October 15, 2025 • 49 mins
The concept of rewilding has been applied in various ways, from the simple restoration of a single natural process like removing livestock to allow vegetation to recover, to ambitious proposals to reintroduce long-extinct megafauna. While some applications have obvious conservation benefits, rewilding also raises legitimate concerns, especially about how renewed interactions with reintroduced wildlife like large herbivores and carnivores, might affect human wellbeing, livelihoods, and land use. Rewilding has become a popular and sometimes controversial topic within conservation circles. It has also been gaining traction and growing public and governmental interest as societies search for more holistic approaches to restoring ecosystem processes and biodiversity.
Joining me to unpack what rewilding means, and to explore the potential conflicts and compromises that come with it, is Marine Drouilly. Marine is the Regional Coordinator for Wild Cat Surveys and Research in West and Central Africa with the NGO "Panthera".
Links to resources:
- Guidelines for evaluating the success of large carnivore reintroductions - A relevant paper in Biological Conservation co-authored by Marine
- Panthera - Website of the organization Marine works for
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_01 (00:01):
I think we made some mistakes in the past in
conservation, and I thinkrewilding can help in improving
those uh well or like uh fixingthose mistakes because it's not
nature versus culture, it'sreally uh people in nature with
rewilding.
But people I think are are stilla bit afraid of the term.
SPEAKER_00 (00:30):
Welcome to the podcast where we dig a little
deeper into the thinking andmotivations that shape our
relationship with nature andchallenge assumptions to
strengthen the case forconservation.
I'm your host, Andre Mada.
The topic of this episode isrewilding.
The concept of rewilding hasbeen applied in various ways
(00:50):
from the simple restoration of asingle natural process like
removing livestock to allowvegetation to recover, to
ambitious proposals toreintroduce long extinct
megafauna.
While some rewildingapplications have obvious
conservation benefits, rewildingalso raises legitimate concerns,
especially about how renewedinteractions with reintroduced
(01:12):
wildlife like large herbivoresand carnivores might affect
human well-being, livelihoods,and land use.
Rewilding has become a popularand sometimes controversial
topic within conservationcircles.
It's also been gaining tractionand growing public and
governmental interest associeties search for more
holistic approaches to restoringecosystem processes and
(01:34):
biodiversity.
Joining me to unpack whatrewilding means and to explore
the potential conflicts andcompromises that come with it is
Marine Couilly.
Marine is the regionalcoordinator for wild cat surveys
and research in Western CentralAfrica with the NGO Panthera.
I began our conversation byasking her to narrow down a
(01:55):
definition of rewilding and toexplain what it looks like in
practice.
SPEAKER_01 (02:16):
And so the term rewilding was later a bit
refined and grounded in ascientific context in a paper
that was published in 1998 bytwo famous conservation
biologists, Mikhail Soule andReed Nas.
And so Soule and Nas, theyconceived the rewelding as a
(02:36):
conservation method that wasbased on the concepts of three
C's, which is cores, corridors,and carnivores.
So we call it the three Cconcept now.
But for them, um the keycomponents of rewelding
incorporate large core protectedareas, keystone species, so
that's the species that havedisproportionately large effects
(03:00):
on their natural environmentrelative to their abundance.
So large carnivores are a greatexample, and ecological
connectivity based on the theorythat large carnivores play
regulatory roles in ecosystems.
So the most common types of coreareas are national parks,
wilderness reserves, and a goodexample of the three C rewilding
(03:24):
is the rewilding with wolves,the reintroduction of wolves in
Yellowstone National Park in theUS.
But that's a bit like it's ascientific concept.
But if we want to explain it ina clearer way, rewelding is
about letting nature taking careof itself.
And you do that by enablingnatural processes to shape
(03:47):
ecosystems, to repair damagedecosystems, and to restore
degraded landscapes.
And that's the definition thatis used by the organization
Rewilding Europe.
They're based in theNetherlands.
And population enhancement andreintroduction of key native
species are part of the process.
So, as you say, umreintroduction can be
(04:08):
carnivores, large herbivores, oruh emblematic species are part
of the process.
But I think something also weneed to add to this definition
is that in rewilding, we need toconsider how to govern the
complex relationship betweenhuman societies and nature and
(04:28):
how we reconnect them together.
It's really working nature andpeople together and not
separately like in restorationecology, for example.
SPEAKER_00 (04:40):
It sounds like rewilding is maybe even more
broader term than I thought itwas from what you said now.
So I'm just wondering what does,and in fact, you did you sort of
mentioned restoration, but whatis an example of something that
does not qualify as rewilding?
I'm still kind of struggling alittle bit to see kind of where
the boundaries are around theconcept.
SPEAKER_01 (04:59):
Yeah, I think what was difficult to understand for
many people, um, it's thedifference between restoration
ecology and rewilding.
And I think many, even manyscientists were like, oh, it's
the same thing.
But basically, restorationecology is based only on the
field of ecology, whilerewelding is multidisciplinary
(05:21):
by nature.
Also, the restoration baselineis not necessarily the
precolonial or pre-industrialtime that we use in restoration
ecology.
It can go as far as the latePleistocene with rewelding.
And the aim is really to restorethe ecosystem structure,
(05:41):
function, and processes, and notjust habitat composition or
species populations.
It's really going from linearthinking to a system thinking
with rewelding.
So it's more complex, it's butit's more interconnected and
it's closer to reality.
SPEAKER_00 (06:00):
Okay.
SPEAKER_01 (06:00):
I don't know if it helps.
SPEAKER_00 (06:02):
Yeah, yeah, I know.
Definitely getting closer.
So is it also quite glued to theidea of you mentioned that the
baseline doesn't necessarilyneed to be pre-colonial.
There was rewilding, right?
SPEAKER_01 (06:14):
Yeah, so restoration ecology is like we we restore
the ecosystem to look more likehow it was before the colonial
time or before the industrialtime.
Well, um, with rewilding, youyou can use those those times as
reference, but you can go as farback as late Pleistocene.
So 129,000 years ago, up to12,000 years ago.
(06:38):
So you can really go back to along time.
That's why you were mentioningearlier the mammoth.
Um, they they could be used, youknow, uh in rewilding, they will
never be mentioned inrestoration ecology.
SPEAKER_00 (06:52):
Okay, okay.
So the difference is kind ofmore in you know being able to
go back further in time.
I was actually going to ask youthe opposite.
I was going to ask if rewildingthen all could include, you
know, perhaps sort of whatsomething looked like 50 years
ago, because thinking about theSouth African context that we're
both fairly familiar with, andthe Kuru in particular, you
know, the Karu has gone throughdifferent kind of phases of uh
(07:13):
depending on stocking densitiesand all sorts of stuff.
So maybe this is too specific aquestion, but can rewilding
include sort of going back 50years or 100 years, or is the
idea to go back at least as faras the pre-colonial times?
