque et al. (Reference Lamarque, Tappeiner, Turner, Steinbacher, Bardgett, Szukics, Schermer and Lavorel2011) showed differences in objectives and concerns between regional experts and farmers, fostering divergent priorities for ES. By contrast, Haida et al. (Reference Hiernaux, Bielders, Valentin, Bationo and Fernández-Rivera2016) found that importance of ES in European mountain areas was not influenced by region of origin or background of experts. In our survey, stakeholders from breeding organizations and to a lesser extent from NGOs (i.e. practitioners) reported more positive impacts of livestock on ES than researchers or stakeholders from government organizations. It is difficult to draw strong conclusions from these results, we may, however, hypothesize that researcher’s perceptions are more shaped by formal scientific knowledge (see below) and are therefore more critical than practitioners. Similarly, the common regulatory framework that exists in Europe since 25 years may have shaped to some extent the awareness and perception towards ES, explaining the more positive impacts reported in European cases than in non-EU cases.

One may argue to what extent the assessed impacts of livestock on ES reported in this survey differ from actual outcomes. Carnol et al. (Reference Carvalho and Batello2014) showed that both practitioners’ and scientists’ perceptions of ecosystem services in mixed-species forest stands in Belgium differed to some extent from formal scientific findings. In our study, respondents were asked to indicate if documentation existed on the impact of livestock grazing on ES provision. In multiple cases, respondents indicated that reported ES impacts had been documented, either through scientific papers, projects or farmer interviews. Direct observations were also reported by respondents, for instance in terms of bush encroachment following the decrease of grazing activities. This is consistent with literature indicating that positive impacts of livestock on ES have become apparent only once grazing has diminished or disappeared within the areas (Verrier and Bresson, Reference Verrier and Bresson1995; Lasanta et al., Reference Lasanta, Gonzalez-Hidalgo, Vicente-Serrano and Sferia2006; Fontana et al., Reference Ford, Garbutt, Jones and Jones2014). As our survey invited respondents to provide case studies of ES provided by specific livestock population, impacts reported were expected to be positive, relative to the actual outcomes. For instance, a large majority (65%) of respondents reported either positive or very positive impacts of livestock on nutrient cycling, compared with those reporting negative or very negative impacts (4%). This contrasts with the much variable results of studies having measured the actual impact of grazing on nutrient cycling, those impacts depending largely on soil and plant properties, as well as grazing practices (see for instance Hiernaux et al., 1999; Ford et al., Reference Fraser, Moorby, Vale and Evans2012). Disservices were reported only in a small number of cases. For instance, a case from South Africa reported free roaming feral horses as a cause of trampling in wetlands and streams (negative impact on erosion), as well as spreading exotic weeds (negative impact on seed dispersal).

As the survey was sent to experts and organizations, the views of livestock keepers were not directly reflected. In any future survey, the attitude and perception of farmers towards ES need to be taken into account, as they are the main providers and beneficiaries of those ES, their attitude being often determinant for the success of ES policies (Chen et al., Reference D’Hour, Hauwuy, Coulon and Garel2017).

In this study, respondents reported a significant effect of species or species combination on the extent of ES provided. As our surveys focused on grasslands, it was not surprising that a large majority of cases (75.6%) involved ruminant species (cattle, sheep, goat and buffalo). When providing details on livestock breed, the use of local or landrace breeds was frequently reported, and many respondents highlighted breeds’ adaptation to the local environment. Some experimental studies in Europe assessing the impact livestock practice on grassland biodiversity, found no clear effect of breed on faunal and botanical diversity (Rook et al., Reference Rook, Dumont, Isselstein, Osoro, WalliesDeVries, Parente and Mills2004; Dumont et al., Reference D’Ottavio, Francioni, Trozzo, Sedić, Budimir, Avanzolini, Trombetta, Porqueddu, Santilocchi and Toderi2007; Wallis De Vries et al., Reference Wallis De Vries, Parkinson, Dulphy, Sayer and Diana2007), except in one case studies in Spain where local Celtiberic goat breed appeared to be more efficient in reducing cover of shrubs in comparison to the commercial Cashmere breed (Celaya et al., Reference Chen, Zhang, Liu and Yu2010). There is, however, some scientific evidence showing the specific abilities of those breeds, for instance their walking ability (D’Hour et al., Reference Dumont, Rook, Coran and Röver1994; Bailey et al., Reference Becue-Bertaut and Pages2001) or their ability to ingest and digest forages of low value (Guimet et al., Reference Haida, Rüdisser and Tappeiner1969), for example on high altitude pasture of the Northern French Alps. In our study, it appears, however, that exotic crossbred or international transboundary breeds (Holstein, Simmental or Angus cattle, Saanen goat) were also used in some cases, showing that the provision of ES is not exclusive to local breeds. In a recent publication, Ovaska and Soini (Reference Ovaska and Soini2016) showed that Finnish stakeholders viewed ES provided by local breeds as similar to other livestock, with some emphasis on cultural ES provided by local breeds; 12.2% of the case studies involved several species in the grazing activity, mostly ruminants. When different species (or, to a lesser extent, several ruminant species) were present in the grazing area, respondents reported impacts on ES to be more positive than for single species (Figure 3). Several studies noted the positive impacts of mixed-species grazing (Celaya et al., Reference Celaya, Martínez and Osoro2007; Fraser et al., Reference Garrido, Elbakidze and Angelstam2014). Sabatier et al. (Reference Sabatier, Durant, Hazard, Lauvie, Lécrivain, Magda, Martel, Roche, de Sainte Marie, Teillard and Tichit2015) suggested that multi-species grazing favours complementarity in resource use and improves the overall use of plant communities, strengthens resilience to economic perturbations, and reduces animal parasitism. In that regard, impacts of multi-species grazing perceived in this survey seem to reflect actual outcome in terms of ES provision although the responses did not provide details on how the species mix in the grazing areas.

