- Email: [email protected]
The origins and functioning of the private wildfowling lease system in a major Mediterranean wetland: the Camargue (Rhone river delta, southern France)
Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286
The origins and functioning of the private wildfowling lease system in a major Mediterranean wetland: the Camargue (Rhone river delta, southern France) Rapha.el Mathevet*, Franc,ois Mesle! ard Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat, Le Sambuc, F-13200 Arles, France Received 2 July 2001; accepted 21 March 2002
Abstract All over the world, the demand for high-quality hunting areas has been growing in recent decades and this trend is expected to continue in the future. In the Camargue (southern France), where there are large wintering populations of ducks, the leasing of privately owned estates for wildfowling is becoming an alternative economic activity that can supplement and even exceed the income from other uses of farmland. In this region, several habitats of conservation concern, including Mediterranean seasonally flooded marshes, are managed for this purpose. However, data on wetland management for shooting and on the status of private shooting clubs in relation to local farming, are scarce. We investigated the characteristics of 42 private wildfowling clubs in the Rhone river delta. Aerial surveys were used to collect the data on land use on these sites. In addition, interviews and questionnaires allowed us to identify habitat management practices undertaken by landowners and hunting managers. We describe the origins and functioning of the private wildfowling club system. A multifactorial analysis and an ascending hierarchical classification distinguished three types of club. We evaluated leasing costs and incomes in the Camargue, their determinants, and some consequences of the leasing system on rural development and the conservation of wetlands. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Wildfowling; Farmland management; Shooting leasing; Farming economy; Mediterranean wetland; Camargue; France
Introduction Despite a constant decline in the number of hunters since the end of the 1970s, France still has more hunters than any other country in the European Union, with ca. 25% of the total number of registered hunters (Lefeuvre, 1999). In 1992, the average annual total expenditure on hunting was h1199 per hunter, and hunting generated a total turnover of h1950 million annually, of which the leasing of shooting rights was estimated to contribute h281 million per year (Pinet, 1993). At the beginning of the 1990s, only 28% of French hunters used leases to gain access to private hunting lands, but the leasing of shooting rights is now prevalent all over the country, on both agricultural and non-agricultural land. Leasing is nationally regulated through hunting and fiscal laws (Caziot, 1914; Fischer, 2000). The demand for high*Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Mathevet).
quality hunting areas has created a market that provides incentives for rural landowners and farmers to consider the leasing of shooting rights as an alternative source of income (Waguet and Charlez-Coursault, 1991). In the Camargue (Fig. 1), ca. 85% of the land is privately owned and the leasing of wildfowling rights on farms and ranch lands has become an important business activity. Although detailed information is not available, findings from a recent study (Mathevet, 2000) at the regional level indicate that shooting generates about h4.4 million in lease income and h5.3 million in indirect (non-lease) income annually. Several studies have shown the strong degree of interdependence between the various Camargue wetlands (Pirot et al., 1984; Dehorter and Tamisier, 1996). Thus, many wintering ducks exploit a resting area during the daylight and disperse at night to feed on distinct peripheral marshes. Usually, the resting sites are located in protected areas, whilst feeding grounds are unprotected and subject to shooting (Tamisier and
0264-8377/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 4 - 8 3 7 7 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 2 5 - X
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286
278
F LES
0
2.5
5 km
Mediterranean Sea
LEGEND reserve and protected areas where hunting is prohibited wetland areas managed for hunting and bull grazing industrial salinas agricultural area (mostly rice farming) urban and industrial areas Rhône River Fig. 1. Map of the Camargue.
Dehorter, 1999). During the last 20 years, management of the wetlands has been characterised by the building of embankments, the mechanical removal of vegetation, freshwater pumping and control of water levels, all leading to a loss of biological diversity (Grillas, 1992; Tamisier and Grillas, 1994). There is a need to reconcile wetland conservation with the development of an economic activity (wildfowling) whose financial contribution to local agriculture allows essential natural waterbird habitats to be preserved. However, although the organisation and functioning of public shooting clubs have been relatively well understood for many years (Tamisier and Dehorter, 1999), a comprehensive study of the private leasing of shooting rights and the habitat management practised by those who lease these rights in the Camargue has never been carried out.
This paper has three objectives: (1) to describe the origin and functioning of the system of private shooting clubs; (2) to identify habitat management practices used by landowners and managers; and (3) to evaluate leasing costs and incomes in the Camargue, their determinants, and some of the implications of the leasing system for agriculture and nature conservation.
Materials and methods Study area The study was conducted from 1997 to 2000 in the Rhone river delta (the Camargue) on the Mediterranean Sea coast, south-eastern France (431300 N, 41300 E;
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286
Fig. 1). The Camargue covers ca. 145,000 ha and is a major component of the African flyway, providing staging, wintering and breeding habitats for thousands of ducks and coots annually. As such, it is a wetland of international importance for wildlife (Heath and Evans, 2000). More than 150,000 ducks winter in the many marshes, ponds and lagoon systems. At present (2001), there are about 22,000 ha of protected wetlands where shooting is not permitted. Currently, the major land uses in the Camargue are rice farming, bull grazing, reed harvesting, and private shooting. Overall, 78 land holdings covering 30% of the privately owned land in the Camargue were studied, while 127 individuals were interviewed throughout the Rhone delta in 1997 and 1998. A total of 42 shooting clubs (representing 27% of local private clubs) were considered within this study area. Information was obtained concerning the management of land and water; the proportions (surface area) of the whole estate and of the leased lands devoted to different land uses; individual fees and estimates of turnover; proximity to a nature reserve and to a public path; presence/absence and the standard of any hunting lodges; presence or absence of a club president; and the size of shooting groups.
279
ships (with reference to land management) between landowners and wildfowlers, their strategies for development, any conflicts, and their attitudes to the environment. A primary function of the questionnaire was to describe the behaviour of the human protagonists as precisely as possible (Chauchat, 1985). Analyses Parametric statistics were used in the analysis of survey data. Prior to analysis, statistical distributions were checked for normality using the one-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (Siegel and Castellan, 1988). As individual fees had distributions differing significantly from normality (Po0:05), the data were normalised using log transformations. All data were normally distributed after log transformation (P > 0:05). Homogeneity of variance was tested using F-tests (P > 0:05). In order to classify the 42 private shooting clubs, we carried out multifactorial analysis with an ascending hierarchical classification (Escofier and Pages, 1990). To identify which hunting club characteristics were related to turnover and individual fees, we used univariate linear regression analyses and ANCOVA.
Land use, area and location Overview of wildfowling practices and lease systems The allocation of land uses on the estates was assessed from aerial photographs taken in 1998 and analysed according to the method developed by Lemaire et al. (1987) and Sandoz (1996). Field surveys were conducted on each estate to confirm our estimates from the aerial photographs. The results from the photographic assessments were transferred to the MapInfo GIS on a 1:25,000 scale and the surface area of each land-use type and of each hunting unit were calculated. Land use was divided into three categories: arable (rice, wheat, etc.); bull grazing-related land use (i.e. natural land, pasture); and managed shooting marsh, defined as a temporary or permanently flooded wetland which has been subjected to intense water and vegetation management or where significant modifications (embankment construction) have been carried out for shooting purposes. Wetland management and shooting club organisation survey The delineation of hunting units and assessment of shooting activity management was also carried out by semi-structured interviews and a standardised questionnaire, according to social science methodology (Ferre! ol and Deubel, 1993). Our study was designed to obtain information about the characteristics of the leasing system, the purchasers, and the economic returns from leasing. We used interviews to investigate the relation-
In the Camargue, ducks are usually shot at twilight as they fly between the diurnal roost and the night-time feeding areas. This kind of hunting is called ‘‘passshooting’’, and takes place primarily on public lands. Here, the wildfowler takes up position on the edge of a wetland or near to an irrigation ditch close to where the birds will fly past. By contrast, shooting from a blind near or on open water takes place mainly in private marshes. It involves waiting behind a blind and shooting ducks in flight when they arrive to feed during the evening or early in the morning. Wildfowlers try to attract ducks with decoys or by scattering seed such as rice and millet. Shooting also takes place at roosting sites during the morning. This kind of shooting generates large individual bags, which are highly prized by some wildfowlers. Apart from protected areas where shooting is prohibited (ca. 22,000 ha), shooting is regulated by annual decrees specifying opening and closing dates for the various game species. Between 1992 and 2000, the open season has been from 15 August to the end of February, with the season for each species starting and ending at different times within this period (see Table 1). As from 26 July 2000, when French hunting laws were modified to comply with the EU Birds Directive, the official season is from 1 September to 31 January for all game species. There is no hunting quota, but the selling
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286
280
of any waterfowl apart from Mallard Anas platyrhynchos is forbidden by state laws. Habitats managed for wildfowl include ponds, brackish lagoons, and natural marshes. New wetlands are also created on former agricultural land and shallow depressions in halophytic scrubland. These habitat developments and management practices began on some estates at the end of the 1950s and expanded to all estates during the 1960s and 1970s (Mathevet and Tamisier, 2002). Low dams and water-level control systems are being created. Flooding can be affected by gravity flow, runoff, or the use of pumps. The growth of aquatic vegetation is promoted with the aim of significantly increasing the shooting bag. Wildfowl food plants grow naturally from seed each year. They are encouraged by summer flooding, harrowing and fire. Flooding during dry periods, 4–5 weeks before migrant waterfowl are expected, favours opportunistic weeds and wild rice. In the early summer, herbicides may be used to kill undesirable aquatic vegetation. Such management strongly modifies Mediterranean seasonal marshes and tends to change the plant species composition of Table 1 The progressive closing dates for various waterfowl species before law No. 2000–698 of 26 July 2000 and the proportion of each duck species in the total Camargue wintering population Closing date
Waterfowl species
% of 115,000 wintering ducksa
31 January
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
27
10 February
Greylag Goose Anser anser Shoveler Anas clypeata Pochard Aythya farina Red-crested Pochard Netta rufina
/ 10 8 3
20 February
Teal Anas crecca Gadwall Anas strepera Pintail Anas acuta Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula Coot Fulica atra
31 8 1 2
Wigeon Anas penelope And other bird species
10 /
wetlands from diverse Mediterranean to species-poor continental-type communities (Grillas, 1992; Tamisier and Grillas, 1994). Two types of hunting club can be distinguished, according to their degree of access to the shooting area and the density of wildfowlers (see Table 2). Most of the total hunting area is under the control of private clubs. On these estates the landowner leases seasonal shooting rights either directly to several wildfowlers or to a third party, who sub-leases to wildfowlers, in this way creating an informal shooting club. The lease-broker, locally called the hunting president, is a wildfowler who wishes to control his/her own personal shooting areas. He/she may be interested solely in making a profit and thus may not have a long-term interest in wetland ecosystem conservation. An estate may be leased as a whole or in part, and consequently the management of the shooting area may thus become partially separated from agricultural management. Depending on his/her priorities, the shoot manager determines the level of individual fees as well as the number of wildfowlers, and establishes internal regulations. He/she may deal personally with the management of marshes or may subcontract; any necessary financial investments are his/her responsibility. The lease can either be official, similar to a grazing licence, or, as is fairly common, a private lease by amicable arrangement. The most productive wildfowling units often attract exclusive clubs, requiring high membership fees, which include the costs of a guard and comfortable lodging. Fees range from h762 to h12,195 per person per year (Thau, 1994), with annual bags ranging from tens to thousands of ducks per person. By comparison, the public shooter pays about h90 annually. In spite of the high prices, this kind of club is popular among wildfowlers from outside the delta, because it frees them from the constraints associated with public lands, such as the high density of shooters, variable bags and difficult access to marshes.
