HANNAH TIMMINS
A tool for decentralising rewilding and generating public support or a disaster for conservation quality control and consensus-building?
What is Guerrilla Rewilding?
Guerrilla rewilding (GR; also known as “covert” or “rebel” rewilding) is a phenomenon that has been gaining attention in the media, particularly the British media, and traction with the public more broadly. For the purposes of this article, I will be focusing more heavily on the more controversial faunal restorations and the two components that make up “Guerrilla” and “rewilding” are defined more clearly in Table 1 below.
Table 1 Defining the components that make up the term guerrilla rewilding
The relevance of GR
The UK has made multiple national and international commitments to restore lost species, reinforce and preserve threatened populations.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6] And yet, over 14% of British species face extinction (30% for birds) and over 40% are in decline.[7] According to the Biodiversity Intactness Index, the UK is the most nature depleted of the G7 nations and is in the lowest 10% of countries worldwide.[8]
Conservation professionals and members of the public, frustrated by the slow pace of progress, are taking more drastic measures to reverse biodiversity loss[9] – these include risking prison sentences and unlimited fines by conducting unauthorised releases.[10] The GR phenomenon has been growing and gaining more attention due to a number of interconnected factors and perceptions:
- People are being impacted by more intense and more frequent consequences of the interrelated biodiversity,[11]
- The public are now more engaged and educated than ever on these topics and are looking for ways to take action (as demonstrated by the recent People’s Plan for Nature)[12][MOU1]
- Responses from global leaders and industry are not ambitious enough to reverse biodiversity loss and we are set to miss our biodiversity targets[13]
- Powerful industry lobbying groups and others with vested interests block efforts to restore nature in favour of protecting control and subsidies for the few[14],[15]
- Restrictive and onerous regulations for translocations[16] (for example the current beaver moratorium),[17] which Bode (2020) suggests can result in unlawful releases particularly in cases where permissions have been denied[18]
- A lack of avenues for direct action to restore British nature[MOU2]
The risks of GR to species, conservation, dialogue and democracy
The subject of GR is often seen as highly controversial from the perspectives of numerous actors. Ecologists warn of the risks posed to present wildlife populations and ecosystems, citing historical issues with the importation of potentially invasive species and diseases,[19] as recently illustrated by a Twitter debate over illegal reintroductions of rare butterflies,[20] and how GR blocks their ability to map natural colonisation, contraction and population dynamics.[21] Risks to animal welfare have also been levelled at GR, particularly regarding the potential for GR populations to be persecuted by local people that may view them as invasive or feral.[22],[23]
Whilst the majority of the British public support species restorations in polls,[24],[25] by the very nature of unlawful releases, they have not been arrived at through a valid democratic process. Thus, when viewed through a rights lens, GR could be seen as the few asserting their rights over the democratic rights of the many, and in particular the tenurial rights of land owners. Whilst conservationists concerned with social issues worry that populations resulting from GR releases may be viewed as illegitimate and the act of unauthorised releases may stimy the progress made in rewilding discussions.[26]
The GR actors themselves also take on serious risks: the penalties in the UK for being caught transporting or releasing certain species can range from arrests to unlimited fines.[27] Their actions must therefore be underpinned by strong beliefs that the resultant restoration is worth the hazards, that the ends justify the means.
The potential benefits of GR: the ends to the means
Many in the conservation sector have a more nuanced or even positive view of GR. Indeed, the recent illegal butterfly controversy had many high-profile supporters stating their frustrations with arduous restrictions to species restorations.[28] Illicit beaver releases in Belgium,[29] Scotland and England[30] have provided a robust case of policy following action.[31] The actions of GR may be impossible to regulate or enforce against, resulting in effective policy change and the sanctioning of previously unofficial releases. [32] For example, illicit beaver populations in Spain[33] and Italy[34] may be sanctioned as eradicating a species protected under EU law is proving complicated.[35] Scottish and English GR beavers acted as unofficial experiments, providing a proof of concept and generating tolerance of- and even protective attitudes[36] over the beaver populations.[37] This led to a de facto sanctioning of the releases and has paved the way for population expansions. [38],[39]
Photo credit: Hannah Timmins
Photo credit: Hannah Timmins
The public’s perceptions of illicit releases may also prove positive if people feel restorations are reflective of their desires. As a field, conservation has received its fair share of criticism for inaccessibility.[41] People may perceive unauthorised releases as being more grassroots and public-led as opposed to the more exclusive organisation-led releases. Given the 82 per cent of Britons that support the of return extinct species[42],[43] the British public form an untapped reserve of conservation support that could be mobilised to support restorations led by naturalists. Such inclusive approach would have the potential benefits of increasing restoration support and success through scaling, reducing resource costs, generating opportunities for people to engage with nature and building environmental literacy.[44]
Call for examples
Through the next nine months in 2023 and early 2024 I am conducting a scoping study into GR to:
- Explore people’s motivations and intentions for involvement in GR;
- Discuss blockages in reaching the policy goal of ‘nature positive’ by 2030; and
- Review the potential for civil-society involvement in species restoration.