SPEAKER_01 (07:28):
Yeah, we've with rewilding, you can also, yeah,
just look 20 years ago or 50years ago, you can really choose
your baseline because what'simportant, it's really to
restore the ecosystem structure,function, and processes.
That's really about processes.
So if if your your baseline is50 years ago in the Karoo,
(07:49):
because that's the baseline youchose, then you're going to try
to restore the processes thathappened there 50 years ago.
And you know, there are manydifferent versions of rewelding
and each have their own actions.
So, for example, you've gotrefination, which is the
reintroduction of functionalspecies that have been wiped out
(08:09):
by hunting.
So that could be in the crewrestoring, you know, these big
migratory herds of uhspringbugs.
There's also farm welding, whichis also called regenerative
farming.
And there you're going to usefree roaming livestock and
relaxation of land management.
And there's a good example ofthat in England with the NEP
(08:30):
estate.
I don't know if you've heardabout that, but basically you
use um a large livestock torecreate the grazing that wild
herbivores uh were doing before.
And then, as you as youmentioned earlier, there's also
the Pleistocen rewilding that weheard quite a lot about, which
is getting relatives of extinctspecies to restore evolutionary
(08:55):
potential.
And there's a park called thePleistocen park in Russia that
is that was trying to do that.
And um, there's also passiverewilding, which consists just
in restoring wilderness toabandoned areas, and then the
the three-seas rewilding that Imentioned earlier, which is
really uh the trophic rewildingthrough the cores, the
(09:15):
corridors, and the carnivores,with the example, the most
famous example beingYellowstone.
SPEAKER_00 (09:21):
And what does rewilding have to say about the
fact that ecosystems are almostall altered to some extent?
And so if you do just leavethem, or if you do just
introduce one species withoutkind of further management or
without very active management,you don't really know which
direction it's going to go in,and it might not be a desirable
(09:44):
direction.
So I'm thinking especially ofyou know invasive species
pulling in and the area justbecoming, you know, ecologically
not very functional, or at leastnot very uh usefully functional
to uh to the people involved.
And I guess we're getting backto the people factor there
already.
SPEAKER_01 (10:01):
Yeah.
Yeah, so that's one of thecritics that rewilding receives.
Um, but I think the people whoare pro-rewilding or want to try
the concept of rewilding, theyreally think that letting nature
take care of itself is going towork at some point if we give it
enough time and if the thelandscape is large enough.
(10:23):
Um, but that you're right, thatcan go wrong.
Um, there could be issues withinvasive species, or even you
know, conflict with predators umuh that were not planned, or I
don't know, disease risk aswell.
But the the people who arepro-reralding think that with
(10:43):
time, nature is able to repairdamaged ecosystem by itself and
restore degraded landscapes, andthat we don't always need us
humans to control everything.
So that's a really different wayof thinking um compared to
restoration ecology or um um theclassic conservation concept.
SPEAKER_00 (11:08):
You know, you mentioned the three C's, and one
of those being carnivores or keyspecies.
So the philosophy behindrewilding is basically that the
magic ingredient is like certainspecies that you just need to
add to the landscape, and thenthings will sort themselves out.
It sort of sort of sounds likethat's what you're what you're
saying.
SPEAKER_01 (11:27):
No, no, no, not really.
I think it's too simplistic, andthat's because it was the first
time rewilding was coined.
You know, it was in this paperwhere um people were
reintroducing wolves inYellowstone to control elk, and
then it had all these impacts onrivers, and but um it's really
restoring processes, so you canalso rewild by just bringing
(11:50):
maybe an insect, you know, or asmall herbivore.
And if you want to restore agrazing process and biodiversity
in meadows, or um, so I know ofa rewilding project, I can't
remember where it is, but theywere rewelding by um
reintroducing uh dung beetles.
So um, depending on whatprocesses you're trying to bring
(12:14):
back, um, you can reweld withmany different species.
You can also not necessarilybring back species, but just
leave rivers, um, you know,umander um freely without having
to build dams or things likethis, or forests regenate on
their own without having to cutthem, or there are many
(12:36):
different types of rewilding,but it's always based on leaving
nature do its own thing.
SPEAKER_00 (12:43):
I can imagine that you know, when these projects
are attempted in real life, youknow, originally they might
think, okay, we add wolves tothe system or we add dung
beetles or whatever it is, butand then in reality, so things
shift in the direction you mightnot expect, and then you have to
tweak something else, and thenyou have to tweak something
else.
You know, it's kind of likealmost anything that you you
(13:04):
know you keep sort of having tofine-tune in order for it to go
in the direction that the or togo in the in a direction that
you want it to go.
Is that often the case, or dothings usually more or less work
out as intended?
SPEAKER_01 (13:18):
I think because the people who use rewilding are
very um uh hands-off, they'rethey're gonna leave the
ecosystems work their way, andif it's not going exactly the
way they think it would begoing, it's fine.
Um I don't think there are manyrewilding projects that are
like, okay, we want to restoreexactly this in that way,
(13:40):
because then it would not berewilding.
It's really trusting nature todo its own thing, and whatever
the final state is, it's goingto be better than the state we
left it at, where where westarted.
But yeah, the the people who areuh against rewilding or who are
um let's say a bit um worriedabout this concept because yeah,
(14:03):
you have no control on what'shappening.
They're definitely saying thatit can cause issues and create a
final state that is going to beworse.
But but it depends on whatreferential you're using.
It's worse for who?
For nature, for people, foranimals.
Um yeah, it's very large.
SPEAKER_00 (14:23):
And does it not also depend a lot on how different
the system is to what it was,you know, previously?
So extreme example would be uh,you know, if if it were possible
to reintroduce mammoths to thesteppes, for example, the
problem is that one problem isthat the steps may have changed
quite a lot in the meantime.
Well, maybe that's not such anextreme example, but you could
(14:44):
go even further back.
And also just, you know, umlandscapes that are severely
transformed by agriculture orurbanization or whatever it is,
the more they've changed, themore unpredictable it's going to
be if you add one of theprevious species that occurred
there, right?
SPEAKER_01 (15:01):
Yeah, I think that's also why there are so many
versions of rewilding.
And that's why some of them areas simple as regenerative
farming, what I mentionedearlier, where you have free
roaming livestock in a land andyou just relax land management,
you know.
You can start with small thingslike this, and then pleistos and
(15:23):
rewilding and the three C'srewelding are like examples that
can't be done everywhere forsure.
And that's also one of thecritics people that are against
rewelding bring all the time.
It's um a lot of ecologists talkabout Yellowstone National Park
as the perfect example ofrewilding and the perfect
(15:44):
example of what nature shouldlook like.
But we can't do a YellowstoneNational Park everywhere, right?