/
Development and characterisation of private clubs End February a
Average wintering duck population from September to March (1964–1995 period), after Tamisier and Dehorter (1999).
Wildfowlers are aware that for a long time now they have been privileged to be able to shoot in one of France’s most famous wetlands (Ganeval, 1946). The
Table 2 Camargue shooting clubs in 1999
Total of shooting clubs Density (hunter ha1) Total shooting area (ha) a
Public shooting clubs
Private shooting clubs
Total of shooting unitsa
20 1 ca. 5000
195 o0.1 ca. 40,000
226 / ca. 45,000
Territorial unit where the hunting activity takes place (estate, marshes).
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286
unique way in which the private wildfowling clubs of the Camargue have developed can be put down to the particularly favourable natural and social conditions prevalent there (large areas of natural habitats where ducks winter and stage, as well as large estates). Another factor is economic growth in France and the associated increase in demand for leisure activities during the 1960s and 1970s. It is interesting to note how the number of hunters increased by 33% in 15 years, reaching nearly 2.3 million in 1975, before falling to 1.4 million in the 1990s (ONC, 1998). Over the same period, the rural population decreased by 22% to only 14 million (Bezbakh, 1997). The large increase in the number of hunters and the concomitant development of transport facilities (highways, regional airports) strongly increased the demand for leisure hunting. The decline in small game at the beginning of the 1950s also played a part in the increased popularity of wildfowling. Notable declines, for example, were observed in wild rabbit populations following the arrival and spread of myxomatosis. All of these elements have contributed to the development of ‘‘objective hunting’’, where hunting is seen as an economic activity, as opposed to ‘‘subjective hunting’’, which is based more on a personal passion. ‘‘Objective hunting’’ can easily develop into an extension of business relationships, as hunting generates a powerful social bond that can be more effective for trade talks than the traditional business lunch (Hell, 1985). This diversity of factors is of primary importance in explaining the number and variety of private wildfowling clubs in the Camargue. According to our
281
survey, 75% of the estates are shot over and 62% are leased for wildfowling. Three types of private clubs can be distinguished (see Table 3): (a) The smaller clubs. These clubs operate typically on smaller estates, with an average total area of 200 ha, comprising 77% arable land (utilisable agricultural area, UAA). The estates are usually intensively farmed, with managed marshes associated with former agricultural land and/or winter-flooded ricefields. The density of wildfowlers is the highest of the three types (Table 3). The average annual turnover generated by shooting remains less than h13,749. The majority of the shooting areas are rented directly from the landowner. Generally, lodges are not present or are rather basic. Shooting is allowed 3 days per week and under poor weather conditions. (b) The mid-level clubs. This type of club operates on a larger estate than the preceding class, with a mean area of 452 ha. At 233 ha, the UAA covers on average 51% of the estate. The average size of the shot over area is large (205 ha), covering 45% of the total surface of the estate. All these clubs have managed marshes but they account for less than 60 ha on average. Half of the clubs manage former agricultural lands and flooded ricefields during the winter. The density of wildfowlers reaches 10.1 per 100 ha. This is three times lower than the preceding type (Table 3). The average annual turnover reaches h32,344. The majority of these clubs have a club
Table 3 Main characteristics of the private wildfowling clubs studied in the Camargue
Number of hunting clubs per class Average estate area (EA) (ha) Average AAU (ha) % AAU/EA Waterfowl hunting area (ha) % WHA/EA Average managed shooting marsh area (ha) % Shooting marshes/WHA Average former agricultural land area (ha) % Former agricultural lands/WHA Average natural marshes area (ha) % Natural marshes area/WHA Average of flooded ricefields area for hunting (ha) % Flooded ricefields/WHA Number of hunters per 100 ha of shooting area Average total number of hunters per shooting club Total number of hunters Average turnover (h yr1) Average individual fee (h hunter1 yr1)
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Whole classes
21 200 175 77 58 39 55 65 31 10 44 40 17 73 31 8.3 174 13,749 1666
12 452 233 51 205 45 57 32 36 30 142 45 23 28 10 10.8 130 32,344 3392
9 702 187 39 545 68 231 43 26 22 443 63 40 30 4.4 11 100 63,909 5895
42 392 192 61 210 43 78 38 19 13 157 27 25 50 21.8 9.2 404 29,745 3057
Class 1: smaller clubs; Class 2: mid-level clubs; Class 3: elite clubs; UAA is utilisable agricultural area; WHA is waterfowl hunting area. The percentage relative to WHA is calculated on the base of the shooting clubs where the considered land use is present.
president and a lodge, and a few have a guard. On some estates shooting is allowed only over weekends, generally Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning. (c) The elite clubs. These clubs are characterised mainly by their large area (an average of 702 ha). The UAA is generally small, in relation to the available land area (39%). The shooting area is large relative to that controlled by other club types. Natural marshes and halophytic scrubland cover 63% of the farmland. All of these clubs have managed marshes which cover significant areas (231 ha). The density of wildfowlers can be as low as 4 per 100 ha. The average annual turnover is rather high, reaching h64,000. The majority of these clubs rent directly from the landowner. All have a comfortable lodge, a guard providing security and land management. In most cases, the wildfowling season is the same as the official season. Shooting is generally authorised at weekends or once per month only. Thus, Camargue wildfowling clubs may be categorised according to size of the shooting area and land-use type, and also by the price of admission, reflecting the socio-economic status of those who make use of them. In the elite clubs, the professional classes, executives and company directors dominate, while in the more modest hunting clubs, farmers, artisans and tradesmen are the majority (Fig. 2). Overall, the turnover (i.e., the individual fee multiplied by the number of wildfowlers) is proportional to
18
Number of hunters
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 E1
E2
ML1
ML2
ML3
ML4
Employee, worker, middle manager Farmer, market gardener Senior executive, intellectual Craftsman, traders, company director
Fig. 2. The socio-economic category of hunters in six private shooting clubs. (E) Elite shooting club; (ML) mid-level shooting club.
Hunting turnover (€ 1,000 per year)
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286
282
100
A
90 80 70 60 50 40 30
y = 2.5193x0.4805 r² = 0.5893 p < 0.001
B
20 10 0 0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Shooting area (ha)
Fig. 3. The annual hunting activity turnover (h yr1) as a function of hunting area (ha) in the Camargue.
