Why rewild?

Rewilding was conceived in America in the 1990s as a model to promote the restoration of wilderness in areas where the environment retained ‘its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation’. Concerned about the accelerating loss of species from increasingly small and isolated fragments of wild habitats, and keen to articulate the role of large predators in regulating ecosystem health, the original rewilding movement concentrated on three Cs: ‘Cores, Corridors and Carnivores’

Focused on a connected network of wilderness areas, regulated by a few influential species (particularly apex predators) and kept free from the influence of human activity, this model presents only the strictest, and correspondingly most limited, interpretation of rewilding. However, the term ‘rewilding’ has since come to mean more things to more people than could ever have been anticipated by rewilding’s early pioneers.

Some purists may lament this dilution of rewilding’s original vision; others argue that it is precisely this interpretative flexibility that has contributed to rewilding’s growing popularity. This widening of focus is also pragmatic. After all, untrammelled wilderness is hard to find in the modern world. If the word ‘rewilding’ may only be applied to such rarefied places, it will have little relevance in Scotland, or in many other countries.

With ecological losses increasingly recognised and mourned, there is widespread interest in rewilding in Scotland, alongside a growing recognition that traditional conservation has largely failed to arrest the current biodiversity crisis. The links between land use, biodiversity loss, the climate crisis and the impoverishment of human communities are now widely accepted and understood. Furthermore, the role of people and the opportunities for communities have increasingly emerged as key parts of the discourse surrounding rewilding in Scotland.

Importantly, ‘wildness’ (as opposed to wilderness) need not remain rare or inaccessible.

Rewilding is popular in part because it offers hope: hope that we might restore and revitalise lost or degraded ecosystems; hope that wildlife can come back. Furthermore, in returning a measure of autonomy to natural systems, rewilding can rekindle the spark of wonder that wildness inspires, encouraging public interest and reconnecting us with the natural world we rely on.

Importantly, ‘wildness’ (as opposed to wilderness) need not remain rare or inaccessible. No species exists entirely separate from human influence in today’s world, but wildness can be found anywhere organisms live out their lives free from direct human control. Fundamentally, ‘wild’ means self-willed. Humans do not need to be absent from a self-willed landscape, nor should they refrain from interacting with wild nature. They need only be willing to allow wild nature its independence.

Hugh Webster Author

Rewilded landscapes offer fresh opportunities for people: supporting nature-based businesses, boosting health and wellbeing.

The challenge for rewilding is to find a way to integrate and reconcile human prosperity with this principle of self-willed nature. Importantly, rewilding is distinct from extractive nature-friendly farming, even if the two concepts can sit comfortably alongside each other. Nor is rewilding exactly the same as restoration ecology, which typically seeks to return an ecosystem back to some former state. Instead, rewilding places its emphasis on reestablishing ecosystem function within dynamic, self-sustaining systems. Rewilding is therefore less prescriptive, more tolerant of uncertainty, and more open to the development of novel systems.

Rewilding is not and never will be needed everywhere. Sometimes traditional conservation may be more appropriate, such as when a species on the brink of extinction may be unable to tolerate the uncertain outcomes of a rewilding approach. And of course, much of our land will continue to be required for agricultural production and forestry.

Where rewilding is appropriate, a combination of social and ecological factors must be considered in determining which actions to take. Where landscapes are especially degraded or have been significantly altered, simply abandoning active management (so-called ‘passive rewilding’) may not be enough to re-establish lost function and diversity, and interventions might be necessary. Context is crucial.

However, while rewilding can take various forms and should not be viewed as a single solution to all our problems, it does offer unique benefits. Rewilded systems may be more resilient than managed ones. And rewilded landscapes offer fresh opportunities for people, supporting nature-based businesses, boosting health and wellbeing, enhancing connectedness with wild nature and reinvigorating communities.

This is the space in which the Northwoods Rewilding Network operates. We are not setting out to state definitively what is or isn’t rewilding, or to position ourselves as arbitrary gatekeepers. It is possible to nurture nature in a variety of ways. Our network extends over a growing area of land, making wilder landscapes more widely accessible – for both wildlife and people.

This booklet sets out how and why we believe land managers might want to begin rewilding. Not every landholding will be able to deliver every one of our nine rewilding principles, and what can be achieved in any given location will vary. Again, context is crucial. Fundamentally, however, we are trying to shift the needle and showcase what can be achieved. Rewilding is still a new paradigm and our Northwoods partners are among its pioneers, proving that where there’s a will, there’s a way for wildness to return.