Rewilding in the English uplands: Policy and practice

Rewilding is gaining momentum as a new approach to restore and conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services, despite being imprecisely defined, controversial, and with limited explicit empirical supporting evidence (Lorimer et al., 2015; Pettorelli et al., 2018; Svenning et al., 2016). In a case study region (the English uplands), we discuss what rewilding means to practitioners and policy makers; the risks, opportunities, and barriers to implementation, and potential paths for policy and practice. Rewilding has had strong uptake in Europe, including the UK (Sandom & Wynne-Jones, in press; Svenning et al., 2016). A UK case study is particularly interesting for two reasons. First, many species have been lost through centuries of increasingly intensive land use and, with little opportunity for natural recolonization, species translocations are likely required for successful rewilding. Second, debate around rewilding is particularly intense with the UK's impending departure from the European Union and associated potential for considerable change of key policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and the Habitats and Birds Directives. Here, we highlight perceptions, concerns, and possible ways forward for rewilding in post-Brexit upland England in which the 25-year environment plan (25YEP; DEFRA, 2018a) will frame policy. We also identify general lessons for those considering applying rewilding in other locations. Rewilding is increasingly prominent in policy discussions and land management practice in the UK. It was explicitly identified as a management option in the terms of reference for the UK Government's inquiry into “the future of the natural environment after the EU referendum” (Environmental Audit Committee, 2016) and has been the focus of a POSTNote (Wentworth & Alison, 2016). The charity Rewilding Britain has identified 13 active examples of British rewilding projects (Rewilding Britain, 2017), although many others exist (Sandom & Wynne-Jones, in press). Rewilding is being considered and pursued as a land management option by environmental NGOs (John Muir Trust, 2015; Woodland Trust, 2017) and private landowners. The environment is a devolved matter in the UK meaning the four national governments have legislative mandates to adopt their own environmental strategies. Here, we focus on England and consider wider implications in our conclusions. Approximately 12% of England is considered upland, which is reported to provide an estimated 70% of the country's drinking water, contain 53% (by area) of its Sites of Special Scientific Interest, 25% of woodland, 29% of its beef cows and 44% of its breeding sheep. Upland National Parks (NPs) in England receive c. 70 million visits annually (various sources, summarized in Upland Alliance, 2016). The uplands are central to both biodiversity conservation and society as a whole, and their management has cascading impacts for the UK. To date, policy and practice in the uplands has primarily focused on food production and forestry, with secondary goals of supporting biodiversity and providing additional ecosystem services. Low soil fertility and steep slopes mean most upland farms are considered “Severely Disadvantaged Areas” (DEFRA, 2018b) and currently receive subsidy payments from the CAP (Pillar I) that makes up on average 19% (£18,104) of farm revenue in less favoured areas. A further 12% (£11,172) revenue for these farms comes from CAP agri-environment schemes (Pillar II) which seek to support conservation on farmland (Harvey & Scott, 2016). The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA, 2018b) reports that these uplands areas have the potential to benefit from new environmental land management schemes that could help “encourage biodiversity, protect water quality, and store carbon”. Exiting the EU and the likely associated changes in subsidy regimes, combined with the UK government's stated policy of “public money for public goods”, has made discussion about the future of the uplands urgent. This is already underway with contributions from a wide range of interested parties including farmers, businesses, government bodies, NGOs, and academics. In this context, rewilding presents one of many options for management of the uplands and analysis of practitioner perspectives illustrates how the concept of rewilding is interacting with rural land management in a dynamic political landscape. The perspectives presented here are the authors own, but also based on direct consultation with a wider group of practitioners and policy makers. The lead author contacted practitioners and policy makers, representing a range of conservation NGOs (e.g., Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, National Trust, Wildlife Trusts), protected area managers (e.g., Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, NPs), government and professional bodies (e.g., National Farmers Union, Countryside Land and Business Association, Natural England, Forest Enterprise England, Confederation of Forest Industries), and businesses (e.g., Ecosulis, Conservation Capital, United Utilities), who attended an earlier event organized by the Upland Alliance and further stakeholders identified during the process, as well as academics active in the field. In total, the lead author contacted 73 individuals and spoke directly to 22. Interviews were semistructured and aimed at discussing (a) what rewilding means; (b) what risks and opportunities rewilding presents; and (c) how rewilding could be applied or facilitated if desirable approaches are identified. This process identified seven active or possible future approaches that practitioners and policy makers