Table 4 Potential factors influencing hunting turnover in the Camargue (ANCOVA, n ¼ 42 shooting clubs)
Waterfowl hunting area Existence of a hunting pond Adjacent to a hunting pond Existence of a hunting lodge Hunting guard Adjacent to a Nature Reserve Adjacent to a public path
DF
F
p
1 1 1 2 1 1 1
47.67 0.63 1.74 9.49 0.96 0.12 0.13
o0.0001 0.4327 0.1963 o0.001 0.3340 0.7356 0.7127
the shooting area (r2 ¼ 0:5893; n ¼ 42; po0:001; Fig. 3). However, for two types of club, the turnover does not appear to be related to the area. One club (A) organises wildfowling parties for private companies or individuals on a large estate primarily made up of arable land and with a relatively small effective shooting area. The attraction of the estate derives from its situation between two elite clubs that have duck resting places. In order to maintain large bag levels, massive releases of captive-bred ducks take place several times a year. Incomes generated by this estate are invested in the landowner’s rice farm and in advertising its agricultural products. Clubs of type ‘‘B’’ (Fig. 3) could be described as ‘‘hunting-passion clubs’’. The turnover is relatively low due to the characteristics of the shoot area (flooded ricefields, former agricultural lands, scattered residual marshes) and the fact that the relatively low bags here could not justify a high price for the lease or high fees. Sixty-eight per cent of the variance in turnover is explained by two variables: the characteristics of the shooting area and the presence of a lodge (Table 4). Seventy-four per cent of the variance in fees is explained by four factors: the presence of a pond, the lodge, the size of the shoot area and proximity to a nature reserve (Table 5). The link between the fee and the distance to a nature reserve is consistent with suggestions by several
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286
283
researchers about the existence of a positive externality of the creation of nature reserves (Fox and Madsen, 1997; Roth and Merz, 1997). This can result in a buildup of shooting-related infrastructure (i.e. dykes, ponds and pumps) in the peripheral zone of nature reserves, as we have demonstrated elsewhere (Mathevet and Tamisier, 2002). However, the impact of the wildfowl harvest on leases should not be underestimated. The fee (r2 ¼ 0:7381; n ¼ 22; po0:001) and the turnover (r2 ¼ 0:5687; n ¼ 22; po0:001) both increased with the average annual harvest.
illustrates the intensification of marsh management for wildfowling. The manager builds dams, installs bridges and pumps, and widens water bodies every year, to the detriment of the vegetation. The main purpose of these activities is to attract quarry species, but, according to 57% of the managers, the appeal of this landscape, both because of its appearance and the sense of freedom it brings to wildfowlers, should not be underestimated. This sense of freedom is mediated, however, by the systematic imposition of strict internal regulations within each shooting club. The wildfowlers are sensitive to the degradation of the wetlands but they do not accept that their hydraulic installations constitute a qualitative degradation of the marsh. The managers try to maximise the numbers of ducks on their units in order to optimise their income. They create an artificial habitat strictly dependent on human management (Grillas, 1992). The priority given to the economic functions of the environment leads to a space specialisation on a microscale and to an increase in the degree and complexity of the interrelationship between different areas, and could generate a diversification of landscape on a macro scale. However, standardisation of management methods results in degradation of, and decline in, natural Mediterranean wetland habitats.
Management practices in hunting marshes
The shooting economy: towards the informal sector
In the Camargue, the shoot manager’s aim is to convert semi-wild areas into specialised wildfowling sites. The suitability of the shooting area for ducks is optimised by the control of water levels. About half of the managers (47%) are estimated to have total control over hydraulic operations on their sites. Draw down of the water level in early spring is undertaken by 54% of managers. Re-flooding in mid-summer, to allow ducks easy access to food plants is practised by 80%. To produce annual weeds for ducks, spring draining, burning, reed harvesting, disc harrowing and grazing are the usual methods used. The wheel-cage tractor is the major tool for opening the vegetation (68% of cases) with bull grazing before the shooting season or exclusive horse grazing all year round (63%). The majority of managers spread rice, millet and sunflower seeds to attract ducks. Most wildfowlers recognise the unsustainable long-term effects of this practice, which consists of spreading several tons of seed in marshes each year. Forty-five per cent of clubs release captive-bred birds, usually mallards, but 30% of clubs primarily release pheasants in order to compensate for the absence of small game after duck shooting. Based on figures from six managers, the management costs of shooting (maintenance of a lodge, seed spreading, vegetation management, etc.), vary from h7622 to h21,342 annually. The level of these costs
The concept of an informal sector, based on the absence of registration and the non-observance of coding and taxation laws (Boyabe! , 1999), seems to apply in the case of the private clubs. In this context, it would seem to be useful to establish a distinction between the landowner and the club president. When the landowner sells seasonal shooting rights to several hunters or to a lease-broker without, or only partly, declaring the financial gain from this lease to the state authorities, it can be categorised as a ‘‘shadow economy’’ (i.e. tax evasion). Conversely, when the leasebroker organises the shoot management like a small private company, intending not necessarily to make a profit but at least to ensure that it will survive, he creates an informal structure which produces goods and services (catering, lodging), alongside traditional wildfowling activities. He usually employs practical land-management personnel, a cook, and a guard. This kind of activity, which avoids state control and contributes to the development of the local unofficial socio-economic network, comes under the heading of the ‘‘informal sector’’. A passion for hunting appears to be one significant reason for justifying the development of wildfowling activity (56% of replies), but the majority of the landowners are farmers, and 84% of them stated that they lease shooting rights primarily to generate
Table 5 Potential factors influencing hunting fees in the Camargue (ANCOVA, n ¼ 42 shooting clubs)
Waterfowl hunting area Existence of a hunting pond Adjacent to a hunting pond Existence of a hunting lodge Hunting guard Adjacent to a Nature Reserve Adjacent to a public path
DF
F
p
1 1 1 2 1 1 1
127.83 4.48 2.78 15.41 0.31 12.78 0.05
o0.0001 0.0420 0.1048 o0.0001 0.3564 0.0011 0.8231
284
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286
additional income. While 45% of landowners had been leasing out their land for shooting for over 15 years, 38% of them had been doing so for less than 10 years, clearly with the purpose of making a profit to compensate for a reduction in the income from rice farming over the last decade. A notable shift in the type of shooting, from the informal towards the formal sector, can be observed. We estimated that in 1997, 71% of landowners declared all or part of their income from shooting leases to the tax authorities. This can be attributed to the turning of media attention regarding fee prices towards information provided by wildfowlers, as well as conservationists and scientists (Thau, 1994; Tamisier and Dehorter, 1999). This media focus has generated a reaction from landowners, who tend to minimise the risk of official investigation, by treating shooting as an official activity and a diversification of their agricultural business. However, wildfowling remains an informal economical activity on many farms. According to landowners, the income from wildfowling helps to reduce the negative effects on the farming economy caused by changes in the common agricultural policy (CAP) and the global agricultural market. Since the price level of leases and fees in the Camargue can be high, it is important to view these within the context of the national and international hunting economy. The situation in the Camargue is not unique to France (Table 6) as there are similar developments elsewhere in Europe and in the USA. The shooting economy has undoubtedly had an impact on land values in the marshes of the Camargue for a long time, as in several other French wetlands (Caziot, 1914; Avocat, 1975). Thus, land prices in the Camargue are rather high compared to the national average (i.e.
h3049 ha1 in France and h6098 ha1 in the Camargue, Mathevet, 2000). Some farmers only buy the UAA and forsake the marsh, because they are not able to invest in poor agricultural land at market prices. Thus, as in other areas of France where shooting is popular, it can lead indirectly to a sub-division of large estates (5% of our sample) and to yet more complex hydrological interdependencies. As shoots have a commercial value through both the leasing and the land markets, the contribution to the total farming economy of the income from the leasing of shooting rights can be important. Leasing can provide an income that compares favourably with agricultural activity; the income from farming, all crop incomes and subsidies included, can be lower than the income from shooting (Table 7). Farm ‘‘3’’ has the highest leasing income. This is linked with reduced management costs, as the club president is in charge of all the management planning and costs. Following the recent fall in the price of rice products (1994–99), the leasing of shooting rights is likely to be more attractive to farmers and owners than any crop production, regardless of the farming situation. It moderates the precariousness of some debt-ridden farms, and maintains some others (in particular bullbreeding farms) which for some years have had extremely limited profits in spite of French and European agricultural subsidies. Private shoot leasing partly satisfies the needs of landowners and enhances their life quality. However, this situation is changing. Following the decline in the factors limiting the development of this activity (agricultural subsidies and the high price support by the CAP), the shooting economy could locally become more
Table 6 Comparison of shooting lease prices of some states and regions Country
Annual hunting lease
Game
Author
h1.3 ha1 of estate h10,814 per hunting team h302 to h1405 hunter1 h0.9 to h2.2 ha1 for 2800 ha h1081 hunter1
Deer and turkey Bull elk Small game and waterfowl Deer and turkey Deer, turkey and ducks
Pierce (1997) Wright (1999) Wright (1999) www.mcohunts.com www.huntingleases.net
381–2438 h hunter1 22–304 h ha1 762–12,195 h hunter1 65 h ha1 of estate 122 h ha1 of marshes
Waterfowl Waterfowl Waterfowl Waterfowl Waterfowl
big-game big-game wild boar wild boar
Mathevet (2000) Mathevet (2000) Thau (1994) Mathevet (2000) Mathevet (2000)
Forez
456–7622 h hunter1 762 h ha1 of pond 1219 h hunter1
Waterfowl and wild boar Waterfowl Waterfowl and big-game
Mathevet (2000) Charlez (1999) Mathevet (2000)
Italy
274 h ha1 of water
Waterfowl
Donati et al. (1992)
USA Missouri Utah Texas
France Brenne Camargue
Dombes
and and and and
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286 Table 7 Evaluation of agricultural and hunting incomes for the year 1997 in three farms in the Camargue (in h ha1)
Agricultural turnover Hunting turnover Agricultural cost Hunting cost Agricultural net incomea Hunting net incomea a
Farm 1
Farm 2
Farm 3
1450 266 1328 128
1503 393 1294 279
1683 381 1485 0
122 138
209 114
198 381
Before taxes, and including agricultural subsidies.
