I am currently, for reasons I shall explain next week, in Austria. This is why I missed the Linnaean Society debate on Wednesday night on re-wildling. RSPB's Futurescapes Manager Aidan Lonergan participated in the debate and offers his perspective on how it went...
"The Linnaean Society offers a very elegant setting in the heart of London. While the debate was ostensibly on the issue of rewilding, I had to respond to the suggestion that the British conservation model was unambitious, irrational and scared of nature.
I took the group on a five minute trip from Sumatra (where we are working with our Birdlife partner to restore 100,000 ha of rainforest) to the work we have been doing with others to reintroduce Red Kites across the UK to Wallasea (Europe's largest realignment project) to engage 600,000 people through Big Garden Birdwatch to encouraging them to get active through our Giving Nature a Home campaign. I tried to underline our ambition to act from the local to the global level adapting our plans to the circumstances in which we operate. I explained that we do science to understand the problems facing the natural world, find solutions to address our priorities and then use our practical conservation work to deliver more wildlife or to use our experience to influence others. I concluded that we were not in fact afraid of nature but loved it!
I explained that while the rewilding proposition was instinctively attractive and had the ability to engage and excite the public. But there may be a limited number of big locations across the UK (mainly Scotland where for example we are doing great work to restore blanket bogs of the Flow Country or the Caledonian pine forests in the Cairngorms), we still had to protect the best sites which remained under pressure from a range of causes. Our challenge is to help species adapt to changing conditions by scaling up our work through landscape scale conservation.
One thing was perfectly clear from the debate: all four participants were obviously very keen on nature and all of us wanted more of it."
So the debate goes on. I think this is healthy. Anything that encourages us to explore new ways to restore lost biodiversity is a good thing.
Let me know if you want to continue the debate.
It would be great to hear your views.
'If we reduce (to zero) land-use intensity to benefit nature in some places, does that mean that we have to increase land-use intensity elsewhere to make up the difference? The unpalatable answer is yes.'
Maybe, but there is room for considerable reductions in food waste and losses in the distribution chain.
Nature still survives in the areas dominated by lowland farming. Maybe not the diversity in other areas, but a policy of 'letting go' is effectively saying to the human population in these areas that their support for nature has no value. Getting popular support for re-naturing (or re-wilding) requires mass support.