Already the size of thislandscape is crazy.
There's no real um, you know,activity, human activities
inside except tourism, but youcan't do that everywhere.
So I think we can always find aversion of rewelding that would
(16:06):
fit a landscape, and it's notnecessarily just reintroducing
large mammals or mammoths or umwolves.
Um it can be a lot simpler justto slowly but surely have nature
um recreate the processes thatit's supposed to be doing.
SPEAKER_00 (16:25):
Just another little bit more of a detailed question,
but again, kind of thinkingabout rewilding in relation to
restoration ecology.
You know, in restorationecology, I'm not a restoration
ecologist myself, but as far asI understand, there's a fair
amount of trying to make surethat the whole complement of
species is reintroduced, likeplants and animals, or at least
(16:47):
the main ones, you know, so notjust one or two species, but
it'll be as many of the plantsthat you might have been able to
introduce to an area, at leastwhen it's on a small scale.
So is that kind of part of theidea as well?
Because, you know, when species,it's kind of the same question I
was asking earlier, I guess, butwhen certain species, including
plant species, uh disappear fromthe landscape, you know, there's
(17:09):
suddenly there's no longer aparticular food source for
whatever animals might have beenthere before.
So um sorry to kind of repeat aquestion I asked earlier on, but
maybe from a different angle.
Is that something that's youknow part of the equation or
part of the concern withrewilding?
SPEAKER_01 (17:25):
Yeah, I so yeah, I think for restoring ecosystem,
for restoration ecology, it'sit's really looking at habitat
composition, species population.
So you look at the component ofthe ecosystem, really.
While rewilding marks a shift infocus from those components of
the ecosystems to the emergentproperties of interactions
(17:47):
between these components.
So that's when I said we movefrom a linear way of thinking to
a system thinking withrewelding, it's really that.
So we're not looking at eachcomponent separately, but really
at processes, functions,structure.
So we might not have all thecomponents we would like to have
(18:09):
in a rewilding um landscape.
But if the processes are comingback, that's what we're looking
for.
SPEAKER_00 (18:17):
So, for example, if particular plant species are not
there anymore, uh and you know,maybe the even the animal
species that are introducedmight in an extreme example
might not even be the same ones,but they still sort of do the
same thing for the landscape.
They still maybe they maintain asavannah kind of landscape, for
example, or a group ofsomething.
SPEAKER_01 (18:37):
And that's exactly what they're doing in the
Pleistocene rewilding.
You know, they're gettingrelatives of extinct species.
We can't bring them back now,maybe maybe later, but not now.
So it's really to restore theevolutionary potential, and we
use species that are surrogates.
Um, so it's not exactly the sameones, but and even in um farm
(18:57):
rewilding, the the idea isreally to use the livestock, um,
what they do, the grazing.
And even if originally it waslarge wild herbivores, now we're
using livestock.
It's not exactly the same, butit's really about processes.
The only issue, and that's theissue that the farmers were
talking to me about, is thatit's it's very hard to know
(19:21):
what's what amount of oflivestock you can have so it
doesn't destroy your vegetation.
And it's um it varies with time.
And now with the droughts, youknow, there are more and more
droughts in the Karoo or likefloods and then big droughts.
It's really hard to find.
So sometimes you have farmerswho have a certain amount of
sheep and they have to uh limittheir the the size of their
(19:44):
livestock because the land isnot taking that anymore, it's
too much grazing, or they needto change or rotation uh do the
rotational system more oftenthan they used to.
And so so it's it's alwaysdifficult when it's humans who
have to control the processbecause we we can't take into
account absolutely everything.
(20:05):
Well, if we say we leave naturedo its thing, well, the big
herds of herbivores they willmigrate when they need to, they
will know there's the the foodis not there anymore and they
will they will migrate or thehalf of the the herd might die
because there's not enough food,and you know all of this is more
um yeah, it's done by nature.
SPEAKER_00 (20:25):
Yeah, it's kind of like the more we manage, the
more we have to manage.
SPEAKER_01 (20:29):
Yes, exactly.
SPEAKER_00 (20:30):
You have to maintain what you've started kind of
thing.
And I guess rewilding is theopposite idea to that.
SPEAKER_01 (20:35):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (20:36):
So, Maureen, I think you you've covered a lot of pros
and cons already, but I wantedto ask you sort of specifically
about the pros and cons ofrewilding.
I I think you've sort of hintedat various ones on either side,
but but could you kind of giveuh an overview of let's say the
main pros and cons of this uhvery broad concept?
SPEAKER_01 (20:56):
Yeah, sure.
Um I think um there are manydifferent groups tend to gain
from rewilding, you know, fromfrom conservationists to local
communities to rural economies,tourism operators as well, or
climate and water managers.
We can even think of publichealth advocates because the
(21:16):
benefits are very broad.
They range from restoringbiodiversity.
So we we mentioned bringing backpredators and natural processes
as an example, but they it'salso improving vital ecosystem
services, like, for example,water purification, um,
pollination is another example.
(21:39):
Um, so rewilding in its idea,it's really to help landscapes
become more resilient to change.
So they can withstand challengeslike droughts, like we were
talking about, or floods, um,which are all very important in
time of climate change.
So that's what you want to dowith rewilding, and that's why
(21:59):
it could be uh positive for manydifferent stakeholders.
There are also economic gainsthrough nature-based activities.
Um, so that could be ecotourism,that's the first one we think
about, and recreation becausethey create local jobs.
But there are also otherbenefits we don't talk about
very often, like the culturaland psychological benefits.
(22:24):
When you have a landscape thatis being rewarded, you improve
the well-being of people who canuse this landscape.
You give educationalopportunities, people can access
world places, and we saw justhow much that mattered, right,
during the COVID pandemic, evenfor people who hadn't valued
that before.
So, for the positive sides, Iwould say it's all of this.
(22:48):
It's very broad what I'm sayingnow, but I just give an
overview.
But it definitely also can bringchallenges.
I would say challenges more thancons because we can always find
solutions.
For example, the return of largeherbivores and predators can
increase human wildlifeconflict.
We know that there could be cropdamage, livestock losses, safety
(23:11):
concerns for farmers, forexample, or pastoralists, uh,
even local residents.
But these impacts they canalways be reduced, you know,
with good conflict mitigation,compensation schemes, good
governance as well.
Um, all of this requires carefulplanning, but it's possible.
Another aspect that I think isimportant to take into account
(23:33):
is rewelding can change how landis used.
And that can be difficult forlandowners or rural communities
or even industries that rely onum more intensive agriculture or
hunting or resource extraction.
That doesn't mean that thatcan't go together, but it's
something to consider that thatmight be a challenge.
(23:55):
And they are also obviously, I'mthinking more for like um in
Africa now, but important socialand equity considerations.