important than farming. In this case, the desire to satisfy wildfowlers that have paid a high fee could result in inappropriate activities with little consideration for game or for ecosystems. The redirection of government aid can be regarded as an essential element in the development of the whole rural system. The 2000 CAP reform opens up the possibility of a more ecologically orientated agricultural policy, which should benefit wetland habitats. But to be successful the CAP will have to take into account the specific situations of wetlands. The CAP has to move towards a rural policy, driving regional programmes which progressively integrate the environmental and socio-economic dimensions (Clement, 2001; Karl and Ranne! , 2001; Roberts, 2001).
285
difficulties arising from the complex web of hydrological and land-use interactions. It is necessary also to take into account the frequent use of lobbying to resolve conflicts of interest associated with information asymmetry. Until now, shooting and environmental policies have neglected the multiple and diversified issues of cultural and economic values of wetland and wildlife, distributive decision-making and the loyalties of those affected by these decisions. There is an evident need to develop multi-disciplinary approaches to identify when economic, political, or ecological intervention may be most successful in wetland conservation and in the sustainable development of rural activities in general.
Acknowledgements We wish to thank all the landowners and hunting managers for their collaboration during our fieldwork. We gratefully acknowledge two anonymous reviewers for pointing out areas in need of clarification. This research was supported by the French Research Ministry, the Centre de Recherche en Ge! ographie et Ame! nagement de l’Universite! Lyon 3, and the Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat. Our sincere thanks to the ‘‘Office National de la Chasse’’ staff, particularly Jean-Yves Mondain-Monval and Anthony Olivier.
Conclusion
References
Our study shows that for landowners and farmers, shoot leasing offers a means of generating a regular income in an unpredictable world agricultural market, and of contributing to the landowner’s quality of life. It also funds a diversification of farming towards agrotourism (specifically, funding the creation of rural lodges), and mitigates the precarious condition of farms suffering from high levels of debt. Consequently, the shooting system plays a key role in the maintenance of numerous agricultural estates, and thus the conservation of large ecological units. Rural communities benefit from shoot leasing, although there is little data on its direct and indirect effects on retail trade and lodging during the wildfowling season. The study of shooting marsh management costs and practices highlighted interventionist and expensive management practices, which are likely to appreciably reduce the profits from shoot leasing. The search for effective management of natural resources requires an approach that integrates ecological considerations with those that arise from the short-term socio-economic interests of wetland managers. Wetland conservation is based on the modification of the behaviour of users, and on public policies. However, as an objective it faces with
Avocat, C., 1975. La Dombes: milieu naturel ou milieu en e! quilibre? Introduction a" une e! co-g!eographie de l’espace dombiste. Revue de G!eographie de Lyon 1, 35–38. Bezbakh, P., 1997. Histoire de France, de 1914 a" nos jours. Larousse, Paris. Boyab!e, J.B., 1999. Du secteur informel au march!e informel en Afrique sub-saharienne: le paradoxe d’Akerlof (1970). Universit!e de Versailles, St Quentin. Caziot, P., 1914. La valeur de la terre en France. Encyclop!edie agricole. Ed. Bailli"eres & Fils, Paris. Charlez, A., 1999. La multi-propri!et!e et le droit de l’environnement. Le cas des e! tangs de la Dombes. Bulletin Mensuel ONC 240, 38–41. Chauchat, H., 1985. L’enqu#ete en psychosociologie, Vol. 25. Presse Universitaire de France, Paris. Clement, K., 2001. Strategic environmental awakening: European progress in regional environmental integration. European Environment 11 (2), 75–88. Dehorter, O., Tamisier, A., 1996. Wetland habitat characteristics for waterfowl wintering in Camargue, Southern France: implications for conservation. Revue Ecologie (Terre Vie) 51, 161–172. Donati, F., Clocchiatti, S., Aostini, P., 1992. Costs and benefits in valliculture in Italy: a case study. Aquaculture Europe 17 (1), 39–40. Escofier, B., Pages, J., 1990. Analyses factorielles simples et multiples. Objectifs, m!ethodes et interpr!etation. Ed. Dunod, Paris. Ferreol, G., Deubel, P., 1993. M!ethodologie des sciences sociales. Ed. Armand Colin, Paris. Fischer, B., 2000. La valeur du droit de chasse. Etudes Fonci"eres 82, 5–7.
286
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286
Fox, A.D., Madsen, J., 1997. Behavioural and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds in Europe: implications for refuge design. Journal of Applied Ecology 34, 1–13. Ganeval, A., 1946. Camargue, mon tendre amour. Imprimerie Oberthur, Paris. Grillas, P., 1992. Les communaut!es de macrophytes submerg!ees des ! marais temporaires oligohalins de Camargue. Etude exp!erimentale des causes de la distribution des esp"eces. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Rennes. Heath, M.F., Evans, M.I., 2000. Important bird areas in Europe: priority sites for conservation, Vol. 2: Southern Europe. Bird Life International Conservation Series No. 8, BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK. Hell, B., 1985. Entre chien et loup: faits et dits de chasse dans la France de l’Est. Ed. de la Maison des sciences et de l’homme. Coll. Ethnologie de la France, Paris. Karl, H., Rann!e, O., 2001. Regional policy and the environment—the case of Germany. European Environment 11 (2), 103–111. Lefeuvre, J.C., 1999. Rapport scientifique sur les donn!ees a" prendre en compte pour d!efinir les modalit!es d’application des dispositions l!egales et r!eglementaires de chasse aux oiseaux d’eau et oiseaux migrateurs en France. Mission sur la chasse et les oiseaux migrateurs aupr"es de Madame la Ministre de l’Am!enagement du Territoire et de l’Environnement, Paris. Lemaire, S., Tamisier, A., Gagnier, F., 1987. Surfaces, distribution et diversit!e des principaux milieux de Camargue (France). Evolution par analyse des photos a!eriennes (1942–1984). Revue Ecologie (Terre Vie) (suppl.) 4, 47–56. Mathevet, R., 2000. Usages des zones humides camarguaises: enjeux et dynamique des interactions environnement/usagers/territoire. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Lyon 3. Mathevet, R., Tamisier, A., 2002. Creation of a nature reserve, its effects on hunting management and waterfowl distribution in the Camargue (southern France). Biodiversity and Conservation 11, 209–519.
ONC, 1998. L’Office National de la Chasse. 25 ans au service de la chasse. Bulletin Mensuel ONC No. sp!ecial, d!ecembre 1997. Pierce, R.A., 1997. Lease Hunting: Opportunities for Missouri Landowners. University of Missouri Colombia, Agricultural Publication G9420—New January 15, 1997. Pinet, J.M., 1993. Les chasseurs de France. UNFDC-INAPG, Drancy. Pirot, J.Y., Chessel, D., Tamisier, A., 1984. Exploitation alimentaire des zones humides de Camargue par cinq esp"eces de canards de surface en hivernage et en transit. Mod!elisation spatio-temporelle. Revue Ecologie (Terre Vie) 39, 167–192. Roberts, P., 2001. Incorporating the environment into structural funds regional programmes: evolution, current developments and future prospects. European Environment 11 (2), 64–74. Roth, H.H., Merz, G. (Eds.), 1997. Wildlife Resources. A Global Account of Economic Use. Springer, Berlin. Sandoz, A., 1996. M!ethodologie de suivi de l’occupation du sol d’un bassin de drainage a" partir d’une cha#ıne g!eomatique. M!editerran!ee 85, 43–46. Siegel, S., Castellan, N.J., 1988. Non Parametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd Edition. Mc Graw Hill, London. Tamisier, A., Dehorter, O., 1999. Camargue, canards et foulques. Fonctionnement et devenir d’un prestigieux quartier d’hiver. CoGard, N#ımes. Tamisier, A., Grillas, P., 1994. A review of habitat changes in the Camargue: an assessment of the effect of the loss of biological diversity on the wintering waterfowl community. Biological Conservation 70, 39–47. Thau, J.F., 1994. Quarante ans de chasse dans le delta rhodanien. Revue Nationale de la Chasse 563, 67–70. Waguet, P., Charlez-Coursault, A., 1991. La chasse en France. Que sais-je? PUF, Paris. Wright, J., 1999. More top of Utah hunters paying for the privilege. Operators sell opportunity to experience ‘‘realistic hunts like Grandpa used to have’’. Ogden Standard Examiner, September 21, 1999.
