Is Rewilding Always Beneficial?

What is rewilding?

Rewilding generally aims to restore functioning ecosystems, reduce intensive human control and allow natural processes to shape landscapes.

Well-designed projects can improve habitat diversity, water retention, carbon storage and resilience to drought or flooding.

Some projects simply reduce intensive management. Others introduce large herbivores or predators.

The name alone does not establish scientific soundness.

Landscapes have changed through climate, farming, extinction and settlement.

There may be no single correct natural state to which land can return.

Introduced animals may face hunger, disease, conflict, fencing or population control.

Calling animals wild does not remove human responsibility when they were deliberately introduced.

Rewilding may affect farming, access, fire risk, tourism and local identity.

Genuine participation can improve both knowledge and legitimacy.

Conditions may have changed since a species disappeared.

Disease, habitat limits and conflict with people must be considered.

Rewilding should be treated as an evidence-based process rather than a promise that nature will automatically produce preferred outcomes.

Projects should monitor biodiversity, habitat condition, animal welfare, water, fire, neighbouring land and community impacts against defined goals.

Results should be compared with realistic alternatives, including continued management and other forms of restoration.

Who decides what wild condition should be restored?

Are humans responsible for suffering among animals they deliberately introduce?

Can rural communities be required to bear costs for environmental benefits enjoyed elsewhere?

Rewilding can be highly beneficial, but it is not beneficial by definition.

Good rewilding is context-sensitive, transparent, attentive to animals and communities, and willing to change when evidence shows harmful outcomes.