If you have rewelding projectsthat overlook indigenous or
traditional users, they riskmarginalizing those communities
with customary land rights.
So that's particularly importantto consider, and we're talking
(24:18):
more and more about thosethings, which is great.
And another uncertainty youmentioned earlier was the
ecological uncertainty, right?
If you restore species orprocesses, sometimes it can have
unintended effects.
So we we mentioned uh, I think aspread of disease, but also you
know, unexpected trophiccascades that we didn't think
(24:39):
about.
So all of these are, I wouldsay, I would not say cons, but
they are definitely challengesto think about.
And so policy makers andconservationists need to really
address these issues andcarefully plan the projects and
really talk to the public toexplain what they're trying to
do.
There's also this perception ofthe public about wild landscapes
(25:03):
that can be misinterpreted asneglect.
At least I see that a lot inEurope.
So, in the end, it's reallyabout you know, governments,
land managers, they have tobalance all these diverse
interests and moving thoseprojects forward, but also
listen to the differentstakeholders and try to find
solutions.
SPEAKER_00 (25:22):
Just to kind of move away from the South African
examples for a moment, you know,I mentioned in our email
correspondence about the wolvesin Europe example.
Yeah.
My understanding of thesituation is that throughout
like almost all of WesternEurope, wolves had been were
basically extinct, right?
And then they started a decadeor two ago, they started
(25:43):
reintroducing them.
I might have my facts reallyinaccurate here, but you can
correct me.
But the it's been prettysuccessful.
So the wolves have beenincreasing in numbers, and there
are other examples of this inother parts of the world as
well, in North America and inAfrica and other places.
And so you've got a situationnow, as far as I understand,
where I think farmers are theones who are least happy about
(26:05):
this.
And I just kind of I guess myquestion would be how much of an
issue is this of people who areforced to live off the land
essentially versus people whowho don't have any direct
consequences of of there being apredator on the land?
It seems like there could be theones who are supportive of it
are the ones who are notaffected.
(26:26):
So, how do you mitigate the thatargument?
SPEAKER_01 (26:30):
Yeah, so uh I just want, sorry, you mentioned that
wolves were um reintroduced inWestern Europe, but they they
came back naturally.
It's very important to say itbecause, especially in the
conflict between stakeholdersabout predators or about wolves
in that case, some stakeholders,like farmers, some farmers think
(26:51):
that conservationists havereintroduced wolves into Western
Europe.
That's not the case.
They came back completelynaturally, um, mostly because
um, you know, people wereleaving the countryside, um,
there were less and less peoplein the forest, in the fields,
and so wolves started uh comingback.
It's the same story with thegolden jackals, by the way,
(27:12):
they're coming back as well, andwe now have golden jackals even
in France, which are not manybut a few, and that's really
completely um natural processes.
So there were animals that werereintroduced, you know, like the
beavers, the Eurasian lings,bisons, things like that.
But the wolves um was notreintroduced in Europe, it was
(27:33):
really a natural movement.
So I think it's very importantwhat you're saying, and I would
say it's one of the thingsconservationists, not just
people who do rewilding, butconservationists in general must
be um very careful about,especially when we talk about
large carnivores, it's to notromanticize carnivores without
(27:57):
reckoning with real costs.
Um so when we elevate largecarnivores as a symbol of
ecological success, we cannot atthe same time downplay or assume
away the real potential negativeimpacts they can have on local
people.
And that's as we said, it'slivestock losses, but it's also
(28:18):
fear, psychological trauma thatwe don't talk much about.
I've read recently a very goodreport done by a French agency
called INRAE, where they werediscussing the psychological
trauma of farmers who are losingsheep in France.
It's a very good report, and umI think we should talk more
(28:38):
about those things.
And if we don't, um that's gonnahave serious impacts in terms of
resentment, retaliatory andillegal killings.
We see it in Europe with links,with wolves, loss of trust
between stakeholders.
We can't discuss anymore, wedon't trust each other, and then
failure of coexistencestrategies.
So, one example I know a bitabout is the Eurasian links
(29:03):
reintroductions in parts ofEurope that have sometimes been
done without stakeholders'concertation or not sufficient
stakeholder concertation withoutcompensation schemes or conflict
mitigation.
And I'm talking now, if I I cangive the the exact example, but
the the only reintroduction oflinks we had in France that was
(29:26):
between the 1980s and um and the1990s, and um stakeholders,
especially hunters, felt theywere not concerted enough.
And so it created you know a lotof illegal killing of links and
lots of conflict between actors,and still today we are
struggling with that, like 40years later, 50 years later,
(29:49):
which is crazy.
Um, so also manyconservationists are going to
look at the support for thespecies uh in terms of you know.
General public support, andthey're gonna say, Oh, um, 80%
or 90% of the people arepro-links reintroduction.
Okay, but what they call thegeneral public is not the people
(30:11):
who are necessarily directlyimpacted by those carnivores.
So we should also be verycareful what we who we talk to.
Um maybe the general public isum want more links in France,
and great.
But then we should also talk tofarmers who are going to deal
with you know the everyday lifewith the links and see what they
think and what they want.
(30:32):
And I think more and more thethe the projects in rewilding in
conservation are taking thoseaspects into consideration, but
it we're still not completelythere.
There's still a lot of work todo in this field.
SPEAKER_00 (30:49):
Something that I've think that I've noticed, but
please I'd like you to correctme if I'm wrong about this, is
that the rewilding idea in inEurope has really taken off
recently.
And you mentioned uh, well, youcorrected me about wolves, but
you mentioned about beavers anduh bison and a couple of others.
Is that a relatively recentphenomenon, as I suspected it
(31:11):
was?
And and if so, you know, why hasit happened now?
You know, why not in the past?
SPEAKER_01 (31:18):
I think there are different reasons, but one of
them would be um maybe thesocial political and funding
drivers that could explain thedifference between Africa, where
it has always been uh you know,wild species and people have
been living with wildlife,versus in Europe and in the US,
where we're now talking aboutrewilding.
(31:39):
Um in Europe and in NorthAmerica, there have been rising
environmental movements andpolicy frameworks, and also
high-profile reintroductions,like we said, the beavers, the
bisons, the Eurasian links, andin the US, the wolves that have
created this fertile ground forrewilding.
And now rewilding is a visible,funded and media-friendly
(32:04):
umbrella.
You know, we talk aboutrewilding, there's a public
appetite for bringing natureback, yeah, and the narrative
appeal of charismatic species topropel the term rewilding.
Well, in Southern Africa, Ithink conservation funding and
practice have always orhistorically been more
(32:25):
institutionally embedded aroundprotected areas and
anti-poaching, livelihoods.
So the goals were pursued inunder different terminologies
and incentive structures.
So in yeah, in the US and inEurope, we talk about rewelding,
bringing back uh nature,restoring what was lost.