The origins and functioning of the private wildfowling lease system in a major Mediterranean wetland: the Camargue (Rhone river delta, southern France) Rapha.el Mathevet*, Franc,ois Mesle! ard Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat, Le Sambuc, F-13200 Arles, France Received 2 July 2001; accepted 21 March 2002
Abstract All over the world, the demand for high-quality hunting areas has been growing in recent decades and this trend is expected to continue in the future. In the Camargue (southern France), where there are large wintering populations of ducks, the leasing of privately owned estates for wildfowling is becoming an alternative economic activity that can supplement and even exceed the income from other uses of farmland. In this region, several habitats of conservation concern, including Mediterranean seasonally flooded marshes, are managed for this purpose. However, data on wetland management for shooting and on the status of private shooting clubs in relation to local farming, are scarce. We investigated the characteristics of 42 private wildfowling clubs in the Rhone river delta. Aerial surveys were used to collect the data on land use on these sites. In addition, interviews and questionnaires allowed us to identify habitat management practices undertaken by landowners and hunting managers. We describe the origins and functioning of the private wildfowling club system. A multifactorial analysis and an ascending hierarchical classification distinguished three types of club. We evaluated leasing costs and incomes in the Camargue, their determinants, and some consequences of the leasing system on rural development and the conservation of wetlands. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Wildfowling; Farmland management; Shooting leasing; Farming economy; Mediterranean wetland; Camargue; France
Introduction Despite a constant decline in the number of hunters since the end of the 1970s, France still has more hunters than any other country in the European Union, with ca. 25% of the total number of registered hunters (Lefeuvre, 1999). In 1992, the average annual total expenditure on hunting was h1199 per hunter, and hunting generated a total turnover of h1950 million annually, of which the leasing of shooting rights was estimated to contribute h281 million per year (Pinet, 1993). At the beginning of the 1990s, only 28% of French hunters used leases to gain access to private hunting lands, but the leasing of shooting rights is now prevalent all over the country, on both agricultural and non-agricultural land. Leasing is nationally regulated through hunting and fiscal laws (Caziot, 1914; Fischer, 2000). The demand for high*Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Mathevet).
quality hunting areas has created a market that provides incentives for rural landowners and farmers to consider the leasing of shooting rights as an alternative source of income (Waguet and Charlez-Coursault, 1991). In the Camargue (Fig. 1), ca. 85% of the land is privately owned and the leasing of wildfowling rights on farms and ranch lands has become an important business activity. Although detailed information is not available, findings from a recent study (Mathevet, 2000) at the regional level indicate that shooting generates about h4.4 million in lease income and h5.3 million in indirect (non-lease) income annually. Several studies have shown the strong degree of interdependence between the various Camargue wetlands (Pirot et al., 1984; Dehorter and Tamisier, 1996). Thus, many wintering ducks exploit a resting area during the daylight and disperse at night to feed on distinct peripheral marshes. Usually, the resting sites are located in protected areas, whilst feeding grounds are unprotected and subject to shooting (Tamisier and
0264-8377/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 4 - 8 3 7 7 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 2 5 - X
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286
278
F LES
0
2.5
5 km
Mediterranean Sea
LEGEND reserve and protected areas where hunting is prohibited wetland areas managed for hunting and bull grazing industrial salinas agricultural area (mostly rice farming) urban and industrial areas Rhône River Fig. 1. Map of the Camargue.
Dehorter, 1999). During the last 20 years, management of the wetlands has been characterised by the building of embankments, the mechanical removal of vegetation, freshwater pumping and control of water levels, all leading to a loss of biological diversity (Grillas, 1992; Tamisier and Grillas, 1994). There is a need to reconcile wetland conservation with the development of an economic activity (wildfowling) whose financial contribution to local agriculture allows essential natural waterbird habitats to be preserved. However, although the organisation and functioning of public shooting clubs have been relatively well understood for many years (Tamisier and Dehorter, 1999), a comprehensive study of the private leasing of shooting rights and the habitat management practised by those who lease these rights in the Camargue has never been carried out.
This paper has three objectives: (1) to describe the origin and functioning of the system of private shooting clubs; (2) to identify habitat management practices used by landowners and managers; and (3) to evaluate leasing costs and incomes in the Camargue, their determinants, and some of the implications of the leasing system for agriculture and nature conservation.
Materials and methods Study area The study was conducted from 1997 to 2000 in the Rhone river delta (the Camargue) on the Mediterranean Sea coast, south-eastern France (431300 N, 41300 E;
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286
Fig. 1). The Camargue covers ca. 145,000 ha and is a major component of the African flyway, providing staging, wintering and breeding habitats for thousands of ducks and coots annually. As such, it is a wetland of international importance for wildlife (Heath and Evans, 2000). More than 150,000 ducks winter in the many marshes, ponds and lagoon systems. At present (2001), there are about 22,000 ha of protected wetlands where shooting is not permitted. Currently, the major land uses in the Camargue are rice farming, bull grazing, reed harvesting, and private shooting. Overall, 78 land holdings covering 30% of the privately owned land in the Camargue were studied, while 127 individuals were interviewed throughout the Rhone delta in 1997 and 1998. A total of 42 shooting clubs (representing 27% of local private clubs) were considered within this study area. Information was obtained concerning the management of land and water; the proportions (surface area) of the whole estate and of the leased lands devoted to different land uses; individual fees and estimates of turnover; proximity to a nature reserve and to a public path; presence/absence and the standard of any hunting lodges; presence or absence of a club president; and the size of shooting groups.
279
ships (with reference to land management) between landowners and wildfowlers, their strategies for development, any conflicts, and their attitudes to the environment. A primary function of the questionnaire was to describe the behaviour of the human protagonists as precisely as possible (Chauchat, 1985). Analyses Parametric statistics were used in the analysis of survey data. Prior to analysis, statistical distributions were checked for normality using the one-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (Siegel and Castellan, 1988). As individual fees had distributions differing significantly from normality (Po0:05), the data were normalised using log transformations. All data were normally distributed after log transformation (P > 0:05). Homogeneity of variance was tested using F-tests (P > 0:05). In order to classify the 42 private shooting clubs, we carried out multifactorial analysis with an ascending hierarchical classification (Escofier and Pages, 1990). To identify which hunting club characteristics were related to turnover and individual fees, we used univariate linear regression analyses and ANCOVA.
Land use, area and location Overview of wildfowling practices and lease systems The allocation of land uses on the estates was assessed from aerial photographs taken in 1998 and analysed according to the method developed by Lemaire et al. (1987) and Sandoz (1996). Field surveys were conducted on each estate to confirm our estimates from the aerial photographs. The results from the photographic assessments were transferred to the MapInfo GIS on a 1:25,000 scale and the surface area of each land-use type and of each hunting unit were calculated. Land use was divided into three categories: arable (rice, wheat, etc.); bull grazing-related land use (i.e. natural land, pasture); and managed shooting marsh, defined as a temporary or permanently flooded wetland which has been subjected to intense water and vegetation management or where significant modifications (embankment construction) have been carried out for shooting purposes. Wetland management and shooting club organisation survey The delineation of hunting units and assessment of shooting activity management was also carried out by semi-structured interviews and a standardised questionnaire, according to social science methodology (Ferre! ol and Deubel, 1993). Our study was designed to obtain information about the characteristics of the leasing system, the purchasers, and the economic returns from leasing. We used interviews to investigate the relation-
In the Camargue, ducks are usually shot at twilight as they fly between the diurnal roost and the night-time feeding areas. This kind of hunting is called ‘‘passshooting’’, and takes place primarily on public lands. Here, the wildfowler takes up position on the edge of a wetland or near to an irrigation ditch close to where the birds will fly past. By contrast, shooting from a blind near or on open water takes place mainly in private marshes. It involves waiting behind a blind and shooting ducks in flight when they arrive to feed during the evening or early in the morning. Wildfowlers try to attract ducks with decoys or by scattering seed such as rice and millet. Shooting also takes place at roosting sites during the morning. This kind of shooting generates large individual bags, which are highly prized by some wildfowlers. Apart from protected areas where shooting is prohibited (ca. 22,000 ha), shooting is regulated by annual decrees specifying opening and closing dates for the various game species. Between 1992 and 2000, the open season has been from 15 August to the end of February, with the season for each species starting and ending at different times within this period (see Table 1). As from 26 July 2000, when French hunting laws were modified to comply with the EU Birds Directive, the official season is from 1 September to 31 January for all game species. There is no hunting quota, but the selling
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286
280
of any waterfowl apart from Mallard Anas platyrhynchos is forbidden by state laws. Habitats managed for wildfowl include ponds, brackish lagoons, and natural marshes. New wetlands are also created on former agricultural land and shallow depressions in halophytic scrubland. These habitat developments and management practices began on some estates at the end of the 1950s and expanded to all estates during the 1960s and 1970s (Mathevet and Tamisier, 2002). Low dams and water-level control systems are being created. Flooding can be affected by gravity flow, runoff, or the use of pumps. The growth of aquatic vegetation is promoted with the aim of significantly increasing the shooting bag. Wildfowl food plants grow naturally from seed each year. They are encouraged by summer flooding, harrowing and fire. Flooding during dry periods, 4–5 weeks before migrant waterfowl are expected, favours opportunistic weeds and wild rice. In the early summer, herbicides may be used to kill undesirable aquatic vegetation. Such management strongly modifies Mediterranean seasonal marshes and tends to change the plant species composition of Table 1 The progressive closing dates for various waterfowl species before law No. 2000–698 of 26 July 2000 and the proportion of each duck species in the total Camargue wintering population Closing date
Waterfowl species
% of 115,000 wintering ducksa
31 January
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
27
10 February
Greylag Goose Anser anser Shoveler Anas clypeata Pochard Aythya farina Red-crested Pochard Netta rufina
/ 10 8 3
20 February
Teal Anas crecca Gadwall Anas strepera Pintail Anas acuta Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula Coot Fulica atra
31 8 1 2
Wigeon Anas penelope And other bird species
10 /
wetlands from diverse Mediterranean to species-poor continental-type communities (Grillas, 1992; Tamisier and Grillas, 1994). Two types of hunting club can be distinguished, according to their degree of access to the shooting area and the density of wildfowlers (see Table 2). Most of the total hunting area is under the control of private clubs. On these estates the landowner leases seasonal shooting rights either directly to several wildfowlers or to a third party, who sub-leases to wildfowlers, in this way creating an informal shooting club. The lease-broker, locally called the hunting president, is a wildfowler who wishes to control his/her own personal shooting areas. He/she may be interested solely in making a profit and thus may not have a long-term interest in wetland ecosystem conservation. An estate may be leased as a whole or in part, and consequently the management of the shooting area may thus become partially separated from agricultural management. Depending on his/her priorities, the shoot manager determines the level of individual fees as well as the number of wildfowlers, and establishes internal regulations. He/she may deal personally with the management of marshes or may subcontract; any necessary financial investments are his/her responsibility. The lease can either be official, similar to a grazing licence, or, as is fairly common, a private lease by amicable arrangement. The most productive wildfowling units often attract exclusive clubs, requiring high membership fees, which include the costs of a guard and comfortable lodging. Fees range from h762 to h12,195 per person per year (Thau, 1994), with annual bags ranging from tens to thousands of ducks per person. By comparison, the public shooter pays about h90 annually. In spite of the high prices, this kind of club is popular among wildfowlers from outside the delta, because it frees them from the constraints associated with public lands, such as the high density of shooters, variable bags and difficult access to marshes.