So far, I have identified several examples of GR from the UK, Europe and Australia. I aim to discuss some of the intended and unintended consequences that these examples present.
Suggestions for examples of GR, from any countries, and especially Britain, would be welcome, so that I can explore the full range of issues arising for conservation management, ecosystem health, and for people’s experience of nature.
Please reach out to me on han@equilibriumresearch.com or through the comments section below with inputs and suggestions. I am thoroughly aware of the sensitivities around telling such stories and am happy to promise full anonymity for anyone who requests it.
Hannah Timmins is a consultant rewilding and conservation ecologist with Equilibrium Research.
[1] Convention on Biological Diversity. 2023. Global Biodiversity Framework: Target 4: Threatened species are recovering, genetic diversity is being maintained and human-wildlife conflict is being managed. Retrieved from: www.cbd.int/gbf/targets/4/
[2] European Commission. 2017. EU Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC). Retrieved from: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/habitats-directive_en#:~:text=the%20long%2Dterm.-,Law,and%20outside%20Natura%202000%20sites.
[3] Gov UK. 2021. Changes to the Habitats Regulations 2017. Retrieved from: www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-the-habitats-regulations-2017/changes-to-the-habitats-regulations-2017
[4] Council of Europe. 1979. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). Retrieved from: https://rm.coe.int/1680078aff
[5] Leaders Pledge For Nature. To reverse biodiversity loss by 2030 for sustainable development. Retrieved from: www.leaderspledgefornature.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Leaders_Pledge_for_Nature_27.09.20-ENGLISH.pdf
[6] Sustainable Development Goals. Target 15.1: Conserve and Restore Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecosystems. Retrieved from: www.globalgoals.org/goals/15-life-on-land/
[7] WWF. Is this the future of UK nature? Retrieved from: www.wwf.org.uk/future-of-uk-nature#:~:text=The%20UK%20is%20one%20of,than%2040%25%20are%20in%20decline.
[8] Natural History Museum. 2021. Natural History Museum reveals the world has crashed through the ‘safe limit for humanity’ for biodiversity loss. Retrieved from: www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/natural-history-museum-reveals-the-world-has-crashed-through-the.html#:~:text=The%20UK’s%20average%20BII%20%E2%80%93%2053,and%20what%20is%20happening%20today.
[9] Thomas, V. 2022. Actors and actions in the discourse, policy and practice of English rewilding. Environmental Science and Policy. 132:83-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.02.010
[10] Gandy, S. 2023. Beaver bombing. Ecohustler. Retrieved from: https://ecohustler.com/nature/beaver-bombing
[11] Carrington, D. 2022. Earthworms may have declined by a third in UK, study finds. The Guardian. Retrieved from: www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/19/earthworms-may-have-declined-by-a-third-in-uk-study-reveals
[12] The People’s Plan for Nature, and the People’s Assembly for Nature. 2023. The People’s Plan for Nature. Retrieved from: https://peoplesplanfornature.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/PPFN-ExecutiveSummary-160323-FINAL%20W%20Links.pdf
[13] Horton, H. 2023. Ministers warned England set to miss wildlife and biodiversity targets. The Guardian. Retrieved from: www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/10/ministers-biodiversity-targets-tony-juniper-natural-england-chair
[14] Barnes, J. 2023. NFU deputy chair shares his concerns on the future of Dartmoor farming. Mid-Devon Advertiser. Retrieved from: www.middevonadvertiser.co.uk/news/nfu-deputy-chair-shares-his-concerns-on-the-future-of-dartmoor-farming-606279
[15] Macdonald, B. 2020. Rebirding: Restoring Britain’s Wildlife. Pelagic Publishing. ISBN 9781784272197.
[16] See Packham, C. thread here discussing the “many hoops, delays and vested interests blocking proper reintroductions”: https://twitter.com/ChrisGPackham/status/1668618103356530694
[17] Gov UK. 2023. Conservation translocations: when you need a wildlife licence. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reintroductions-and-conservation-translocations-in-england-code-guidance-and-forms/conservation-translocations-when-you-need-a-wildlife-licence
[18] Bode, M. 2020. Covert rewilding: Modelling the detection of an unofficial translocation of Tasmanian devils to the Australian mainland. Conservation Letters. 14:e12787. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12787
[19] Crowley, S.L., Hinchliffe, S., and McDonald, R.A., 2017. Nonhuman citizens on trial: the ecological politics of a beaver reintroduction. Environ. Plan. A 49(8):1846–1866. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518×17705133.
