Alpine pastures - let's do it E. O. Wilson-style

Famed biologist E. O. Wilson's vision was for a Half-Earth, a way where half of Earth is nature-protected, a place for flora and fauna to recover and thrive, and where the other half still offers ample room for all of humanity's endeavors. That, so his theory, would provide a healthy balance beneficial for everyone.

This isn't nearly as utopian as you might think it is. Even today we have the UN's High Seas treaty, formally adopted last year and the global 30 by 30 initiative and there's an explosion of nature reserves and national parks popping up all over the world. Good things are happening and I think that E. O. Wilson would approve.

I have been horrified by the increasing slaughter of wolves in Switzerland in recent years. This protected keystone species is the target of extensive fearmongering by farming and hunting lobbies - and these lobbies have powerful allies in Switzerland's political chambers. The wolf slaughter frenzy isn't just restricted to Switzerland, by the way, the EU aims to downgrade protection and countries like Sweden also seem almost giddy handing out hunting licenses.

But back to Switzerland: First of all, coexistence measures are scientifically proven to work. There's fencing and guard dogs and shepherds and watchers - it can be done and it is being done. And yet, rather than adapting to biodiversity-enhancing ways, farmers prefer the option where no change is required of them - and that is the option of wolf slaughter. Because of that I thought I'd look into another option - that of creating a separation between farming and the wolf.

Switzerland is a country where vertical transhumance has been practiced for millennia. During the summer months, farmers bring livestock to alpine pastures. Here's my idea in a nutshell:

What if there were an altitude cap?

What if the government were to say that, as of right now, everything across our beautiful Alps that is 2000 meters above sea level or higher, is national park territory. What if farmers had no more business up there, and their livestock did no more grazing up there? What if, at the same time, hunters were no longer allowed to hunt for ibex, chamois, marmot, deer or anything else up there? The wolf would be free to roam the upper regions and would have plenty of prey to choose from.

All of this surely sounds like a madman's fancy - but hey, if you're up for it, if the idea is just crazy enough to intrigue, well then join me in taking a closer look:

Transhumance in Switzerland

While the first use of alpine pastures goes back thousands of years, it really didn't kick in until the 10th century, when farming grew and grew and extended its operations to using land all the way to 2'500 meters above sea level. Forests were razed, pastures grown and transhumance operations became a broad-based mainstay that has given us the beautiful views of vast green meadows we know when we hike the Alps these days.

The 19th century saw transhumance at its largest. At the start of the 20th century there were still over 10'000 such alpine operations, today it's down to around 6'700. According to this article (in German, but Google Translate is always glad to help) 17'000 people in these alpine summer operations produce 5'000 tons of cheese, which amounts to 4% of Switzerland's overall cheese production. Every summer, over half a million cows, sheep, goats, pigs and horses move from the lowlands to those cooler alpine heights.

The economic importance of transhumance in Switzerland

There absolutely are positive elements of moving hundreds of thousands of livestock to alpine pastures every summer - but it isn't exactly a economic success story. In fact, it can be argued that the only reason these operations continue to exist is because of massive government involvement, pouring in hundreds of millions in subsidies.

Alpine pastures and their operations are different from regular farming. There is permanent farming in the lowlands, then there's permanent farming in mountain regions, and then there are the seasonal, temporary alpine operations during summer months. The farmer's union highlights that 41% of all farmers operate in mountain regions. These mountain farmers are closely linked with transhumance operations - they are the ones who send up most livestock from their farms to alpine pastures. Mountain region farms generate 30% of their income from transhumance efforts.

As the website for alpine workers explains, there's a great deal of money coming in from the government - contributions for cultural landscape (i.e. grazing - 127'795'000), biodiversity (31'590'000) and landscape quality (10'444'000). In addition, 106'627'000 were paid out to nearly 20'000 farms in the form of alpine grazing subsidies for their alpine animals. Farms in lowlands and alpine regions get government money per livestock animals, if they send those same animals up to alpine pastures during the summer. Alpine pasture operators get government money to tend them up there.

The funds the government spends on all of this are considerable, to say the least right? And it looks to me that, if you add it all up, the overall alpine operations end up, economically speaking, in the red. As "Die Grüne" (the magazine for the Swiss farming industry) wrote in 2021: "Without direct payments from the federal government, however, the summer grazing of dairy cows and cattle would be a loss-making business."

Helicopters!

Of course some will rightly argue that it's not just about the alpine pasture operators (and farmers in lower regions), it is also about every other local economy element that benefits from this alpine industry that is essentially kept propped up by the government. Yes, there's no doubt that village shops, restaurants, builders and others see additional revenue from the existence of alpine operations. I'd argue, though, same as when it comes to veterinary services, that the revenue would still flow even if it were at slightly lower altitudes.

I've also seen that helicopter companies are among the beneficiaries. Sure, absolutely - they're paid to fly materials to and from alpine cottages - and they transport injured animals from way, way up there, down into the valleys for treatment. I've read that Rega (Swiss helicopter rescue organization) transports - annually - over 1'200 cows because of accidents that happened up there in the Alps (last year it was over 1'700).

I think that these types of 'economic successes' should be fundamentally questioned. I'm glad that injured animals get the help they need ... but maybe, just maybe, they didn't need to be way up their in - for them - treacherous terrain in the first place.

The environmental/cultural factor

The government actually calls it cultural landscape contribution. As I browse from content to content, I realize that this is the most cited reason for alpine pasture operations today. The argument is that we need to keep those alpine pastures, whatever the sense, whatever the cost, for 'cultural reasons'. For some, no doubt, the financial incentives of millions in direct payments are at the heart of annually bringing hundreds of thousands of animals into alpine regions. But - see above paragraphs - the numbers don't add up.