/
Development and characterisation of private clubs End February a
Average wintering duck population from September to March (1964–1995 period), after Tamisier and Dehorter (1999).
Wildfowlers are aware that for a long time now they have been privileged to be able to shoot in one of France’s most famous wetlands (Ganeval, 1946). The
Table 2 Camargue shooting clubs in 1999
Total of shooting clubs Density (hunter ha1) Total shooting area (ha) a
Public shooting clubs
Private shooting clubs
Total of shooting unitsa
20 1 ca. 5000
195 o0.1 ca. 40,000
226 / ca. 45,000
Territorial unit where the hunting activity takes place (estate, marshes).
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286
unique way in which the private wildfowling clubs of the Camargue have developed can be put down to the particularly favourable natural and social conditions prevalent there (large areas of natural habitats where ducks winter and stage, as well as large estates). Another factor is economic growth in France and the associated increase in demand for leisure activities during the 1960s and 1970s. It is interesting to note how the number of hunters increased by 33% in 15 years, reaching nearly 2.3 million in 1975, before falling to 1.4 million in the 1990s (ONC, 1998). Over the same period, the rural population decreased by 22% to only 14 million (Bezbakh, 1997). The large increase in the number of hunters and the concomitant development of transport facilities (highways, regional airports) strongly increased the demand for leisure hunting. The decline in small game at the beginning of the 1950s also played a part in the increased popularity of wildfowling. Notable declines, for example, were observed in wild rabbit populations following the arrival and spread of myxomatosis. All of these elements have contributed to the development of ‘‘objective hunting’’, where hunting is seen as an economic activity, as opposed to ‘‘subjective hunting’’, which is based more on a personal passion. ‘‘Objective hunting’’ can easily develop into an extension of business relationships, as hunting generates a powerful social bond that can be more effective for trade talks than the traditional business lunch (Hell, 1985). This diversity of factors is of primary importance in explaining the number and variety of private wildfowling clubs in the Camargue. According to our
281
survey, 75% of the estates are shot over and 62% are leased for wildfowling. Three types of private clubs can be distinguished (see Table 3): (a) The smaller clubs. These clubs operate typically on smaller estates, with an average total area of 200 ha, comprising 77% arable land (utilisable agricultural area, UAA). The estates are usually intensively farmed, with managed marshes associated with former agricultural land and/or winter-flooded ricefields. The density of wildfowlers is the highest of the three types (Table 3). The average annual turnover generated by shooting remains less than h13,749. The majority of the shooting areas are rented directly from the landowner. Generally, lodges are not present or are rather basic. Shooting is allowed 3 days per week and under poor weather conditions. (b) The mid-level clubs. This type of club operates on a larger estate than the preceding class, with a mean area of 452 ha. At 233 ha, the UAA covers on average 51% of the estate. The average size of the shot over area is large (205 ha), covering 45% of the total surface of the estate. All these clubs have managed marshes but they account for less than 60 ha on average. Half of the clubs manage former agricultural lands and flooded ricefields during the winter. The density of wildfowlers reaches 10.1 per 100 ha. This is three times lower than the preceding type (Table 3). The average annual turnover reaches h32,344. The majority of these clubs have a club
Table 3 Main characteristics of the private wildfowling clubs studied in the Camargue
Number of hunting clubs per class Average estate area (EA) (ha) Average AAU (ha) % AAU/EA Waterfowl hunting area (ha) % WHA/EA Average managed shooting marsh area (ha) % Shooting marshes/WHA Average former agricultural land area (ha) % Former agricultural lands/WHA Average natural marshes area (ha) % Natural marshes area/WHA Average of flooded ricefields area for hunting (ha) % Flooded ricefields/WHA Number of hunters per 100 ha of shooting area Average total number of hunters per shooting club Total number of hunters Average turnover (h yr1) Average individual fee (h hunter1 yr1)
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Whole classes
21 200 175 77 58 39 55 65 31 10 44 40 17 73 31 8.3 174 13,749 1666
12 452 233 51 205 45 57 32 36 30 142 45 23 28 10 10.8 130 32,344 3392
9 702 187 39 545 68 231 43 26 22 443 63 40 30 4.4 11 100 63,909 5895
42 392 192 61 210 43 78 38 19 13 157 27 25 50 21.8 9.2 404 29,745 3057
Class 1: smaller clubs; Class 2: mid-level clubs; Class 3: elite clubs; UAA is utilisable agricultural area; WHA is waterfowl hunting area. The percentage relative to WHA is calculated on the base of the shooting clubs where the considered land use is present.
president and a lodge, and a few have a guard. On some estates shooting is allowed only over weekends, generally Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning. (c) The elite clubs. These clubs are characterised mainly by their large area (an average of 702 ha). The UAA is generally small, in relation to the available land area (39%). The shooting area is large relative to that controlled by other club types. Natural marshes and halophytic scrubland cover 63% of the farmland. All of these clubs have managed marshes which cover significant areas (231 ha). The density of wildfowlers can be as low as 4 per 100 ha. The average annual turnover is rather high, reaching h64,000. The majority of these clubs rent directly from the landowner. All have a comfortable lodge, a guard providing security and land management. In most cases, the wildfowling season is the same as the official season. Shooting is generally authorised at weekends or once per month only. Thus, Camargue wildfowling clubs may be categorised according to size of the shooting area and land-use type, and also by the price of admission, reflecting the socio-economic status of those who make use of them. In the elite clubs, the professional classes, executives and company directors dominate, while in the more modest hunting clubs, farmers, artisans and tradesmen are the majority (Fig. 2). Overall, the turnover (i.e., the individual fee multiplied by the number of wildfowlers) is proportional to
18
Number of hunters
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 E1
E2
ML1
ML2
ML3
ML4
Employee, worker, middle manager Farmer, market gardener Senior executive, intellectual Craftsman, traders, company director
Fig. 2. The socio-economic category of hunters in six private shooting clubs. (E) Elite shooting club; (ML) mid-level shooting club.
Hunting turnover (€ 1,000 per year)
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286
282
100
A
90 80 70 60 50 40 30
y = 2.5193x0.4805 r² = 0.5893 p < 0.001
B
20 10 0 0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Shooting area (ha)
Fig. 3. The annual hunting activity turnover (h yr1) as a function of hunting area (ha) in the Camargue.