[20] See Rhodes, M. thread here for the potential risks of unlicenced reintroductions of butterflies: https://twitter.com/MarcusWRhodes/status/1666113703354179584
[21] Barkham, P. 2023. Illegal reintroductions of rare butterflies to UK ‘a risk to other species’. The Guardian. Retrieved from: www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/12/reintroductions-of-rare-butterflies-to-uk-a-risk-to-other-species
[22] Williams, M. 2021. More than 200 beavers officially killed in Scotland since they became a protected species. The Herald Scotland. Retrieved from: www.heraldscotland.com/news/19503593.200-beavers-officially-killed-scotland-since-became-protected-species/
[23] Mann, J. 2023. NatureScot failing to enforce humane killing of beavers, say critics. The Ferret. Retrieved from: https://theferret.scot/naturescot-failing-enforce-humane-killing-beavers/
[24] YouGov. 2020. Third of Britons would reintroduce wolves and lynxes to the UK, and a quarter want to bring back bears. Retrieved from: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/01/28/third-brits-would-reintroduce-wolves-and-lynxes-uk
[25] Rewilding Britain. 2022. Four in five Britons support rewilding, poll finds. Retrieved from: www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/press-hub/four-in-five-britons-support-rewilding-poll-finds
[26] Crowley, S.L., Hinchliffe, S., and McDonald, R.A., 2017. Nonhuman citizens on trial: the ecological politics of a beaver reintroduction. Environ. Plan. A 49(8):1846–1866. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518×17705133.
[27] Gandy, S. 2023. Beaver bombing. Ecohustler. Retrieved from: https://ecohustler.com/nature/beaver-bombing
[28] See Packham, C. thread here discussing the “many hoops, delays and vested interests blocking proper reintroductions”: https://twitter.com/ChrisGPackham/status/1668618103356530694
[29] Gow, D. 2020. Bringing back the beaver: The story of one man’s quest to rewild Britain’s waterways. Chelsea Green Publishing ISBN: 9781645021230
[30] Crowley, S.L., Hinchliffe, S., and McDonald, R.A., 2017. Nonhuman citizens on trial: the ecological politics of a beaver reintroduction. Environ. Plan. A 49(8):1846–1866. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518×17705133.
[31] Thomas, V. 2022. Actors and actions in the discourse, policy and practice of English rewilding. Environmental Science and Policy. 132:83-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.02.010
[32] Bode, M. 2020. Covert rewilding: Modelling the detection of an unofficial translocation of Tasmanian devils to the Australian mainland. Conservation Letters. 14:e12787. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12787
[33] Abrazohouse. 2022. Are there beavers in Cantabria? Abrazo House. Retrieved from: www.abrazohouse.org/2022/01/30/beavers_cantabria/
[34] Bocci, M. 2023. Castori in Toscana e Umbria, il sottosegretario all’Ambiente: “Vanno rimossi”. E ora spuntano anche in Campania e Molise. La Repubblica. Retrieved from: www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2023/03/31/news/castori_toscana_umbria_rimozione-394435332/
[35] Gandy, S. 2023. Beaver bombing. Ecohustler. Retrieved from: https://ecohustler.com/nature/beaver-bombing
[36] Morris, S. 2014. Battle to stop capture of England’s first wild beavers in 500 years. The Guardian. Retrieved from: www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/16/battle-stop-capture-englands-first-wild-beavers
[37] Crowley, S.L., Hinchliffe, S., and McDonald, R.A., 2017. Nonhuman citizens on trial: the ecological politics of a beaver reintroduction. Environ. Plan. A 49(8):1846–1866. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518×17705133.
38] Thomas, V. 2022. Actors and actions in the discourse, policy and practice of English rewilding. Environmental Science and Policy. 132:83-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.02.010
[39] Crowley, S.L., Hinchliffe, S., and McDonald, R.A., 2017. Nonhuman citizens on trial: the ecological politics of a beaver reintroduction. Environ. Plan. A 49(8):1846–1866. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518×17705133.
[40] Jepson, P. and Blythe, C. 2021. Rewilding: the radical new science of ecological recovery. Icon Books. ISBN: 9781785787539
[41] Holmes, G. 2011. Conservation’s Friends in High Places: Neoliberalism, Networks, and the Transnational Conservation Elite. Global Environmental Politics. 11(4):1-21. DOI:10.1162/GLEP_a_00081
[42] YouGov. 2020. Third of Britons would reintroduce wolves and lynxes to the UK, and a quarter want to bring back bears. Retrieved from: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/01/28/third-brits-would-reintroduce-wolves-and-lynxes-uk
[43] Rewilding Britain. 2022. Four in five Britons support rewilding, poll finds. Retrieved from: www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/press-hub/four-in-five-britons-support-rewilding-poll-finds
[44] Watson, D.M, and Watson, M.J. 2015. Wildlife restoration: Mainstreaming translocations to keep common species common. Biological Conservation. 191:830-838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.035