associate with rewilding in England's uplands (Box 1). Process-based habitat restoration seeks to reinstate ecological processes with the aim of restoring a specific habitat. In some cases, projects are already under way to restore certain upland habitats, most notably peatlands (e.g., Moors for the Future Partnership). This has been achieved by blocking drains and gullies and reestablishing vegetation communities to restore hydrological processes. The focus on the restoration of ecological processes is consistent with rewilding thinking, but the targeted habitat-based outcome means it is an approach more associated with traditional ecological restoration. Wild or naturalistic grazing is the restoration of large herbivore regimes that are either wild or seek to mimic wild/natural regimes respectively. It can be employed to restore grazing/browsing/dunging/trampling as processes to allow ecosystems to respond naturally or to maintain or improve the ecological condition and value of specific landscapes/habitats. The former is more consistent with rewilding thinking. As an example, Wild Ennerdale reports that they introduced herds of Galloway cattle to restore a natural disturbance process. Several species with the potential to restore degraded ecological processes could be considered for translocation/reinforcement to the English uplands, including the Eurasian lynx, pine marten, wild cat, beaver, white-tailed eagle, and osprey. Under this approach, where and when appropriate, a specific species is introduced to restore ecological processes. Alternatively, a species might be removed or controlled to restore more natural ecological interactions. This could include the eradication of an invasive species, or control of a native one in the absence of its predator. Beaver returning to Britain is an example of a species translocation to restore process (to dam rivers and slow their flow), while the control of red deer is an example of species control in the absence of its predator. This is the restoration of whole communities of species, particularly functionally important and severely impoverished communities such as large carnivores and herbivores. This could be implemented nationally or targeted within a landscape-scale conservation area, such as an IUCN Category II or IA National Park. This requires large areas and restoration of food-web complexity; it is the most ambitious rewilding approach discussed. As far as we are aware, this is not currently under serious consideration in England's uplands, but the aspirations of Trees for Life and the Alladale Wilderness Reserve in Scotland are consistent with this approach. At the simplest end of the rewilding spectrum, landowners leave patches of their land to nature. Interviewees reported that farmers in the uplands are often aware that some of their land may be better suited to uses other than agricultural production, such as supporting wildlife or buffering wetlands. Landowners can also choose to repurpose all their land and leave it to nature. Some interviewees reported that this form of rewilding is already taking place in the uplands, with slow-moving ecosystem change (including natural afforestation) occurring over recent decades. Landowners and managers can cooperate and agree a lower intervention strategy over their combined land. Wild Ennerdale in the Lake District is an example where three large landowners are cooperating, with support from the state agency Natural England, to take a wilder approach. Following the interviews, an independently facilitated workshop on “Rewilding in the Uplands” attended by 32 participants from 24 different organizations took place on 2 May 2017. Attendees were primarily practitioners from a variety of sectors, including: Conservation NGOs (6), Business (4), Professional membership organizations (3), BES (3), Protected areas (3), Government body (1), Upland special interest group (1), Independent (1) and ten academics from a variety of disciplines (Ecology, Geography, Social science). Unfortunately, government policy makers due to attend had to withdraw because of “purdah” rules that prevented government employees discussing policy issues preceding the UK's 2017 snap general election. The lead author assigned workshop participants into five groups. Each group was made up of a mix of academics and practitioners from different sectors, women and men (1:2.5 ratio), and a variety of career stages where possible to attain a variety of perspectives. First, each group considered the risks and opportunities presented by the seven preidentified approaches to rewilding (Box 1). The lead author selected 13 example risk (seven) and opportunity (six) categories on the themes of biodiversity, and productive, regulatory, and cultural ecosystem services. Of the 13, 10 were paired, i.e., the opportunity and risk were opposites—for example, increased habitat diversification (opportunity) versus increased habitat homogenization (risk; the full list is given in Figure 1; Sandom et al., 2018). Each group was asked to make a rapid assessment of whether each category should be considered a High, Medium, Low, Not Applicable, or Unknown risk or opportunity for each rewilding approach. The groups did not have to reach a consensus and could give a range as a response, for example Medium-High. Figure 1 and Table 1 report and use the highest opportunity or risk recorded by each group. The preworkshop interviews with policy makers and practitioners raised numerous issues that were reported to be barriers to rewilding. These were categorized into four main groups: (a) Inflexible, Out of date, Inappropriate policy, (b) Uncertainty of environmental outcomes (in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem service delivery), (c) Stakeholder resistance, and (d) Lack of clarity, media storms, and unhelpful debate. Each group was asked to discuss how these preidentified barriers, or additional barriers identified by the group during the workshop, prevented implementation of the rewilding approach their group had been assigned, and to vote on which they thought presented the greatest challenge. Group 1 was an exception; they considered all three forms of passive rewilding because of the similarity between these approaches. Finally, the groups discussed and recorded potential solutions to the three barriers with the most votes for their rewilding approach. Based on the preworkshop structured interviews and workshop discussion, it is clear rewilding means different things to different people. The lack of a single clear definition frustrates practitioners, policy makers, and academics, and along with the strong association between rewilding and reintroduction of large carnivores, means that rewilding is perceived by some as a “toxic” term. However, there is recognition that rewilding encourages innovation and provides an opportunity to reconsider established land and water management strategies. In practice, a diverse spectrum of approaches ranging from low-intervention land management to large predator translocations was identified when discussing what rewilding means (Box 1). Rewilding projects were often described as projects beginning with an active phase to restore ecological processes to move the ecosystem into a more functional starting condition, followed by a low-intervention/passive phase, where outcomes are uncertain. The common thread linking these descriptions is the focus on restoring ecological processes to create more self-organizing and self-sustaining ecosystems. Rewilding is aimed at outcomes for biodiversity and society in general but it a move from and to these outcomes (Sandom & Wynne-Jones, in press). It is important to that there was some practitioners and academics about which land management approaches should be considered rewilding. example, some participants particularly and ambitious and to conservation such as habitat restoration and naturalistic the of the workshop participants that both the perceived risks and opportunities of passive rewilding with Table 1). In large ecosystems that are either or where the potential for natural is passive rewilding is perceived to allow natural processes to support a and However, in more impoverished ecosystems with natural potential and currently by passive rewilding may risk further of the because of ecological processes. the between risk and opportunity to be more for active rewilding Table 1). species reintroduction was perceived to be risk for likely the of this approach. However, participants reported this to be a approach to because of the of options and outcomes Process-based habitat restoration was perceived to the with more controlled and targeted approaches when to with natural processes. translocation to restore functional communities was perceived to the greatest opportunity for the highest The three approaches that include species translocations (including were all perceived to risk increased the a rewilding presents perceived risk and example, rewilding has been as a means to restore and conserve biodiversity, improve water quality, restore and conserve and society with nature. there have also been that rewilding might biodiversity the of agricultural production, cultural and & 2016). It is important to that participants at the workshop and when considering risks and opportunities of the different approaches to rewilding. Landowners and in consultation with all to whether a rewilding approach is likely to a benefit or in their specific This should include consideration of implementation that can if The workshop that from is a to rewilding. However, a variety of and there is often a strong to production in the Landowners or managers not to the of the and to leave a land use as a to their and Some species with and in the uplands, and may an to and A perceived focus on large carnivores has been at the rewilding to the as a form of has also and to the rewilding more barriers to rewilding include subsidy policy, which is focused on supporting production and associated example, CAP payments support production and environmental on land. and possible outcomes of as or and may make land they for subsidy payments that are to the area of land. CAP payments are and have to support to help improve water quality, and restore wildlife 2017), they maintain the of a than rewilding. These schemes also a to be or in many impacts of rewilding to or with and are for rewilding to key public and services, for example, and also create barriers to for land and for agricultural to be to the of this not to and land for while rewilding has been associated with revenue such as and payments for ecosystem these may not be by all landowners or example, requires and and national or schemes to be in Conservation policy also presents barriers to particularly the to maintain the UK's Habitats Habitats in Under this a area, specific and and future are considered in to its in when the Habitats into This is and a and form of This approach & & 2016) which and of specific species and vegetation communities as by the naturally between and their These issues also to their habitat and future be and to the The Habitats and Birds have for biodiversity conservation and discussing change is not but has this discussion and and of this is also likely to be to the in barriers include the for large areas to more ambitious forms of rewilding. projects and landowners. such as Wild is possible in some and for some forms of rewilding. However, while ambitious