Table 4 Potential factors influencing hunting turnover in the Camargue (ANCOVA, n ¼ 42 shooting clubs)
Waterfowl hunting area Existence of a hunting pond Adjacent to a hunting pond Existence of a hunting lodge Hunting guard Adjacent to a Nature Reserve Adjacent to a public path
DF
F
p
1 1 1 2 1 1 1
47.67 0.63 1.74 9.49 0.96 0.12 0.13
o0.0001 0.4327 0.1963 o0.001 0.3340 0.7356 0.7127
the shooting area (r2 ¼ 0:5893; n ¼ 42; po0:001; Fig. 3). However, for two types of club, the turnover does not appear to be related to the area. One club (A) organises wildfowling parties for private companies or individuals on a large estate primarily made up of arable land and with a relatively small effective shooting area. The attraction of the estate derives from its situation between two elite clubs that have duck resting places. In order to maintain large bag levels, massive releases of captive-bred ducks take place several times a year. Incomes generated by this estate are invested in the landowner’s rice farm and in advertising its agricultural products. Clubs of type ‘‘B’’ (Fig. 3) could be described as ‘‘hunting-passion clubs’’. The turnover is relatively low due to the characteristics of the shoot area (flooded ricefields, former agricultural lands, scattered residual marshes) and the fact that the relatively low bags here could not justify a high price for the lease or high fees. Sixty-eight per cent of the variance in turnover is explained by two variables: the characteristics of the shooting area and the presence of a lodge (Table 4). Seventy-four per cent of the variance in fees is explained by four factors: the presence of a pond, the lodge, the size of the shoot area and proximity to a nature reserve (Table 5). The link between the fee and the distance to a nature reserve is consistent with suggestions by several
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286
283
researchers about the existence of a positive externality of the creation of nature reserves (Fox and Madsen, 1997; Roth and Merz, 1997). This can result in a buildup of shooting-related infrastructure (i.e. dykes, ponds and pumps) in the peripheral zone of nature reserves, as we have demonstrated elsewhere (Mathevet and Tamisier, 2002). However, the impact of the wildfowl harvest on leases should not be underestimated. The fee (r2 ¼ 0:7381; n ¼ 22; po0:001) and the turnover (r2 ¼ 0:5687; n ¼ 22; po0:001) both increased with the average annual harvest.
illustrates the intensification of marsh management for wildfowling. The manager builds dams, installs bridges and pumps, and widens water bodies every year, to the detriment of the vegetation. The main purpose of these activities is to attract quarry species, but, according to 57% of the managers, the appeal of this landscape, both because of its appearance and the sense of freedom it brings to wildfowlers, should not be underestimated. This sense of freedom is mediated, however, by the systematic imposition of strict internal regulations within each shooting club. The wildfowlers are sensitive to the degradation of the wetlands but they do not accept that their hydraulic installations constitute a qualitative degradation of the marsh. The managers try to maximise the numbers of ducks on their units in order to optimise their income. They create an artificial habitat strictly dependent on human management (Grillas, 1992). The priority given to the economic functions of the environment leads to a space specialisation on a microscale and to an increase in the degree and complexity of the interrelationship between different areas, and could generate a diversification of landscape on a macro scale. However, standardisation of management methods results in degradation of, and decline in, natural Mediterranean wetland habitats.
Management practices in hunting marshes
The shooting economy: towards the informal sector
In the Camargue, the shoot manager’s aim is to convert semi-wild areas into specialised wildfowling sites. The suitability of the shooting area for ducks is optimised by the control of water levels. About half of the managers (47%) are estimated to have total control over hydraulic operations on their sites. Draw down of the water level in early spring is undertaken by 54% of managers. Re-flooding in mid-summer, to allow ducks easy access to food plants is practised by 80%. To produce annual weeds for ducks, spring draining, burning, reed harvesting, disc harrowing and grazing are the usual methods used. The wheel-cage tractor is the major tool for opening the vegetation (68% of cases) with bull grazing before the shooting season or exclusive horse grazing all year round (63%). The majority of managers spread rice, millet and sunflower seeds to attract ducks. Most wildfowlers recognise the unsustainable long-term effects of this practice, which consists of spreading several tons of seed in marshes each year. Forty-five per cent of clubs release captive-bred birds, usually mallards, but 30% of clubs primarily release pheasants in order to compensate for the absence of small game after duck shooting. Based on figures from six managers, the management costs of shooting (maintenance of a lodge, seed spreading, vegetation management, etc.), vary from h7622 to h21,342 annually. The level of these costs
The concept of an informal sector, based on the absence of registration and the non-observance of coding and taxation laws (Boyabe! , 1999), seems to apply in the case of the private clubs. In this context, it would seem to be useful to establish a distinction between the landowner and the club president. When the landowner sells seasonal shooting rights to several hunters or to a lease-broker without, or only partly, declaring the financial gain from this lease to the state authorities, it can be categorised as a ‘‘shadow economy’’ (i.e. tax evasion). Conversely, when the leasebroker organises the shoot management like a small private company, intending not necessarily to make a profit but at least to ensure that it will survive, he creates an informal structure which produces goods and services (catering, lodging), alongside traditional wildfowling activities. He usually employs practical land-management personnel, a cook, and a guard. This kind of activity, which avoids state control and contributes to the development of the local unofficial socio-economic network, comes under the heading of the ‘‘informal sector’’. A passion for hunting appears to be one significant reason for justifying the development of wildfowling activity (56% of replies), but the majority of the landowners are farmers, and 84% of them stated that they lease shooting rights primarily to generate
Table 5 Potential factors influencing hunting fees in the Camargue (ANCOVA, n ¼ 42 shooting clubs)
Waterfowl hunting area Existence of a hunting pond Adjacent to a hunting pond Existence of a hunting lodge Hunting guard Adjacent to a Nature Reserve Adjacent to a public path
DF
F
p
1 1 1 2 1 1 1
127.83 4.48 2.78 15.41 0.31 12.78 0.05
o0.0001 0.0420 0.1048 o0.0001 0.3564 0.0011 0.8231
284
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286
additional income. While 45% of landowners had been leasing out their land for shooting for over 15 years, 38% of them had been doing so for less than 10 years, clearly with the purpose of making a profit to compensate for a reduction in the income from rice farming over the last decade. A notable shift in the type of shooting, from the informal towards the formal sector, can be observed. We estimated that in 1997, 71% of landowners declared all or part of their income from shooting leases to the tax authorities. This can be attributed to the turning of media attention regarding fee prices towards information provided by wildfowlers, as well as conservationists and scientists (Thau, 1994; Tamisier and Dehorter, 1999). This media focus has generated a reaction from landowners, who tend to minimise the risk of official investigation, by treating shooting as an official activity and a diversification of their agricultural business. However, wildfowling remains an informal economical activity on many farms. According to landowners, the income from wildfowling helps to reduce the negative effects on the farming economy caused by changes in the common agricultural policy (CAP) and the global agricultural market. Since the price level of leases and fees in the Camargue can be high, it is important to view these within the context of the national and international hunting economy. The situation in the Camargue is not unique to France (Table 6) as there are similar developments elsewhere in Europe and in the USA. The shooting economy has undoubtedly had an impact on land values in the marshes of the Camargue for a long time, as in several other French wetlands (Caziot, 1914; Avocat, 1975). Thus, land prices in the Camargue are rather high compared to the national average (i.e.
h3049 ha1 in France and h6098 ha1 in the Camargue, Mathevet, 2000). Some farmers only buy the UAA and forsake the marsh, because they are not able to invest in poor agricultural land at market prices. Thus, as in other areas of France where shooting is popular, it can lead indirectly to a sub-division of large estates (5% of our sample) and to yet more complex hydrological interdependencies. As shoots have a commercial value through both the leasing and the land markets, the contribution to the total farming economy of the income from the leasing of shooting rights can be important. Leasing can provide an income that compares favourably with agricultural activity; the income from farming, all crop incomes and subsidies included, can be lower than the income from shooting (Table 7). Farm ‘‘3’’ has the highest leasing income. This is linked with reduced management costs, as the club president is in charge of all the management planning and costs. Following the recent fall in the price of rice products (1994–99), the leasing of shooting rights is likely to be more attractive to farmers and owners than any crop production, regardless of the farming situation. It moderates the precariousness of some debt-ridden farms, and maintains some others (in particular bullbreeding farms) which for some years have had extremely limited profits in spite of French and European agricultural subsidies. Private shoot leasing partly satisfies the needs of landowners and enhances their life quality. However, this situation is changing. Following the decline in the factors limiting the development of this activity (agricultural subsidies and the high price support by the CAP), the shooting economy could locally become more
Table 6 Comparison of shooting lease prices of some states and regions Country
Annual hunting lease
Game
Author
h1.3 ha1 of estate h10,814 per hunting team h302 to h1405 hunter1 h0.9 to h2.2 ha1 for 2800 ha h1081 hunter1
Deer and turkey Bull elk Small game and waterfowl Deer and turkey Deer, turkey and ducks
Pierce (1997) Wright (1999) Wright (1999) www.mcohunts.com www.huntingleases.net
381–2438 h hunter1 22–304 h ha1 762–12,195 h hunter1 65 h ha1 of estate 122 h ha1 of marshes
Waterfowl Waterfowl Waterfowl Waterfowl Waterfowl
big-game big-game wild boar wild boar
Mathevet (2000) Mathevet (2000) Thau (1994) Mathevet (2000) Mathevet (2000)
Forez
456–7622 h hunter1 762 h ha1 of pond 1219 h hunter1
Waterfowl and wild boar Waterfowl Waterfowl and big-game
Mathevet (2000) Charlez (1999) Mathevet (2000)
Italy
274 h ha1 of water
Waterfowl
Donati et al. (1992)
USA Missouri Utah Texas
France Brenne Camargue
Dombes
and and and and
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286 Table 7 Evaluation of agricultural and hunting incomes for the year 1997 in three farms in the Camargue (in h ha1)
Agricultural turnover Hunting turnover Agricultural cost Hunting cost Agricultural net incomea Hunting net incomea a
Farm 1
Farm 2
Farm 3
1450 266 1328 128
1503 393 1294 279
1683 381 1485 0
122 138
209 114
198 381
Before taxes, and including agricultural subsidies.
important than farming. In this case, the desire to satisfy wildfowlers that have paid a high fee could result in inappropriate activities with little consideration for game or for ecosystems. The redirection of government aid can be regarded as an essential element in the development of the whole rural system. The 2000 CAP reform opens up the possibility of a more ecologically orientated agricultural policy, which should benefit wetland habitats. But to be successful the CAP will have to take into account the specific situations of wetlands. The CAP has to move towards a rural policy, driving regional programmes which progressively integrate the environmental and socio-economic dimensions (Clement, 2001; Karl and Ranne! , 2001; Roberts, 2001).
