Debunking 4 criticisms of rewilding
Rewilding, an approach used to restore the health, biological diversity and resilience of our ecosystems is the most exciting movement of the 21st country. Rewilding not only helps us to restore our depleted ecosystems, support wildlife and build resilience to the effects of climate change, but also provides us with much needed hope for a better, healthier and wilder future. These benefits have led to a surge in popularity for the term, with over 81% of the British public supporting the movement (1). That said, there is vocal minority, including the green-fingered Alan Titchmarsh & Monty Don who have recently spoken out against the movement. Criticisms broadly fall into 4 main themes, which we will address in this blog:
Rewilding Challenges Food Sovereignty
One of the major criticisms of rewilding is that it may encroach upon agricultural land and reduce food production, thereby threatening food sovereignty.
Response:
A tree felled by beavers at the Knepp Estate. Their dams hold and slow the flow of water, reducing flood flows and periods of drought.
First and foremost, it's vital to clarify that rewilding does not advocate for the conversion of productive agricultural land into wilderness. Instead, rewilding focuses on low-yielding agricultural soils, marginal land or brownfield sites that are not suitable for intensive agriculture. By prioritising these areas, rewilding minimises direct conflict with food production. It is also important to note that rewilding doesn’t entirely take the land out of food production because rewilding at scale requires the introduction of free-roaming grazers & browsers, like tamworth pigs, long-horn cattle & wild horses to disturb the land and keep it from succeeding to a bio-diversity poor closed-canopy forest. As we’ve removed most of our native predators, like wolves, lynx & wild cats, we have to cull the numbers of these animals to prevent an unhealthily large population from over-grazing the land. This creates high quality sustainable meat, albeit at a lower yield to industrial farming. Meaning that rewilding low-yielding farmland does reduce food yields in the areas rewilded, but does it decrease food production overall?
Recent evidence suggests quite the opposite; that rewilding certain areas can positively impact food production in the surrounding areas. Rewilded ecosystems can improve soil fertility, pollination, and pest control, contributing positively to agricultural productivity. In England we’ve seen a 65% decrease in invertebrates in 20 years (2), and as a result crop pollination is on the decline too. In areas of South West China, pollinator scarcity has forced farmers to hand pollinate their crops, a practice which is barely feasible in a country with low wages - it would be impossible in Britain. Boosting the pollinators in an area is so important for food production, that by taking 8% of a field out of production to grow wild flowers leads to an overall increase in the production yield of the total area (3). Beyond pollination, rewilding can benefit food production by reducing the risk of flooding & drought on higher quality farm land. Today in Britain we lose 35,000 hectares of land every 3 years to flooding and this figure is expected to rise to 130,000 by 2080 (4). Much of this flooding is exacerbated because we have straightened our rivers, over-grazed our uplands and removed beavers from the landscape, effectively ruining our lands ability to hold and store water in periods of heavy rain and drip feed water in times of drought. High quality soils are often found in lowland basins, which are more likely to be hit by flooding.
In conclusion by selecting the right areas to rewild, we can increase the abundance of pollinators to boost food yields whilst protecting the surrounding areas from the increasing threat of flooding and droughts, thereby supporting Britain’s food sovereignty.
2. Rewilding is an excuse for laziness
Critics have argued that rewilding promotes laziness by leaving nature to its own devices without human management. Others argue that we need to tidy our gardens and land as a matter of national pride.
Response:
Before getting into the meat of the counter-argument, its important to ask, ‘what are we taking pride in now?’
Mowing our lawns more than any other country in Europe? Reducing the abundance of our wildlife by 69% in 50 years? (5) Or causing the global extinction rate to accelerate by 1000%? (6) Are these things that we can proudly tell our children? Clearly something is very broken, and all for the sake of immaculately mown lawns, trimmed hedgerows and manicured garden beds?
Regularly mown lawns have terrible biodiversity, dry out quickly and can’t absorb heavy rains as well
What if we could imagine a brighter future - one in which we recover the natural world over the next 50 years and bring back some wild beauty into our landscapes. If we could reverse biodiversity decline, reintroduce lost species and create something new and beautiful for our ancestors to enjoy, wouldn’t that be a far greater cause for national pride?
