REWILDING: REASONABLE OR REBELIOUS?

The Fight to Protect Europe's Wildlife Arianne Zajaç

Rewilding is characterised by conservative efforts in restoring or protecting natural processes and wilderness. There is an emphasis (interestingly, as it involves humans intervening) on stepping back. It has become increasingly popular over the last few decades to the point that the UN claims it is necessary in the fight against climate change. However, rewilding is not as plainly institutional as it first appears. Rather than simply being a process taken up by governments and organisations to resolve the current environmental crisis, it is an act of contention. Sometimes rejected by organisations as not scientific enough, it also has a history of radicalism and activism.

The term rewilding was originally coined by Earth First – a radical environmental advocacy group and movement, founded in the 1980s. The group sprouted out from RARE II, which they felt to be a sell out to mainstream activist movements. However, it was refined by conservation biologists Michael Soulé and Reed Noss in a paper published in 1998. The concept had been first established somewhat earlier in 1967 by R.H. MacArthur and Edward O, however organisations have been slow to pick it up and the approach has been academically criticised. According to Rewilding Europe, rewilding is built on the idea that ‘nature knows best’ and humans are simply there to give a ‘helping hand’. Within rewilding, keystone species and top predators are reintroduced; consider wolves in Europe or large grazing mammals.

There are many examples of successful rewilding, Castle Knepp being one. The Castle was formerly agricultural land, inherited by Sir Charles Burrell, 10th Baronet, from his grandparents at age 21 in 1983. As he struggled with managing the farm, he transformed the estate into nature reserve and the area became the first major lowland rewilding project in England. A ‘hands-off’ naturalistic grazing system was adopted in 2002, which allowed free-roaming herds of old English longhorns, Exmoor ponies, and Tamworth pigs as proxies for the aurochs, tarpan and wild boar that would once have roamed the British countryside, as well as red and fallow deer.

Nevertheless, there are many tensions within the process of rewilding. Often farmers and landowners can be resistant and feel alienated. Many feel it is irresponsible to abandon productive land when the world’s population is growing, but the fact of the matter is most farming can no longer keep up with the now globalised industry. As farming is increasingly intensified, it frees up land which can be turned into conservation areas. This is not the only contention with rewilding. If done in an ill-thought-out manner, it can have dire consequences for the present wildlife. There are worries in Scotland of re-introduced wild boar carrying the antibiotic-resistant strain of MRSA, that is potentially lethal to humans.

However, as the clock ticks on climate change and the reduction of natural habitats increases at an alarming rate, many criticise that not enough is being done. In this camp, the radical, activist origins of rewilding shine through. Often, it is mainly men who take it upon themselves to carry out the work that they feel conservationist organisations are failing to do. Conservationists often focus on habitat reconstruction, rather than simply reintroducing individual species, meaning they must work with the area as a whole.

Not to mention, the time-consuming nature of collecting data, funding, monitoring, writing reports, and other bureaucratic processes. The result is people are taking matters into their own hands.

Martin White was one of the most notable rewilders in the United Kingdom. He has had a passion for butterflies his whole life and took it upon himself to stop their declining numbers. He has used data his consistently to guide his reintroductions and has even been grudgingly credited as the saviour of certain butterfly species, such as the Purple Emperor. Notwithstanding, conservationists tend to highlight the damaging nature maverick rewilding has on data collection and method testing, meaning there is no way to determine what is working or not. Not that this seems to stop people like Martin, who feel that they have public opinion on their side and are challenging the establishment.

On the flipside, to the maverick rewilders, who tend to work out of their own back gardens, you have millionaires getting involved as well. Often able to buy up land, or transform their own, and they can then carry out rewilding as they please – as successfully demonstrated with Castle Knepp. While this philanthropic effort may appear to be praiseworthy, it raises various points of interest. In terms of accountability, it becomes unclear who is directing the project, under what advice it is carried out, and who is the focal point for the success or failure of the project? Furthermore, what are the implications of this kind of land ownership on greater class difference? The UK government is seeking to enclose common land further and make trespass a criminal offence, thus limiting significantly who has access to green space. When such land is already under threat, what are the ethics behind rewilding private land that is unavailable for public use?

As can be seen, rewilding has a rich history. It has caught the imagination of many different groups in society; activists, scientists, wealthy philanthropists, and the general public. With many new nature policies being labelled rewilding, it appears, despite its controversies, to be a mobilising and influential force. It seems that rewilding is here to stay.