approaches might to with barriers, it is likely at some landowners not support rewilding on their land. The barriers to rewilding are an of and than the of each and of innovation in conservation and land The associated with rewilding is not a However, we the of barriers to potential rewilding and, not to specific groups. We a large of barriers, and if rewilding approaches are to be changes will to be a of different areas in innovation be a to support and diverse including but not to rewilding. a could take on a to the and the Countryside and be of the in the a land approach to and projects to and Conservation to Agricultural for a key providing opportunities to improve biodiversity conservation and the of diverse ecosystem services. is interest in for payments CAP II from payments are being by Natural England with farmers in the where farmers are being for in habitat England, The has also reported of when to agri-environment goals for with less of this approach to how to A key of discussion be whether goals outcomes for biodiversity and the of ecosystem than specific habitat or species could be to allow a rewilding approach. The CAP is a for ecosystem but one that food production and farmland approach be to a wider range of environmental and services, and may be consistent with the increased focus on “public money for public (DEFRA, This could include food production, but also water and environmental and more directly & such approach analysis of what is in a or and what land managers should be to already being considered under the Countryside The for linking what landowners should to the public for a region is However, this could on the already by the Natural Committee, which linking specific land uses with ecosystem service Committee, a active body (e.g., Environment could the value of landowners woodland, or in their region and landowners The targeted (DEFRA, may provide some of the to as well as the cultural and natural of the region that to be into for be to allow rewilding projects to the of biodiversity and ecosystem service is for on at a and with payments in and can be and it However, to the public is and for public money is A and to biodiversity and ecosystem service outcomes is As discussed this to to specific land uses and their quality, and et al., Natural Committee, approaches (e.g., 2017) and in including et al., 2017) and & may help The opportunity for and innovation is limited by of example, National have a as and could be to the of different approaches to However, all are also which are to maintain condition of and species the for policy is being which could help how their as could be better while condition of key species and This could include linking of to create conservation areas where rewilding is for land and water, or new rewilding as of the We have discussed seven rewilding approaches identified by academics, practitioners, and policy makers to and the range of being considered in practice in England's However, we that they are not all and can be they along a spectrum of rewilding and that these approaches a of direct management of either directly or after some This is the common that et al., and presents the greatest to rewilding more because of how it with policy and such as the CAP and the Birds and Habitats is and at and the implementation of management to specific ecosystem species, or habitat and legislative and barriers to rewilding approaches. and strong cultural to production, traditional land and they and their have also presents barriers to rewilding because of to on nature. these barriers are not Land can production, their on with to special to take a rewilding approach, and a new where has a This the rewilding that has place The and of change to policy, and in the future will the to which approaches to land management associated with rewilding are in England's The risks, opportunities, barriers, and solutions discussed here have to other of the where society has has strong policy and cultural to or other traditional land and has conservation policy focused on management of and species that The and policy between England, the and the EU mean this discussion is particularly in Europe, with some example, in Europe, agricultural land and natural as with the natural of large and et al., mean landscape-scale passive rewilding is likely more and more to most British In other and particularly such as where invasive species and are practitioners are likely to to focus on more active rewilding approaches (Rewilding 2018). the policy, and barriers to rewilding are likely to some common themes over of the diverse and specific mean approaches to rewilding will and To allow rewilding opportunities to be more while risks, policy within which rewilding be and the diverse to and support from a support from We to Utilities), Enterprise and all other interviewees and participants of the Rewilding in the workshop for their the and the with and from all from the (Sandom et al., 2018). Sandom is a at the of and of Wild Business with a interest in rewilding and interactions. is a at the Policy at the of currently the of control of in and and with additional in and is of and Conservation at National and of Wildlife Trust, with in wildlife management and in is at Policy at the of where other the and of agricultural is of in Conservation and and at the of Enterprise and the has a and active interest in rewilding and is a of the of Rewilding is a Land Policy at the and interested in ambitious environmental into practice. is a conservation at with a interest in ecosystems. Pettorelli is a at the Society of a charity with the conservation of and their is a at the of and a with the charity Rewilding Britain in the potential for rewilding at different within the UK.