285
difficulties arising from the complex web of hydrological and land-use interactions. It is necessary also to take into account the frequent use of lobbying to resolve conflicts of interest associated with information asymmetry. Until now, shooting and environmental policies have neglected the multiple and diversified issues of cultural and economic values of wetland and wildlife, distributive decision-making and the loyalties of those affected by these decisions. There is an evident need to develop multi-disciplinary approaches to identify when economic, political, or ecological intervention may be most successful in wetland conservation and in the sustainable development of rural activities in general.
Acknowledgements We wish to thank all the landowners and hunting managers for their collaboration during our fieldwork. We gratefully acknowledge two anonymous reviewers for pointing out areas in need of clarification. This research was supported by the French Research Ministry, the Centre de Recherche en Ge! ographie et Ame! nagement de l’Universite! Lyon 3, and the Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat. Our sincere thanks to the ‘‘Office National de la Chasse’’ staff, particularly Jean-Yves Mondain-Monval and Anthony Olivier.
Conclusion
References
Our study shows that for landowners and farmers, shoot leasing offers a means of generating a regular income in an unpredictable world agricultural market, and of contributing to the landowner’s quality of life. It also funds a diversification of farming towards agrotourism (specifically, funding the creation of rural lodges), and mitigates the precarious condition of farms suffering from high levels of debt. Consequently, the shooting system plays a key role in the maintenance of numerous agricultural estates, and thus the conservation of large ecological units. Rural communities benefit from shoot leasing, although there is little data on its direct and indirect effects on retail trade and lodging during the wildfowling season. The study of shooting marsh management costs and practices highlighted interventionist and expensive management practices, which are likely to appreciably reduce the profits from shoot leasing. The search for effective management of natural resources requires an approach that integrates ecological considerations with those that arise from the short-term socio-economic interests of wetland managers. Wetland conservation is based on the modification of the behaviour of users, and on public policies. However, as an objective it faces with
Avocat, C., 1975. La Dombes: milieu naturel ou milieu en e! quilibre? Introduction a" une e! co-g!eographie de l’espace dombiste. Revue de G!eographie de Lyon 1, 35–38. Bezbakh, P., 1997. Histoire de France, de 1914 a" nos jours. Larousse, Paris. Boyab!e, J.B., 1999. Du secteur informel au march!e informel en Afrique sub-saharienne: le paradoxe d’Akerlof (1970). Universit!e de Versailles, St Quentin. Caziot, P., 1914. La valeur de la terre en France. Encyclop!edie agricole. Ed. Bailli"eres & Fils, Paris. Charlez, A., 1999. La multi-propri!et!e et le droit de l’environnement. Le cas des e! tangs de la Dombes. Bulletin Mensuel ONC 240, 38–41. Chauchat, H., 1985. L’enqu#ete en psychosociologie, Vol. 25. Presse Universitaire de France, Paris. Clement, K., 2001. Strategic environmental awakening: European progress in regional environmental integration. European Environment 11 (2), 75–88. Dehorter, O., Tamisier, A., 1996. Wetland habitat characteristics for waterfowl wintering in Camargue, Southern France: implications for conservation. Revue Ecologie (Terre Vie) 51, 161–172. Donati, F., Clocchiatti, S., Aostini, P., 1992. Costs and benefits in valliculture in Italy: a case study. Aquaculture Europe 17 (1), 39–40. Escofier, B., Pages, J., 1990. Analyses factorielles simples et multiples. Objectifs, m!ethodes et interpr!etation. Ed. Dunod, Paris. Ferreol, G., Deubel, P., 1993. M!ethodologie des sciences sociales. Ed. Armand Colin, Paris. Fischer, B., 2000. La valeur du droit de chasse. Etudes Fonci"eres 82, 5–7.
286
R. Mathevet, F. Mesl!eard / Land Use Policy 19 (2002) 277–286
Fox, A.D., Madsen, J., 1997. Behavioural and distributional effects of hunting disturbance on waterbirds in Europe: implications for refuge design. Journal of Applied Ecology 34, 1–13. Ganeval, A., 1946. Camargue, mon tendre amour. Imprimerie Oberthur, Paris. Grillas, P., 1992. Les communaut!es de macrophytes submerg!ees des ! marais temporaires oligohalins de Camargue. Etude exp!erimentale des causes de la distribution des esp"eces. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Rennes. Heath, M.F., Evans, M.I., 2000. Important bird areas in Europe: priority sites for conservation, Vol. 2: Southern Europe. Bird Life International Conservation Series No. 8, BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK. Hell, B., 1985. Entre chien et loup: faits et dits de chasse dans la France de l’Est. Ed. de la Maison des sciences et de l’homme. Coll. Ethnologie de la France, Paris. Karl, H., Rann!e, O., 2001. Regional policy and the environment—the case of Germany. European Environment 11 (2), 103–111. Lefeuvre, J.C., 1999. Rapport scientifique sur les donn!ees a" prendre en compte pour d!efinir les modalit!es d’application des dispositions l!egales et r!eglementaires de chasse aux oiseaux d’eau et oiseaux migrateurs en France. Mission sur la chasse et les oiseaux migrateurs aupr"es de Madame la Ministre de l’Am!enagement du Territoire et de l’Environnement, Paris. Lemaire, S., Tamisier, A., Gagnier, F., 1987. Surfaces, distribution et diversit!e des principaux milieux de Camargue (France). Evolution par analyse des photos a!eriennes (1942–1984). Revue Ecologie (Terre Vie) (suppl.) 4, 47–56. Mathevet, R., 2000. Usages des zones humides camarguaises: enjeux et dynamique des interactions environnement/usagers/territoire. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Lyon 3. Mathevet, R., Tamisier, A., 2002. Creation of a nature reserve, its effects on hunting management and waterfowl distribution in the Camargue (southern France). Biodiversity and Conservation 11, 209–519.
ONC, 1998. L’Office National de la Chasse. 25 ans au service de la chasse. Bulletin Mensuel ONC No. sp!ecial, d!ecembre 1997. Pierce, R.A., 1997. Lease Hunting: Opportunities for Missouri Landowners. University of Missouri Colombia, Agricultural Publication G9420—New January 15, 1997. Pinet, J.M., 1993. Les chasseurs de France. UNFDC-INAPG, Drancy. Pirot, J.Y., Chessel, D., Tamisier, A., 1984. Exploitation alimentaire des zones humides de Camargue par cinq esp"eces de canards de surface en hivernage et en transit. Mod!elisation spatio-temporelle. Revue Ecologie (Terre Vie) 39, 167–192. Roberts, P., 2001. Incorporating the environment into structural funds regional programmes: evolution, current developments and future prospects. European Environment 11 (2), 64–74. Roth, H.H., Merz, G. (Eds.), 1997. Wildlife Resources. A Global Account of Economic Use. Springer, Berlin. Sandoz, A., 1996. M!ethodologie de suivi de l’occupation du sol d’un bassin de drainage a" partir d’une cha#ıne g!eomatique. M!editerran!ee 85, 43–46. Siegel, S., Castellan, N.J., 1988. Non Parametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, 2nd Edition. Mc Graw Hill, London. Tamisier, A., Dehorter, O., 1999. Camargue, canards et foulques. Fonctionnement et devenir d’un prestigieux quartier d’hiver. CoGard, N#ımes. Tamisier, A., Grillas, P., 1994. A review of habitat changes in the Camargue: an assessment of the effect of the loss of biological diversity on the wintering waterfowl community. Biological Conservation 70, 39–47. Thau, J.F., 1994. Quarante ans de chasse dans le delta rhodanien. Revue Nationale de la Chasse 563, 67–70. Waguet, P., Charlez-Coursault, A., 1991. La chasse en France. Que sais-je? PUF, Paris. Wright, J., 1999. More top of Utah hunters paying for the privilege. Operators sell opportunity to experience ‘‘realistic hunts like Grandpa used to have’’. Ogden Standard Examiner, September 21, 1999.