Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Rewilding in the English uplands: Policy and practice

2018; Wiley; Volume: 56; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/1365-2664.13276

1365-2664

Christopher J. Sandom, Benedict Dempsey, David J. Bullock, Adrian Ely, Paul Jepson, Stefan Jimenez‐Wisler, Adrian C. Newton, Nathalie Pettorelli, Rebecca A. Senior,

Land Use and Ecosystem Services

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 delivering positive outcomes for biodiversity and society in general terms, but it typically represents a move away from species- and habitat-specific targets, allowing nature to determine these outcomes instead (Sandom & Wynne-Jones, in press). It is important to note that there was some disagreement amongst practitioners and academics about which land management approaches should be considered rewilding. For example, some participants particularly valued rewilding's bold and ambitious agenda and so excluded practices similar to conservation management, such as process-based habitat restoration and naturalistic grazing. Surveying the views of the workshop participants indicated that both the perceived risks and opportunities of passive rewilding increase with spatial scale (Figure 1, Table 1). In large ecosystems that are either largely intact or where the potential for natural recolonization is high, passive rewilding is perceived to allow natural processes to support a diverse, functional, and "service-rich" ecosystem. However, in more impoverished ecosystems with low natural recolonization potential and currently supported by human management, passive rewilding may risk further homogenizing of the system because of missing ecological processes. Practitioners perceive the relationships between risk and opportunity to be more complex for active rewilding (Figure 1, Table 1). Interestingly, opportunistic species reintroduction was perceived to be lowest risk for lowest reward, likely reflecting the opportunistic element of this approach. However, participants reported this to be a difficult approach to assess because of the breadth of options and outcomes possible. Process-based habitat restoration was perceived to offer the best risk-to-opportunity ratio, suggesting greater comfort with more controlled and targeted approaches even when seeking to work with natural processes. Species translocation to restore fully functional communities was perceived to offer the greatest opportunity for the highest risk. The three approaches that include species translocations (including wild/naturalistic grazing) were all perceived to risk increased human–wildlife conflict. Reviewing the literature reveals a similar story; rewilding presents often-contrary perceived risk and opportunity. For example, rewilding has been promoted as a means to restore and conserve biodiversity, mitigate flooding, improve water quality, sequester greenhouse gasses (GHGs), restore and conserve soils, increase tourism, and reengage society with nature. Conversely, there have also been warnings that rewilding might threaten biodiversity (particularly rare species), reduce the economic viability of agricultural production, emit GHGs, increase flood risk, threaten cultural landscapes, and increase human–wildlife conflict (Sandom, Clouttick, Manwill, & Bull, 2016). It is important to emphasize that participants at the workshop compared best- and worst-case scenarios when considering risks and opportunities of the different approaches to rewilding. Landowners and managers, in consultation with all stakeholders, need to decide whether a rewilding approach is likely to deliver a net benefit or cost in their specific circumstances. This should include careful consideration of implementation strategies that monitor developments, so timely interventions can prevent unacceptable outcomes, if needed. The workshop highlighted that resistance from landowners/occupiers is a major barrier to implementing rewilding. However, landowner resistance reflects a variety of cultural, economic, and practical factors. Culturally, there is often a strong connection to production in the uplands. Landowners or managers typically do not want to lose the utility of the land, and want to leave a farming-based land use as a legacy to their children and grand children. Some species reintroductions conflict with tradition, culture, and neighbour relationships in the uplands, and may represent an economic threat to game and livestock rearing. A perceived focus on large carnivores has been effective at bringing the rewilding agenda to the fore but, as a controversial form of rewilding, has also polarized opinion and drawn opposition to the term rewilding more generally. Economic barriers to rewilding include subsidy policy, which is generally focused on supporting production and associated activities. For example, CAP payments support production and environmental protection only on productive land. Ponds, dense vegetation, and trees—all possible outcomes of rewilding—are