(32:47):
So it's all this culturalnarrative that is important.
And it's it is what resonated inpost-industrial societies, you
know.
Uh, we we mentioned about uhurbanization, um ecological
disconnection.
The approach of natureconservation that was developed
in the 1980s on those continentswas also aging, and there was
(33:10):
really a need for a new, morehopeful, maybe and empowering
environmental narrative.
While in Southern Africa, Ithink many communities have
long-standing relationships withwildlife, even if they are
complex and sometimesconflicted.
The narrative is more aboutsustainable coexistence,
economic integration, then umthe rediscovery of nature or the
(33:34):
return of nature.
It's it has always been there.
I I would say it's it's that,mostly.
SPEAKER_00 (33:42):
And what's next in terms of rewilding?
You know, I think things arequite different now to what they
were 20, 30 years ago.
But if you look 20 or 30 yearsinto the future, do you see you
know a lot more speciesreintroduced to parts of the
world like Europe?
And and how how do you think itmight change in in Africa?
I mean, are the whichever placesyou focused on most?
(34:04):
Like, how do you see thingsevolve?
SPEAKER_01 (34:08):
Well, in in Europe, um especially Western Europe, I
see some really positivechanges.
And and a good example is thework done by this organization I
mentioned earlier, RewildingEurope, where they really work
with people in landscapes thatare you know that that are not
(34:28):
very um natural, like theprocesses are not there anymore,
and they're they're reallyworking to bring nature back,
but with people, with the localpeople.
And I think that's really good.
And they don't necessarilyreintroduce species or they
they're going to reintroduce afew species here and there in
different projects, but it'salso the species are going to
(34:49):
come back naturally if the thelandscape is there, if the
processes are there, and ifpeople have acceptability
towards those species, you know.
So in Europe, I I have apositive, I think I'm I'm quite
positive on where we are going.
Although the politicization ofconservation is really a
(35:10):
problem.
We see it with the wolves.
So yeah, I would say that that'sthe scary part.
Um in Africa, it's well, Africais so big, it's really hard to
say in Africa, but I work inCentral and West Africa, and
mostly in West Africa.
And there, I was quite negativewhen I started working there
(35:31):
because you see those tinylittle patches, those national
parks that are those tiny littlepatches of natural land that are
not fenced.
It's not like in SouthernAfrica, it's not fenced at all.
And there's a lot of poaching,lots of species have
disappeared, especially thelarge carnivores.
But actually, speaking with thegovernment, um there's a real
(35:54):
will to bring back some iconicspecies and develop tourism.
And the local people want to getjobs around conservation.
And um, we see with places likethe New Colokoba National Park
in Senegal, the lion populationis increasing because there's
been really a great effort doneby the directorate of the
(36:17):
national park to increaseanti-poaching and to work with
local communities.
And so it's also kind ofrewilding in a way.
Um, if the lions were, you know,they were at a level that was so
low, I don't think they werereally um uh playing their role
uh as apex predators, but nowwith their population growing,
(36:38):
they are restarting to be theapex predators they they're
supposed to be.
So I think we need to bepositive to stay positive
because there are so many badnews in conservation, but it is
going to be extremelychallenging everywhere.
Um, just because um conservationis not a priority.
So I think we need to talk aboutit.
(37:01):
Doing podcasts is great.
Talk about rewilding, listen towhat people have to say about
it, uh, listen to fear ofpeople, trying to find
solutions, work together to havemore wild spaces around because
we need them.
We really need them forwell-being.
SPEAKER_00 (37:18):
I think you might have partly answered this just a
moment ago, but you mentionedthe politicization of I think
you were talking specificallyabout the wolves in Europe or
the European situation ingeneral.
Maybe can you just say a littlebit more about that?
You know, how is it beingpoliticized?
SPEAKER_01 (37:35):
Yeah.
I think with rewilding we can,or with conservation, we can
have this issue if we ignore thecultural and the identity
dimensions by framing rewildingpurely in biophysical terms, you
know, failing to see thatwildlife, land use, livelihoods
are embedded in culturalidentity, values, and history,
(37:58):
then the potential impacts arecultural alienation,
politicization, backlash,reinforcement of the narratives,
you know, them versus us.
That could be an issue comingfrom conservation.
Um, for example, if I if I takeuh an example in Europe, um,
(38:19):
rural communities they sometimesperceive rewilding or
conservation projects, such asreintroductions, as a urban
elite project that doesn'treflect their relationship to
the land or their daily lifestruggles.
Same in Africa, we have like uhsome conservation in the past
that have ignored spiritual orcustomary ties to landscape.
(38:42):
You know, when when the firstnational parks were created in
Africa, they were moving peopleout.
That was their ancestral land.
So that can create a backgroundfor this politization.
And then, of course, politiciansare using that to then push
their agenda forward.
And with the wolf in Europe,it's terrible what's happening.
(39:05):
So I think we made some mistakesin the past in conservation, and
I think rewilding can helpimproving those uh well, or like
uh fixing those mistakes becauseit's not nature versus culture,
it's really people in naturewith rewilding.
But people I think are are stilla bit afraid of the term.
SPEAKER_00 (39:29):
Yeah, I think um that idea of people in nature, I
was going to ask you when itcomes to dangerous animals.
I think that's kind of where itgets a bit tricky, you know, and
and I guess maybe that's a bigdifference between Europe and
Africa, you know, with uhrewilding in Africa, although
it's not really called thatthere, but there's just any
number of creatures that are adanger to human life, uh,
(39:51):
whereas in Europe that's not,that's usually not, or very
seldom is that actually, maybein with bears that would be an
issue, but otherwise it's andand wolves, I guess.
Um but otherwise it's not reallya really a concern.
You know, I often think aboutthis idea of the Convention on
Biological Diversities vision isabout life in harmony with
(40:12):
nature, and the kind of logicalconclusion of it all is you
know, this idea of a mosaiclandscape, and it's not
stipulated, but you can almostimagine one without any fences.
And the the fact of the matteris that that works in some
situations, yeah, when you know,depending on what those species
are, and it really doesn't workin other situations.
(40:33):
I guess it's just you know thethe idea, the idea of people in
nature or people in harmony withnature, rewilding kind of
embodies that idea.
Yes, but it's not alwayspractical, right?
So um I'm I'm just I'm justwondering sometimes whether
that's really acknowledged inthe in the discussion about
rewilding.
SPEAKER_01 (40:51):
Yes, I see what you mean.
It's it's the idea ofromanticizing nature and our
relationship with nature, like II mentioned earlier.
And um, yes, I I I agree.
Um that's why we need to listento all the voices and um
considering rewelding.
It's a tool for conservation,but as I said earlier, there are
(41:14):
many versions of rewelding, andmaybe in some landscapes we will
never reweld, uh do a trophicrewilding like they did in the
Yellowstone, we will never bringback a large carnivore or even a
large herbivore.