The most discriminating factor in terms of the impact of ES was the geographic origin of the cases. Cases from Europe were in general less negative in their assessment of livestock roles, especially when considering regulating ES: 1% of answers were either very negative or negative in cases from European countries, while this proportion reached 10% in non-European countries. It can be discussed whether this difference is due to differences in quantification and perception of ES between European and non-European countries, or better management of eventual negative externalities in Europe. To a lesser extent, respondents reported more positive impacts of livestock on ES in protected compared with non-protected areas. At first, this result may seem a bit counterintuitive, in the sense that livestock grazing is often excluded in strictly protected areas considering its potential impacts on wildlife biodiversity. The impact of livestock on ES, actual and perceived, may differ according to the IUCN protection category area. For instance, managers may be more focused on wildlife preservation in wilderness areas while the governance and institutional context may differ. It may be hypothesized that the cases provided in our study originate from protected areas where livestock are kept because their positive impacts on ES are well known. Literature shows that the relationship between grazing and wildlife biodiversity is complex and that species adapted to open habitats are often positively affected by livestock grazing (Schieltz and Rubenstein, Reference Schieltz and Rubenstein2016).

Besides the geographic origin, species and protected area status, no factor (ecosystem type, grazing area range, land ownership…) was found to have a significant effect on the global impact of livestock on ES, as perceived by the different stakeholders. This result is in contrast with the study by Harrison et al. (2010) on European ecosystems which showed, for instance, that intensively managed ecosystems contributed (e.g. agro-ecosystems provide food via crops and livestock) mostly to vital provisioning services, while semi-natural ecosystems such as grasslands and mountains were key contributors of genetic resources and cultural services.

Recognition, constraints and opportunities for ecosystem services provision

In addition to the more positive assessment of impacts of livestock and breeds on ES reported in Europe, it is interesting to note that those cases also reported a better recognition of ES than non-European countries. This difference in the recognition of ES appears to be connected to the inclusion of ES within the wider political, legislative and administrative framework stated above; a much larger proportion of respondents from European than non-European countries reported recognition of ES by policy makers (66.7% v. 39.5%) and land managers (62.8% v. 42.1%). In terms of the form of recognition, if the proportion of answers indicating existing forms of recognition was always equivalent or larger between European and non-European respondents (Figure 4), the main and the largest difference would be related to the existence of payments or economic incentives (54.5% and 21.1% in European and non-European countries), which is in agreement with their inclusion in legislative frameworks. Indeed, several European cases referred to the European Union (Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development) and national agri-environmental measures to provide funding to farmers to conserve local habitats and breeds.

When considering constraints and opportunities related to the provision of ES and their relevance to the continuation of livestock production in grazing systems, there were several differences between European and non-European cases (see Figure 4). Again, respondents viewed management not based on recognition of ES and absence of supporting policies and regulation as the most important constraints by non-European respondents. For instance, a respondent from South Africa reported a lack of recognition towards holistic management approaches. The loss of social prestige of pastoralists was also highlighted in several responses such as the studies on Borana cattle and Red Maasai sheep in Kenya. In Europe, the major constraint reported was the lack of sufficient income from livestock keeping (84% v. 38% in non-European countries). This result seems to highlight the dependency of European farmers on external financial support. For instance, a survey response from the United Kingdom mentioned that further management of the Exmoor pony could be threatened by decreases in the EU or national funding for agri-environmental schemes. On the other hand, respondents viewed financial support/economic incentives, and recognition of ES among policy makers as the most important opportunities for ensuring that ES are provided, with no significant differences between European and non-European countries. To a lesser extent, respondents within and outside Europe insisted on the need to improve research programmes on the topic, especially related to genetic resources (identification of services, breeding programmes targeting relevant characteristics). According to Cardellino and Boyazoglu (Reference Carnol, Baeten, Branquart, Grégoire, Heughebaert, Muys, Ponette and Verheyen2009), research in the field of animal genetic resources is required to understand the socio-economic, infrastructural, technical and formal constraints that limit the operation of sustainable conservation programmes in less developed countries. Many cases mentioned that the current state of knowledge on the ES affecting grassland ecosystems is limited to the habitat provisioning roles of grazing animals and effects of overgrazing on grassland communities, which often only addresses the animals’ roles at species level. Breed effects are more difficult to measure and they are rarely integrated in studies on environmental roles of grazing.