classified as temporary or permanent ineligible features and may make land they cover ineligible for CAP-based "Pillar I" subsidy payments that are tied to the area of farmable land. While "Pillar II" CAP payments are largely environmentally focused, and have scope to support actions to help alleviate flooding, improve water quality, and restore wildlife habitats (GOV.UK, 2017), they maintain the status quo of a productive landscape rather than facilitating process-driven rewilding. These schemes also cover too short a time period (~5–10 years) to be applicable or effective in allowing many positive impacts of rewilding to manifest. Schemes covering 20 years or more, with ongoing monitoring and review, are needed for rewilding to deliver key public goods and services, for example, woodland establishment and blanket bog recovery. Other policies also create barriers to land-use change. Inheritance tax relief allows for land and property occupied for agricultural purposes to be passed to the next generation free of tax; this does not apply to buildings and land used for conservation. More indirectly, while rewilding has been associated with nonproductive revenue streams, such as tourism and payments for ecosystem services (PES), these may not be attainable by all landowners or tenants. For example, tourism requires suitable local infrastructure and skill sets, and PES require national or local schemes to be in operation. Conservation policy also presents institutional barriers to rewilding, particularly the need to maintain the UK's 77 Habitats Directive Annex I Habitats in "favourable condition" (JNCC, 2014). Under this directive, a habitat's range, area, specific structures and compositions, and future prospects are considered in comparison to its status in 1994, when the Habitats Directive came into effect. This fixed-date baseline is ecologically arbitrary and promotes a static and preservation-focused form of conservation. This "compositionalist" approach (Gillson, Ladle, & Araújo, 2011; Jepson & Schepers, 2016) constrains rewilding's process-led philosophy, which allows gains and losses of specific species and vegetation communities as dictated by the naturally varying interactions between plants, animals, and their environment. These issues also apply to listed species; their range, population, habitat availability, and future prospects must be favourable and so preserved according to the 1994 baseline. The Habitats and Birds Directives have done much for biodiversity conservation and discussing change is not without risk, but Brexit has begun this discussion and review and improvement of this legislation is also likely to be necessary to halt the decline in biodiversity. Other practical barriers include the need for large areas to apply more ambitious forms of rewilding. Landscape-scale projects almost certainly require collaboration and long-term commitments among individual landowners. Specific examples, such as Wild Ennerdale, suggest cooperation is possible in some circumstances and for some forms of rewilding. However, while ambitious approaches might appeal to early adopters, with current barriers, it is highly likely at least some neighbouring landowners would not support rewilding on their land. The collective barriers to rewilding are an interdependent set of practical, social, and institutional obstacles greater than the sum of each obstacle alone and capable of limiting innovation in conservation and land management. The complexity associated with rewilding is not a surprise. However, we emphasize the importance of viewing barriers to potential rewilding holistically and, critically, not simply attributing blame to specific stakeholder groups. We recognize a large number of interlinked barriers, and if rewilding approaches are to be successful, changes will need to be effected across a number of different areas in various ways. An innovation fund would be a mechanism to support innovative and diverse projects, including but not restricted to rewilding. Such a fund could take on a similar structure to the Nature Improvement Area fund and the current Countryside Stewardship Facilitation fund, and be part of the proposed Nature Recovery Network in the 25YEP. Both funds encourage a bottom-up, land manager-driven approach to designing and developing projects tailored to local needs and situations. Introducing Conservation Property Relief to match Agricultural Property Relief for inheritance tax would remove a key barrier, providing opportunities to improve biodiversity conservation and the delivery of diverse ecosystem services. There is interest in moving indicators for agri-environmental payments (i.e., CAP Pillar II payments) from actions towards results (25YEP). Results-based payments are being trialled by Natural England with farmers in the Yorkshire Dales where farmers are being paid for success in producing species-rich meadows and/or good quality wetland habitat (Natural England, 2017). The Dartmoor Farming Futures initiative has also reported