Traditional Free-Ranging Livestock Farming as a Management Strategy for Biological and Cultural Landscape Diversity: A Case from the Southern Apennines

Mediterranean mountain landscapes are undergoing a widespread phenomenon of abandonment. This brings, as a consequence, the loss of traditional land use practices, such as transhumant pastoralism, as well as shrub and wood encroachment, with repercussions on the biodiversity associated with semi-open, human-managed landscapes. In this study, we focus on a mountain pasture from the Southern Apennines (Italy), where free-ranging transhumant grazing is still carried out, to quantify the effects of grazing presence and exclusion on arthropod diversity, and to qualitatively characterize the plant communities of grazed and ungrazed areas. Using field sampling, remote sensing, and semi-structured interviews, we assessed the validity of traditional cattle farming as a landscape management tool. Indeed, high diversity grasslands excluded from grazing were characterized by significantly less even and more dominated arthropod communities, as well as fewer plant species and families. Moreover, in areas that have been consistently grazed over the years, we found no forest encroachment from 1955 to 2019. However, rural communities are experiencing difficulties in keeping local traditions alive, even with current agri-environmental schemes. Thus, traditional livestock grazing can be a valuable management tool to maintain high biological and cultural diversity, even if stronger cooperation and attention to local needs is necessary.

Domestic Livestock and Rewilding: Are They Mutually Exclusive?

Human influence extends across the globe, from the tallest mountains to the deep bottom of the oceans. There is a growing call for nature to be protected from the negative impacts of human activity (particularly intensive agriculture); so-called “land sparing”. A relatively new approach is “rewilding”, defined as the restoration of self-sustaining and complex ecosystems, with interlinked ecological processes that promote and support one another while minimising or gradually reducing human intervention. The key theoretical basis of rewilding is to return ecosystems to a “natural” or “self-willed” state with trophic complexity, dispersal (and connectivity) and stochastic disturbance in place. However, this is constrained by context-specific factors whereby it may not be possible to restore the native species that formed part of the trophic structure of the ecosystem if they are extinct (e.g., mammoths, Mammuthus spp., aurochs, Bos primigenius); and, populations/communities of native herbivores/predators may not be able to survive or be acceptable to the public in small scale rewilding projects close to areas of high human density. Therefore, the restoration of natural trophic complexity and disturbance regimes within rewilding projects requires careful consideration if the broader conservation needs of society are to be met. In some circumstances, managers will require a more flexible deliberate approach to intervening in rewilding projects using the range of tools in their toolbox (e.g., controlled burning regimes; using domestic livestock to replicate the impacts of extinct herbivore species), even if this is only in the early stages of the rewilding process. If this approach is adopted, then larger areas can be given over to conservation, because of the potential broader benefits to society from these spaces and the engagement of farmers in practises that are closer to their traditions. We provide examples, primarily European, where domestic and semi-domestic livestock are used by managers as part of their rewilding toolbox. Here managers have looked at the broader phenotype of livestock species as to their suitability in different rewilding systems. We assess whether there are ways of using livestock in these systems for conservation, economic (e.g., branded or certified livestock products) and cultural gains.

Forest landscape restoration: state of play

Tree planting has been widely touted as an inexpensive way to meet multiple international environmental goals for mitigating climate change, reversing landscape degradation and restoring biodiversity restoration. The Bonn Challenge and New York Declaration on Forests, motivated by widespread deforestation and forest degradation, call for restoring 350 million ha by 2030 by relying on forest landscape restoration (FLR) processes. Because the 173 million ha commitments made by 63 nations, regions and companies are not legally binding, expectations of what FLR means lacks consensus. The frequent disconnect between top-level aspirations and on-the-ground implementation results in limited data on FLR activities. Additionally, some countries have made landscape-scale restoration outside of the Bonn Challenge. We compared and contrasted the theory and practice of FLR and compiled information from databases of projects and initiatives and case studies. We present the main FLR initiatives happening across regional groups; in many regions, the potential need/opportunity for forest restoration exceeds the FLR activities underway. Multiple objectives can be met by manipulating vegetation (increasing structural complexity, changing species composition and restoring natural disturbances). Livelihood interventions are context-specific but include collecting or raising non-timber forest products, employment and community forests; other interventions address tenure and governance.