At the end of May, I joined the Trees for Life team as a Rewilding Researcher. The main purpose of my job is to develop a resource that brings together existing evidence about rewilding approaches and issues. Building on what we already know, this evidence base will serve as a foundation from which Trees for Life can draw upon to develop its projects. It will help us to continue making the case for rewilding in tackling the twin nature and biodiversity crises - backed up by the latest research.
One of my first jobs in this role was to sit down with people from across the organisation, tapping into their experience and expertise. My aim was to understand what they think is important when it comes to rewilding, where the challenges lie, and how best to chart a positive way forward.
Rewilding encompasses a range of landscape-scale approaches to promote nature restoration, from large-scale native tree planting, natural regeneration and deer management to reintroducing keystone species. The idea behind these approaches is to move towards a point where the need for human intervention to maintain a healthy ecosystem becomes less and less. Many of these ideas often seem radical, representing a marked departure from traditional conservation methods and can be a cause of concern for some.
The place of people in the landscape is central to the sustainability of rewilding objectives, and to the Trees for Life vision of rewilding and repeopling the Scottish Highlands. People are part of nature, not apart from it. So, understanding and engaging with people’s concerns about rewilding is vital if we want to see these landscapes change for the better.
Do landscape-scale approaches and rewilding even work to improve biodiversity? How does rewilding include people in the landscape? How can rewilding create sustainable jobs in rural communities? Will agriculture be negatively impacted?
These are just some of the questions that are raised. Some are based on genuine areas of concern, some on lack of specific knowledge and awareness. Yet others highlight where rewilding organisations need to step up to the plate and put forward a clear strategy for ecological and social prosperity.
One way we can begin to address these issues is by engaging in a broad and in-depth review of the evidence around key topics in rewilding. Identifying what works and what doesn’t. What aspects are grounded in strong evidence and which require further research? Where do conflicts arise and how can we resolve them? Having a strong evidenced foundation for different rewilding approaches can help to ease concerns. We want to promote learning and understanding, dispel myths and falsehoods, and inform and change policy where needed.
An example of putting this into practice came recently with our Glen Affric and Strathglass beaver proposal. During the consultation, questions were raised by local wild fisheries interests, anglers, and the local community about beaver impacts on Atlantic salmon and sea trout movement and spawning grounds. In response, I reviewed the evidence around this topic, which has then fed back into the ongoing consultation process - updating and improving our own knowledge to support productive dialogue.
This review found that beaver impacts are very specific and localised. While beavers may have short-lived negative impacts on migratory fish, this is unlikely to be an issue at the scale of the whole river catchment. Beavers can also improve Atlantic salmon and sea trout conditions by increasing biodiversity and introducing resilience to local fish populations. This will become especially important as the impacts of climate change become more pronounced.
My hope is that by developing a robust evidence base for Trees for Life in priority areas, we can put forward a strong and positive case for rewilding in the Scottish Highlands that delivers for nature and people.