Maybe in those places it willjust be about natural processes,
like um, you know, what riversdo, or like leaving a forest um
more um regenerate naturally, orbut we have, I think, many
(41:39):
different landscapes in Europe,in the US, in Africa, and we can
do all these different types ofrewelding.
And there are places wherepeople are relatively happy to
live with large carnivoresbecause it brings, you know,
like we were talking aboutsouthern Africa, like this the
trophy hunting industry sayingif it's if it pays, it stays.
(42:01):
Um, there are places wherereally having carnivores bring
um money to the people, and it'snot just um negative conflicts.
So maybe in those places we canthink about rewelding as
bringing back large carnivores,but in other places, like
Western Europe is veryinteresting for this because we
lost our wolves and our lynx afew centuries ago, and now the
(42:24):
wolves came back in uh in Francein 1992 and the lynx in 1983
with the reintroductions, butwe're still not completely used
to living with those predators,and that's why there are so many
conflicts, and we're relearningall of this.
So it's it's really hard.
There are lots of conflicts withthe animal, but also between
stakeholders about themanagement of those animals.
(42:47):
But I mean, that's natural.
So we need to just accept it.
We're not going to go around andshoot absolutely every wolf.
So we need to get um to find abalance that will work both for
the wolves, for the the farmers,the conservationists, the
hunters, everyone.
So it's gonna take time.
SPEAKER_00 (43:05):
And what do you this is again maybe a very general
question, but what's your viewof hunting as like a part of
this system?
You know, is there in a futurewhere there are a lot more
wolves around and bison andwhatever?
Like, you know, obviously itwould be need to be controlled
and regulated.
But uh, do you think that that'ssort of like a reasonable kind
of part of the balance ofthings?
(43:27):
Because I mean, again, lookingat the African situation,
populations do get out ofcontrol, right?
Even if they're not causingdirect problems to human beings,
they they can um they canexplode elephants, for example.
SPEAKER_01 (43:40):
Yeah, the the thing is in places where animals have
been restricted to small areas,um, and that's the case for the
elephants, when we look at I Idon't know the numbers by heart,
but when we look at the the thesize of the places they had to
roam in the past versus now,it's tiny.
They they really have no space.
So obviously, when they're gonnabe either fenced in an area, or
(44:03):
even if it's not fenced, butjust in an area that is
completely isolated from otherparks because all around there's
no more connectivity, becausethey are towns, villages, uh
urbanized valley, whatever wecall them, um then there's a
there's a need for control.
So some people advocate for thefact that the control must be
(44:24):
done by large carnivores.
Uh, for elephants it's a bitdifficult, but um, let's say for
deer in Europe, um, some peoplesay then we need to bring back
wolves, we need to bring backlynx, and that needs to be done
by those animals and the humanhunters.
And then the hunters tend tosay, Well, we can do this job,
(44:45):
we don't need predators on topof it.
That's the job we are doing, andthey're going to compete with
us.
And so it's it's verycomplicated here again.
And I think we need a lot ofconcertation, a lot of um
listening to people,understanding their fear, and um
yeah, that's all the work of thehuman wildlife conflict and
(45:08):
coexistence um field.
SPEAKER_00 (45:12):
If I can just ask one additional question, this is
kind of um separate to all theothers, but I'm just curious to
know what do you think?
You know, we were speaking atthe beginning of the discussion
about uh mammoths as a anextreme uh example of rewilding
or theoretical rewilding.
What would be your view ofbringing back the mammoth if it
(45:33):
were possible to do?
And I know there's all sorts ofinteresting obstacles, but if it
were possible, how would youfeel about bringing back a large
herbivore uh which has been gonefor thousands of years to a
landscape that may have changed,you know, quite substantially
since it was uh removed andwhich would obviously also, like
elephants, would have a prettysubstantial effect on uh on the
(45:54):
ecosystem and the people thatdepend on it?
SPEAKER_01 (45:57):
Yeah.
It's very hard because as ascientist and a conservationist,
part of me is like, whoa, thatwould be so amazing if we
managed to do that.
Already the the science ofmanaging to recreate something
that was extinct is incredible,and then bringing it back and
see how it was, and and then itopens the the door to so many uh
(46:19):
why not dinosaurs, you know?
Like it's well, you know, I wasI was a kid when Jurassic Park
came out, so I think it would beamazing, but we already struggle
to live on a planet where thereare so many people and so few
wildlife species left.
We're already struggling to livewith the small carnivores that
(46:43):
we have.
I'm talking about jackals inAfrica, um, coyotes in the US,
red fox in Europe.
Bringing such a big animal, evenif it's not a carnivore, um,
when we see what's happeningwith the elephants in in Africa
or in Asia, I think it's it'stoo late to do something like
this.
(47:03):
We would need to completelychange our way of thinking about
nature, of our relationship withnature.
We would need to be a lot moreum tolerant and leave space for
other species, um, which I thinkwe really don't do at the
moment.
We don't know how to do.
So I don't think it would bereasonable.
SPEAKER_00 (47:26):
Yeah, that sounds like a very sensible answer.
I also don't really know what myanswer to that question is, but
I think I'd uh I agree witheverything that you just said
now.
I mean, maybe in a, you know,that is expected that the human
population is going to peak uhtoward the end of the century so
and then decline quite fast.
So who knows, maybe in a coupleof hundred years' time it would
(47:47):
be more reasonable to dosomething and also more
possible, right?
Because the technology wouldhave would have advanced.
SPEAKER_01 (47:52):
I think it would be good to already learn to live
with the wildlife we have leftin the different places, um, and
and maybe be a bit less uhcontrolling on the environment.
That's why I like the idea ofrewelding.
We let nature do its thing, welook, uh, that doesn't mean we
we think everything nature isdoing is great, but you know,
(48:14):
maybe being a bit lesscontrolling because uh that
would be interesting, I think.
Um, and restoring all thoseprocesses is really important
for human well-being andsurvival.
And sometimes I think we forgetthat.
SPEAKER_00 (48:35):
Next time I will probably be speaking with
well-known political scientistRoger Pilke Jr., who is known
for his data-driven and criticalanalysis of how science and
policy interact in the world ofclimate and environmental
decision making.
Roger is consideredcontroversial by many
environmentalists, but hisacademic record speaks for
(48:56):
itself, and we'll be delvinginto what he's published.
I hope you can join us.
I think we made some mistakes in the past in
conservation, and I thinkrewilding can help in improving
those uh well or like uh fixingthose mistakes because it's not
nature versus culture, it'sreally uh people in nature with
rewilding.
But people I think are are stilla bit afraid of the term.