Moreover, rewilding does not mean the complete abandonment of management. It involves active restoration efforts, such as reintroducing keystone species, controlling invasive species, and supporting natural processes to help ecosystems thrive. The aim of rewilding is to establish self-sustaining ecosystems that require minimal human intervention in the long run, but rewilding is as much about repeopling as it is about rewilding, and the evidence has shown that rewilding projects lead to an average 54% increase in full-time rural jobs (7)- breathing much needed life into our countryside. When we shrink rewilding down to garden size, it doesn’t mean that you should leave your whole garden to grow over, it might mean creating some wilder corners, promoting a more diverse set of native plants and eradicating the use of pesticides. This all requires skill, creativity and hard work, so don’t worry Mr. Titchmarsh - you won’t be out of a job any time soon.
3. Rewilding ruins local communities and traditions
Some critics argue that rewilding can adversely affect local communities and their traditions. For instance, sheep farmers are concerned about potentially losing the system of subsidies that currently supports the 33 million sheep in Britain today. (8)
Response
The skeleton of the last orca in Eden that helped whalers to hunt. You can see the teeth on the left of its bottom jaw are eroded from years of pulling the trailing harpoon rope.
While it is important to respect and preserve cultural traditions, we must also consider the consequences of maintaining certain practices that have significant negative impacts on our environment and ecosystems. For example, whaling was once a huge industry which propped up towns along our coasts and led to increased international trade. In these communities, many had built deep cultural connections with the industry. For example, in Eden, Australia, the whalers had developed a fascinating relationship with pods of orcas which would help them fish for larger whales. The orcas would do this by herding larger whales closer to the shore, at which point a couple of orcas would break away towards the shore where the whalers lived and would breach and splash until they gained the attention of the whalers, who would then jump in their boats to follow the orcas. Eventually the whalers would harpoon the large whale, which would dive down into the deep to escape. The orcas would then grab the rope trailing from the harpoon between their teeth and prevent the whale from escaping. Exhausted and injured, the whales would breach again and the whalers would finish them off. The orcas would then be rewarded with the lips, livers and tongues of the whales, while the whalers took the meat and blubber. This incredible relationship was key to the town and each of the orcas were named and beloved by the community. But as industrialisation increased, whaling intensified and whale populations reduced significantly, whilst the whalers developed more powerful guns and ships which reduced their reliance on the orcas. Eventually, as a global community we recognised that whaling was negatively impacting ecosystems and would eventually drive these magnificent beasts to extinction. This came at the expense of the industry, but stopping large-scale whaling is one of the main reasons we still have a, albeit diminishing, population of whales left, which we now know has a profound impact on nutrient circulation in our oceans and the life of many other species. Drawing this parallel, we see that traditions, no matter how deeply rooted, sometimes need to evolve to align with ecological and ethical considerations. Sheep farming, has also dramatically changed as a result of man-made developments. Traditionally sheep were constantly herded through landscapes by shepherds & their dogs to avoid wolves, meaning that the sheep would be forced to graze within a smaller area, munching whatever was available before being moved on. This still happens in mainland Europe, where wolf numbers are growing. However today in Britain, without the threat of predators, sheep are kept in large numbers over huge areas without protection and forced movement. This allows them to eat much more selectively, choosing the tastiest flora to eat, the best of all being young saplings. What this means in essence is that we are using sheep as highly effective tree removers, which stops our ecosystems from regenerating. These over-grazed landscapes are also stripped of their ability to retain water in times of flood and drought.
Shepherds used to spend more time with their flock, protecting them from predators and moving them through the landscape.
So how can we preserve our traditions, whilst reducing the negative impact of sheep farming?
Introducing wolves back to Britain would have a profound positive impact, helping to keep our traditions alive whilst helping our ecosystems to regenerate. Sadly it looks like it will be a long time until we follow Europe in embracing this solution. So what should we do in the meantime? Some argue that we should stop using tax payer money to subsidise this farming practice. However this could leave certain communities at risk of decline, so instead of entirely stopping subsidies, we could explore alternative approaches. In selected areas, especially within national parks, it would make sense to redirect subsidies away from sheep farming and transition them towards more ecologically beneficial practices, encouraging a shift towards wilder farming practices involving low-intensity long-horn cattle and free-roaming pigs. This would provide economic opportunities for local communities while promoting a healthier balance with nature.
