Rewilding gets a more acceptable definition
Is it time to redefine ‘rewilding’ to bring together land managers and conservationists? asks Philip Bowern
THERE are plenty of divisions when it comes to management of the countryside but the word “rewilding” had more power than most to split opinion.
Farmers saw it as a term designed to undermine their work rearing livestock and growing crops while some ardent conservationists considered it the only solution to declining wildlife, suggesting mankind step back from rural land management and let nature take over.
On one extreme sat people like environmental campaigner George Monbiot, complaining that upland grazing left Britain’s moors “sheepwrecked” and envisaging huge tracts of the countryside where lynx and wolves roamed again, while more of our food came from laboratories.
At the other end was the intensive farming lobby, advocating ever more close control of the landscape for food production and warning that leaving large areas to go wild would see Britain forced to import more food, effectively “offshoring” the nation’s responsibilities for the environment.
The row is unlikely to end. But there is evidence in a piece written by Countryside Alliance Chief Executive Office Tim Bonner to suggest that there is room for a middle way. Accepting that land management in a heavily populated nation like Britain is always going to be necessary is simple commonsense. But changing the way rewilding is implemented could bring together the two sides and bring about improvements to the landscape while retaining food production, rural jobs and rural communities.
Mr Bonner writes that the idea of the complete withdrawal of human management to allow natural processess to create wilderness on a landscape scale unsurprisingly caused concern in areas where the countryside is currently managed. “In the UK,” he writes, “that essentially means everywhere.”
He goes on: “Rewilding projects which attempted to impose this radical new idea on farming communities have therefore been roundly rejected, which has meant that most rewilding is being done by large private and institutional land owners who are driven by a mixture of economic, environmental and reputational factors.
“A recent trend has been the purchase of Scottish estates by companies and wealthy businessmen with a commitment to rewilding them. Cynics among us might suggest that such virtue signalling might salve the conscience of the individuals involved, but it does not reduce the environmental impact of the industries and businesses that create their wealth.”
But, he says, some at the sharp end of rewilding projects are now redefining what they do and accepting that it is most definitely not about withdrawing from the landscape, but getting stuck in.
Trees for Life, a rewilding organisation working on a project in Glen Affric in the Scottish Highlands is, he says, a case in point. They have ditched the idea of wolves and lynx and instead are planting trees, enhancing river corridors, restoring peat bogs and introducing naturefriendly farming practices. All the things that are also going on here in the South West – although no one would seriously call them rewilding.
Mr Bonner says: “All of these are laudable aims, but it is difficult not to comment that many of them are an awful long way from the original definition of rewilding as the removal of management and the replacement with natural processes. In fact a spokesman has addressed that point directly saying: “Rewilding is a word that people define differently. For some people, it’s wolves and bears. For Trees for Life, it’s about the land, and what it can support… whether it’s opportunities for businesses and job creation, or natural capital and the ability to monetise that”.
“So perhaps the answer to the rewilding conundrum is not to rename it, but to completely redefine it as nature friendly farming and land management with the interests of the rural economy and community at its heart. More than that it seems to me that the Trees for Life definition of rewilding would include shoots, fisheries and many other activities which benefit nature, local communities and the rural economy.
“Perhaps rather than challenge the ludicrous extremes of rewilding with its obsession with releasing ‘charismatic’ species and attacking tradition land use, we should just do what the entire conservation movement is doing and redefine our own land management practices. We are all rewilders now.”
And that, surely, includes many of the farmers and estate managers of of the Westcountry who are skilfully combining nature-friendly practices with growing food, rearing livestock and operating profitable rural businesses.
‘Rather than challenge the ludicrous extremes of the rewilders we should redefine them’ TIM BONNER