SPEAKER_00 (00:30):
Welcome to the podcast where we dig a little
deeper into the thinking andmotivations that shape our
relationship with nature andchallenge assumptions to
strengthen the case forconservation.
I'm your host, Andre Mada.
The topic of this episode isrewilding.
The concept of rewilding hasbeen applied in various ways
(00:50):
from the simple restoration of asingle natural process like
removing livestock to allowvegetation to recover, to
ambitious proposals toreintroduce long extinct
megafauna.
While some rewildingapplications have obvious
conservation benefits, rewildingalso raises legitimate concerns,
especially about how renewedinteractions with reintroduced
(01:12):
wildlife like large herbivoresand carnivores might affect
human well-being, livelihoods,and land use.
Rewilding has become a popularand sometimes controversial
topic within conservationcircles.
It's also been gaining tractionand growing public and
governmental interest associeties search for more
holistic approaches to restoringecosystem processes and
(01:34):
biodiversity.
Joining me to unpack whatrewilding means and to explore
the potential conflicts andcompromises that come with it is
Marine Couilly.
Marine is the regionalcoordinator for wild cat surveys
and research in Western CentralAfrica with the NGO Panthera.
I began our conversation byasking her to narrow down a
(01:55):
definition of rewilding and toexplain what it looks like in
practice.
SPEAKER_01 (02:16):
And so the term rewilding was later a bit
refined and grounded in ascientific context in a paper
that was published in 1998 bytwo famous conservation
biologists, Mikhail Soule andReed Nas.
And so Soule and Nas, theyconceived the rewelding as a
(02:36):
conservation method that wasbased on the concepts of three
C's, which is cores, corridors,and carnivores.
So we call it the three Cconcept now.
But for them, um the keycomponents of rewelding
incorporate large core protectedareas, keystone species, so
that's the species that havedisproportionately large effects
(03:00):
on their natural environmentrelative to their abundance.
So large carnivores are a greatexample, and ecological
connectivity based on the theorythat large carnivores play
regulatory roles in ecosystems.
So the most common types of coreareas are national parks,
wilderness reserves, and a goodexample of the three C rewilding
(03:24):
is the rewilding with wolves,the reintroduction of wolves in
Yellowstone National Park in theUS.
But that's a bit like it's ascientific concept.
But if we want to explain it ina clearer way, rewelding is
about letting nature taking careof itself.
And you do that by enablingnatural processes to shape
(03:47):
ecosystems, to repair damagedecosystems, and to restore
degraded landscapes.
And that's the definition thatis used by the organization
Rewilding Europe.
They're based in theNetherlands.
And population enhancement andreintroduction of key native
species are part of the process.
So, as you say, umreintroduction can be
(04:08):
carnivores, large herbivores, oruh emblematic species are part
of the process.
But I think something also weneed to add to this definition
is that in rewilding, we need toconsider how to govern the
complex relationship betweenhuman societies and nature and
(04:28):
how we reconnect them together.
It's really working nature andpeople together and not
separately like in restorationecology, for example.
SPEAKER_00 (04:40):
It sounds like rewilding is maybe even more
broader term than I thought itwas from what you said now.
So I'm just wondering what does,and in fact, you did you sort of
mentioned restoration, but whatis an example of something that
does not qualify as rewilding?
I'm still kind of struggling alittle bit to see kind of where
the boundaries are around theconcept.
SPEAKER_01 (04:59):
Yeah, I think what was difficult to understand for
many people, um, it's thedifference between restoration
ecology and rewilding.
And I think many, even manyscientists were like, oh, it's
the same thing.
But basically, restorationecology is based only on the
field of ecology, whilerewelding is multidisciplinary
(05:21):
by nature.
Also, the restoration baselineis not necessarily the
precolonial or pre-industrialtime that we use in restoration
ecology.
It can go as far as the latePleistocene with rewelding.
And the aim is really to restorethe ecosystem structure,
(05:41):
function, and processes, and notjust habitat composition or
species populations.
It's really going from linearthinking to a system thinking
with rewelding.
So it's more complex, it's butit's more interconnected and
it's closer to reality.
SPEAKER_00 (06:00):
Okay.
SPEAKER_01 (06:00):
I don't know if it helps.
SPEAKER_00 (06:02):
Yeah, yeah, I know.
Definitely getting closer.
So is it also quite glued to theidea of you mentioned that the
baseline doesn't necessarilyneed to be pre-colonial.
There was rewilding, right?
SPEAKER_01 (06:14):
Yeah, so restoration ecology is like we we restore
the ecosystem to look more likehow it was before the colonial
time or before the industrialtime.
Well, um, with rewilding, youyou can use those those times as
reference, but you can go as farback as late Pleistocene.
So 129,000 years ago, up to12,000 years ago.
(06:38):
So you can really go back to along time.
That's why you were mentioningearlier the mammoth.
Um, they they could be used, youknow, uh in rewilding, they will
never be mentioned inrestoration ecology.
SPEAKER_00 (06:52):
Okay, okay.
So the difference is kind ofmore in you know being able to
go back further in time.
I was actually going to ask youthe opposite.
I was going to ask if rewildingthen all could include, you
know, perhaps sort of whatsomething looked like 50 years
ago, because thinking about theSouth African context that we're
both fairly familiar with, andthe Kuru in particular, you
know, the Karu has gone throughdifferent kind of phases of uh
(07:13):
depending on stocking densitiesand all sorts of stuff.
So maybe this is too specific aquestion, but can rewilding
include sort of going back 50years or 100 years, or is the
idea to go back at least as faras the pre-colonial times?
SPEAKER_01 (07:28):
Yeah, we've with rewilding, you can also, yeah,
just look 20 years ago or 50years ago, you can really choose
your baseline because what'simportant, it's really to
restore the ecosystem structure,function, and processes.
That's really about processes.
So if if your your baseline is50 years ago in the Karoo,
(07:49):
because that's the baseline youchose, then you're going to try
to restore the processes thathappened there 50 years ago.
And you know, there are manydifferent versions of rewelding
and each have their own actions.
So, for example, you've gotrefination, which is the
reintroduction of functionalspecies that have been wiped out
(08:09):
by hunting.
So that could be in the crewrestoring, you know, these big
migratory herds of uhspringbugs.
There's also farm welding, whichis also called regenerative
farming.
And there you're going to usefree roaming livestock and
relaxation of land management.
And there's a good example ofthat in England with the NEP
(08:30):
estate.
I don't know if you've heardabout that, but basically you
use um a large livestock torecreate the grazing that wild
herbivores uh were doing before.
And then, as you as youmentioned earlier, there's also
the Pleistocen rewilding that weheard quite a lot about, which
is getting relatives of extinctspecies to restore evolutionary
(08:55):
potential.
And there's a park called thePleistocen park in Russia that
is that was trying to do that.