positive results of giving famers greater ownership when developing strategies to achieve mutually agreed agri-environment goals (Manning, 2017). Although potentially riskier for landowners/managers, with less certainty of income, this approach gives landowners/managers greater autonomy to determine how to achieve mutually agreed goals. A key point of discussion would be agreeing whether broad enough goals (i.e., positive outcomes for biodiversity and the delivery of ecosystem services rather than specific habitat or species targets) could be set to allow a rewilding approach. The CAP is arguably a payment for ecosystem services scheme, but one that supports food production and farmland biodiversity. An alternative approach would be to incentivize a wider range of environmental goods and services, and may be consistent with the Governments increased focus on "public money for public goods" (DEFRA, 2018b). This could still include food production, but also flood alleviation, water purification, GHG sequestration, and environmental health and leisure resources more directly (Gawith & Hodge, 2017). Any such approach would require analysis of what is valued in a particular landscape or region, and therefore what land managers should be paid to deliver, something already being considered under the Countryside Stewardship scheme. The mechanism for linking what landowners should deliver to the desired public benefits for a region is challenging. However, this could build on the work already done by the Natural Capital Committee, which proposes linking specific land uses with ecosystem service delivery (Natural Capital Committee, 2014). Thus, a locally active body (e.g., County Council, Environment Agency) could determine the value of landowners delivering grassland, woodland, or wetlands in their region and reward landowners accordingly. The regionally targeted Landscape Character Assessments (DEFRA, 2014) may provide some of the information needed to understand regional needs, as well as the cultural and natural heritage of the region that would need to be taken into account. Long-term funding for any scheme would be needed to allow rewilding projects to develop towards the delivery of biodiversity and ecosystem service benefits. One suggestion is for "conservation covenants" operating on at least a 20-year time-scale, and preferably longer, with monitoring, payments in instalments, and appropriate break clauses. Monitoring can be time-consuming and expensive, potentially making it unviable. However, to demonstrate the public is receiving goods and services for public money invested, rigorous monitoring is important. A standardized, efficient, and effective protocol to monitor biodiversity and ecosystem service outcomes is needed. As discussed above, this would need to correspond to specific land uses and their respective quality, quantity, and connectedness (Lawton et al., 2010; Natural Capital Committee, 2014). Using citizen science approaches (e.g., Manning, 2017) and advances in remote sensing technology, including satellite monitoring (Pettorelli et al., 2017) and drones (Barbosa, Atkinson, & Dearing, 2015) may help achieve this. The opportunity for experimentation and innovation is limited by multiple designations of sites. For example, National Nature Reserves (NNRs) have a mandated role as outdoor laboratories, and could be used to test the effectiveness of different approaches to conservation. However, nearly all NNRs are also SSSIs, which are mandated to maintain favourable condition of listed habitats and species limiting the scope for experimentation. NNR policy is being reviewed which could help determine how their role as outdoor laboratories could be better realized while maintaining favourable condition of key species and habitats. This could include linking clusters of NNRs to create larger conservation areas where rewilding is encouraged for interlinking land and water, or establishing new experimental rewilding zones as part of the proposed Nature Recovery Network (25YEP). We have discussed seven rewilding approaches identified by academics, practitioners, and policy makers to explore and clarify the range of rewilding-related ideas being considered in practice in England's uplands. However, we note that they are not all mutually exclusive and can be combined, they fall along a spectrum of rewilding ambition, and that these approaches represent a managed withdrawal of direct human management of nature, either directly (passive) or after some remedial action (active). This withdrawal is arguably the common theme that connects rewilding's otherwise varied meanings (Pettorelli et al., 2018) and presents the greatest barrier to implementing rewilding more widely because of how it interacts with policy and culture. Policy, such as the CAP and the Birds and Habitats Directives, is process-driven and directed at supporting, encouraging, and enforcing the implementation of management to deliver specific ecosystem service, species, or habitat targets and