Others will argue that the management of those many alpine pastures by those many, many grazing animals, is of immense ecological importance. But there I think we're rapidly wading into the world of the shifting baseline syndrome. The argument here is that, unless those many animals graze up there every summer, those verdant meadows will soon see the growth of bushes and will, over time, become open forests ... and they're saying that is if it were a bad thing. What they simply say with their 'cultural reasons' is that they'd like to maintain the status quo. I'd argue that leaving some of those pastures in higher regions alone would actually be in everyone's best interest.

Switzerland's world-leading, country-spanning national park

Most alpine pastures (95%) are in altitudes between 1'000 and 2'500 meters above sea level. If Switzerland were to designate EVERY aspect of the Alps above 2'000 meters above seal level, the following could happen:

• Fauna: Every animal across all of our Alps above 2'000 meters would be protected. Chamois, ibex, marmot, hare, eagle, vulture and other animals would be up there as they always have - but protected from hunters. This would ensure rich hunting grounds for wolves and so, up there, trophic cascading would be in balance. As we know from the seas, when you protect nature, there are positive spillover effects. Over time, that healthy nature above 2000 meters would make an increasingly big difference at lower altitudes, too.

• Flora: Yes, those wide pastures of nothing but green grass would slowly be turning into smaller patches, because little by little bushes and trees would grow, and rocks would fall (I remember helping out at one alpine pasture where our job was to remove fallen rocks so that cows wouldn't trip. Yes, seriously) and stay there. Every such movement would create new opportunities for plants of every kind to make it home. All of that flora does, of course, benefit every bit of fauna up there - an entirely virtuous cycle.

• Avalanches: I remember working in alpine regions for several years in a row, helping to put in avalanche fortifications, and helping to plant saplings, too. Those saplings need fencing and other protection from overgrazing deer populations. Strong forests protect against avalanches and, without a doubt, fewer high-altitude pastures without bushes and trees (those pastures are basically slides) would help slow and even block avalanches.

• Animal husbandry: No one ever asked any cow, sheep, goat, horse or pig whether or not it wanted to make that trip into the Alps. Sure, we say that the cooler air is good for them. But that's just what we say. But those highest of alpine altitudes are treacherous (as those many helicopter trips prove) and I'd argue that, if we care so much about our livestock, we should do more to better keep them all year round.

• Wolf: If this apex predator and their packs have territories that are theirs to hunt, grazing pressures would certainly shift to lower altitudes. Would some wolves follow? Sure. But I'd argue there'd be far fewer frictions between the farming community and wolves. Wolves would have their prey at their own doorstep and yes, these ecosystem engineers would do the fine job they are born to do.

• Hiking: Over the coming years there would be lushly exploding flora and fauna above 2000 meters. No farming or hunting activity, no livestock. Bushes would grow and so would trees and yes, over the course of a decade you'd see a marked change - in an entirely good way! Just shift your perspective, let go of what your shifting baseline syndrome is used to - and allow nature to flow. Hikers would love the growing wilderness of our wonderful Alps. Instead of sheep and cattle up there, people would actually see a growing abundance of wild animals (just as you do when you visit Switzerland currently only national park).

• Tourism: Tourists love coming to Switzerland's alpine regions now - just imagine how many more will come when they know that across all of the Alps, all they have to do is take a step from 1'999 meters above seal level to 2'000 meters, and they're in the midst of an amazing, world-leading nature reserve. According to this article, the Swiss Alps cover more than 60% of Swiss territory - and a whopping 23% of that is above 2'000 meters - all of that could be protected (those 23% would be nearly twice the size of the USA's Yosemite National Park) - generating another tourism boom for Switzerland, and making us world-leading with this nature restoration and protection approach.

• Mountain farming: Farming in the mountains is challenging for many reasons. Altitude, topographical and meteorological conditions just to begin with. Then there's accessibility and the threats of urbanization as more and more young people leave the hard work and the family tradition behind. I see a dramatic change within a single generation, particularly for the most affected cantons of Valais, Grisons and Berne, with some of that traditional hard work shifting toward land stewardship, working as rangers and nature guides. I've seen it happen in Italy and in Portugal - if wild nature is embraced, ecotourism follows, bringing back proud, engaged and invested young people, rejuvenating mountain regions.

Final thoughts

I've read that one of the reasons for the continuance of transhumance is that those hundreds of thousands of livestock animals go away from their permanent homes. Literally, that they are not there. Because when they are not there, farmers don't have to let them graze, thus the gras grows, thus they can produce hay for the winter. In addition, with no livestock to tend to, farmers can focus on harvesting wheat, vegetables and fruit. Another factor is apparently that those hundreds of thousands of livestock animals poop elsewhere for a few months - thus help farms relieve their manure balance. All of that suggests to me that maybe, just maybe, could it possibly be that the livestock population in Switzerland is simply too big? Well, that's a topic for another article.

So how about it? Keep alpine operations by all means, but cap them at 2'000 meters above sea level. Keep bringing up those hundreds of thousands of animals, if you must, and I'm sure you can make your wonderful alpine cheese also at 1'900 meters above sea level. I've tried to find out just how much, percentage-wise, alpine operations would be impacted by such an altitude cap, but I couldn't find out anything about the distribution of alpine operations and pastures with regard to altitude.

I expect that most alpine operations would continue as always, except that some would move their huts to lower pastures. I also expect that it would mean less hardship on herdsmen/women and shepherds and livestock. There would still be ample pastures and so, if change is not desired, no one would have to change - other than to adhere to the 2'000 meters cap.

Crazy idea .... or is it? What do you think? And what would nature think?