Rewilding initiatives can also bring economic benefits to local communities through sustainable tourism and nature-based economic activities. Statistics show that rewilding projects have led to an average increase of 54% in full time jobs, presenting an opportunity to revitalize rural areas that have been affected by the transition to high-intensity industrial agriculture. By integrating rewilding efforts with the support and involvement of local communities, we can foster a positive relationship between conservation and cultural preservation. Rewilding can serve as a means to reconnect people with the natural world, reviving rural traditions while helping the environment recover from decades of degradation.
In conclusion, addressing the concerns of local communities and preserving cultural traditions is vital when implementing rewilding initiatives. But while we should respect heritage, we must also acknowledge the necessity of adapting traditions to align with ecological realities. Collaborative efforts between conservationists and communities can lead to successful rewilding projects that benefit both the environment and local livelihoods, paving the way for a more harmonious coexistence between humans and nature.
4. Rewilding is only for rich landowners
Some critics argue that rewilding is an uneconomical form of land management and therefore is only applicable to wealthy estate owners with no particular need of income. Others have argued that rewilding is leading to a new land grab taking place across our Isles, particularly in Scotland, where corporations and private individuals have purchased large swathes of land, contributing to an increase in the price of land.
Response:
Firstly, rewilding is an increasingly economical form of land management. As our government and private sector embrace the fact that healthy functioning ecosystems are worth supporting financially, a number of new schemes have popped up to reward the services that rewilding creates, like the new environmental land management scheme (ELMS), biodiversity net gain (BNG), nutrient neutrality (which pays landowners for using their land to filter and clean our water sources), carbon credits, tourism and wild meat production.
Taken from the Langholm community buy-out of a 2,100 ha grouse estate
Moreover, its looking likely that businesses will soon be required to demonstrate how their operations are affecting more than just carbon emissions, but biodiversity, water quality or soil health. If rewilding sites can effectively demonstrate the positive impact that they’re having on these metrics, it should create a private-sector generated revenue stream to rewild larger tracts of land. This should make rewilding on low yielding soils an increasingly attractive choice from an economic perspective, which in turn should open it up to smaller tenant farmers or those without deep pockets to fund the work required. It is true that rewilding does demand some initial investment, like removing fences and reintroducing certain species, but many of these payments can be supported by organisations like Wilderkind or through government funding to help overcome the initial financial barriers. And once these initial costs are covered, rewilding is by its nature less cost intensive than industrialised farming and has proven to be highly profitable in certain cases. For example the Knepp Estate, a flagship rewilding project in Sussex, is now operating at a 25% net profit margin having almost reached bankruptcy under traditional farming 20 years ago.
It is also true that several landscape scale projects are led by large landowners and some large scale corporate land purchases have taken place, for example Brewdog Beer purchased 9,300 acres in 2020 for natural regeneration to off-set its operations. Bearing in mind that we can still see the effects of the highland land clearances, which was essentially the forced eviction of inhabitants of the Highlands in the mid-to-late 18th century to the mid-19th century to make space for sheep pastoralism, one can understand the concern about large changes in land ownership and use in Scotland. However, rewilding is about breathing new life into these areas and re-peopling the land, providing a much needed boost to the local economy whilst recovering the native wildlife and health to the ecosystems. Rewilding needs to be careful to involve the local community as much as possible, and in the best cases the purchase of the land has been crowd funded by the community. For example, the Langholm community buy out in Southern Scotland was the largest ever community buy out for rewilding and is focused on regenerating both the local environment and the local economy. They provide a leading example of how communities can embrace the growth of nature-based economies to revitalise rural communities.
In conclusion, rewilding stands as an overwhelmingly popular movement for substantiated reasons. It presents a comprehensive solution that yields advantages for our society, our ecosystem, and our economy. While certain criticisms hold validity within a constrained perspective, they are decidedly outweighed by the array of benefits that rewilding delivers when examined in its entirety. For example, rewilding a low yielding agricultural plot will drop the food production yield in that immediate area, but it would benefit the surrounding area in terms of reduced flooding & drought, a higher concentration of pollinators, cleaner water to drink and an increase in local jobs. When taken in holistic consideration, the benefits consistently demonstrate why rewilding is the most exciting movement of the 21st century!
(4) Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit
(8) GOV UK