thus creates legislative and economic barriers to rewilding approaches. Landowners' and managers' strong cultural connection to production, traditional land uses, and landscapes they and their forebears have crafted also presents barriers to implementing rewilding because of resistance to reducing human influence on nature. Yet, these barriers are not universal. Land owners/managers can forego production, target their efforts on undesignated land, work with officials to get special dispensation to take a rewilding approach, and embrace a new culture where nature has a stronger role. This explains the rewilding that has taken place already. The degree and direction of change to policy, incentives and culture in the future will determine the degree to which approaches to land management associated with rewilding are embraced in England's uplands. The risks, opportunities, barriers, and solutions discussed here have relevance to other regions of the world where society has largely tamed nature, has strong policy and cultural connections to productive or other traditional land uses, and has nature conservation policy focused on management of rare habitats and species that remain. The history and policy shared between England, the UK, and the EU mean this discussion is particularly relevant in Europe, albeit with some caveats. For example, in mainland Europe, agricultural land abandonment and higher natural recolonization potential, as seen with the natural expansion of large predators and herbivores (Deinet et al., 2013), mean landscape-scale passive rewilding is likely more achievable and possibly more beneficial compared to most British landscapes. In contrast, other isolated and particularly disturbed ecosystems, such as Australia where invasive species and severe megafauna extinction are particular issues, practitioners are likely to need to focus on more active rewilding approaches (Rewilding Australia, 2018). While the human cultural, policy, and economic barriers to implementing rewilding are likely to share some common themes over much of the tamed world, diverse environments, histories and specific cultures mean approaches to implementing rewilding will vary regionally, nationally, and internationally. To allow rewilding opportunities to be realized more broadly while minimizing risks, policy frameworks within which rewilding operates must be sufficiently flexible and the practitioner's toolbox diverse to overcome varied and interlinked challenges. C.J.S. acknowledges support from a NERC Knowledge Exchange Fellowship (NE/P005926/1). BD acknowledges support from ESRC Doctoral Training Centre. We would like to thank Rob Cooke, Ben Connor (British Ecological Society), John Gorst (United Utilities), Christopher Price (CLA), Jonathan Spencer (Forest Enterprise England), Pat Thompson (RSPB), Rob Yorke (Independent commentator), and all other anonymous interviewees and participants of the Rewilding in the Uplands workshop for sharing their views. C.J.S. conceived the idea. C.J.S. and B.D. wrote the manuscript with support, input, and final approval from all coauthors. Data available from the Dryad Digital Repository https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.d460505 (Sandom et al., 2018). Chris Sandom is a lecturer at the University of Sussex and Co-Director of Wild Business Ltd with a particular interest in rewilding and predator–herbivore–vegetation interactions. Benedict Dempsey is a PhD student at the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, currently researching the issue of human control of nature in ecology and conservation, and with additional interests in international development and humanitarianism. David Bullock is Head of Species and Habitat Conservation at National Trust and Chair of Vincent Wildlife Trust, with especial interests in wildlife management and reversing declines in biodiversity. Adrian Ely is Senior Lecturer at SPRU-Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex, where (amongst other things) he researches the regulation and governance of agricultural innovation. Paul Jepson is Course Director of Oxford University's MSc/Phil in Biodiversity, Conservation and Management and Senior Research Fellow at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment. He has a long-standing and active interest in rewilding and is a member of the supervisory board of Rewilding Europe. Stefan Jimenez Wisler is a Land Use Policy Advisor at the CLA and interested in bringing ambitious environmental ideas into practice. Adrian Newton is a conservation ecologist at Bournemouth University, UK, with a particular interest in forest ecosystems. Nathalie Pettorelli is a Senior Research Fellow at the Zoological Society of London, a charity concerned with the worldwide conservation of animals and their habitats. Rebecca Senior is a PhD student at the University of Sheffield and completed a secondment with the charity Rewilding Britain in 2016, investigating the potential for rewilding at different spatial scales within the UK.