And um, there's also passiverewilding, which consists just
in restoring wilderness toabandoned areas, and then the
the three-seas rewilding that Imentioned earlier, which is
really uh the trophic rewildingthrough the cores, the
(09:15):
corridors, and the carnivores,with the example, the most
famous example beingYellowstone.
SPEAKER_00 (09:21):
And what does rewilding have to say about the
fact that ecosystems are almostall altered to some extent?
And so if you do just leavethem, or if you do just
introduce one species withoutkind of further management or
without very active management,you don't really know which
direction it's going to go in,and it might not be a desirable
(09:44):
direction.
So I'm thinking especially ofyou know invasive species
pulling in and the area justbecoming, you know, ecologically
not very functional, or at leastnot very uh usefully functional
to uh to the people involved.
And I guess we're getting backto the people factor there
already.
SPEAKER_01 (10:01):
Yeah.
Yeah, so that's one of thecritics that rewilding receives.
Um, but I think the people whoare pro-rewilding or want to try
the concept of rewilding, theyreally think that letting nature
take care of itself is going towork at some point if we give it
enough time and if the thelandscape is large enough.
(10:23):
Um, but that you're right, thatcan go wrong.
Um, there could be issues withinvasive species, or even you
know, conflict with predators umuh that were not planned, or I
don't know, disease risk aswell.
But the the people who arepro-reralding think that with
(10:43):
time, nature is able to repairdamaged ecosystem by itself and
restore degraded landscapes, andthat we don't always need us
humans to control everything.
So that's a really different wayof thinking um compared to
restoration ecology or um um theclassic conservation concept.
SPEAKER_00 (11:08):
You know, you mentioned the three C's, and one
of those being carnivores or keyspecies.
So the philosophy behindrewilding is basically that the
magic ingredient is like certainspecies that you just need to
add to the landscape, and thenthings will sort themselves out.
It sort of sort of sounds likethat's what you're what you're
saying.
SPEAKER_01 (11:27):
No, no, no, not really.
I think it's too simplistic, andthat's because it was the first
time rewilding was coined.
You know, it was in this paperwhere um people were
reintroducing wolves inYellowstone to control elk, and
then it had all these impacts onrivers, and but um it's really
restoring processes, so you canalso rewild by just bringing
(11:50):
maybe an insect, you know, or asmall herbivore.
And if you want to restore agrazing process and biodiversity
in meadows, or um, so I know ofa rewilding project, I can't
remember where it is, but theywere rewelding by um
reintroducing uh dung beetles.
So um, depending on whatprocesses you're trying to bring
(12:14):
back, um, you can reweld withmany different species.
You can also not necessarilybring back species, but just
leave rivers, um, you know,umander um freely without having
to build dams or things likethis, or forests regenate on
their own without having to cutthem, or there are many
(12:36):
different types of rewilding,but it's always based on leaving
nature do its own thing.
SPEAKER_00 (12:43):
I can imagine that you know, when these projects
are attempted in real life, youknow, originally they might
think, okay, we add wolves tothe system or we add dung
beetles or whatever it is, butand then in reality, so things
shift in the direction you mightnot expect, and then you have to
tweak something else, and thenyou have to tweak something
else.
You know, it's kind of likealmost anything that you you
(13:04):
know you keep sort of having tofine-tune in order for it to go
in the direction that the or togo in the in a direction that
you want it to go.
Is that often the case, or dothings usually more or less work
out as intended?
SPEAKER_01 (13:18):
I think because the people who use rewilding are
very um uh hands-off, they'rethey're gonna leave the
ecosystems work their way, andif it's not going exactly the
way they think it would begoing, it's fine.
Um I don't think there are manyrewilding projects that are
like, okay, we want to restoreexactly this in that way,
(13:40):
because then it would not berewilding.
It's really trusting nature todo its own thing, and whatever
the final state is, it's goingto be better than the state we
left it at, where where westarted.
But yeah, the the people who areuh against rewilding or who are
um let's say a bit um worriedabout this concept because yeah,
(14:03):
you have no control on what'shappening.
They're definitely saying thatit can cause issues and create a
final state that is going to beworse.
But but it depends on whatreferential you're using.
It's worse for who?
For nature, for people, foranimals.
Um yeah, it's very large.
SPEAKER_00 (14:23):
And does it not also depend a lot on how different
the system is to what it was,you know, previously?
So extreme example would be uh,you know, if if it were possible
to reintroduce mammoths to thesteppes, for example, the
problem is that one problem isthat the steps may have changed
quite a lot in the meantime.
Well, maybe that's not such anextreme example, but you could
(14:44):
go even further back.
And also just, you know, umlandscapes that are severely
transformed by agriculture orurbanization or whatever it is,
the more they've changed, themore unpredictable it's going to
be if you add one of theprevious species that occurred
there, right?
SPEAKER_01 (15:01):
Yeah, I think that's also why there are so many
versions of rewilding.
And that's why some of them areas simple as regenerative
farming, what I mentionedearlier, where you have free
roaming livestock in a land andyou just relax land management,
you know.
You can start with small thingslike this, and then pleistos and
(15:23):
rewilding and the three C'srewelding are like examples that
can't be done everywhere forsure.
And that's also one of thecritics people that are against
rewelding bring all the time.
It's um a lot of ecologists talkabout Yellowstone National Park
as the perfect example ofrewilding and the perfect
(15:44):
example of what nature shouldlook like.
But we can't do a YellowstoneNational Park everywhere, right?
Already the size of thislandscape is crazy.
There's no real um, you know,activity, human activities
inside except tourism, but youcan't do that everywhere.
So I think we can always find aversion of rewelding that would
(16:06):
fit a landscape, and it's notnecessarily just reintroducing
large mammals or mammoths or umwolves.
Um it can be a lot simpler justto slowly but surely have nature
um recreate the processes thatit's supposed to be doing.
SPEAKER_00 (16:25):
Just another little bit more of a detailed question,
but again, kind of thinkingabout rewilding in relation to
restoration ecology.
You know, in restorationecology, I'm not a restoration
ecologist myself, but as far asI understand, there's a fair
amount of trying to make surethat the whole complement of
species is reintroduced, likeplants and animals, or at least
(16:47):
the main ones, you know, so notjust one or two species, but
it'll be as many of the plantsthat you might have been able to
introduce to an area, at leastwhen it's on a small scale.
So is that kind of part of theidea as well?
Because, you know, when species,it's kind of the same question I
was asking earlier, I guess, butwhen certain species, including
plant species, uh disappear fromthe landscape, you know, there's
(17:09):
suddenly there's no longer aparticular food source for
whatever animals might have beenthere before.
So um sorry to kind of repeat aquestion I asked earlier on, but
maybe from a different angle.
Is that something that's youknow part of the equation or
part of the concern withrewilding?
SPEAKER_01 (17:25):
Yeah, I so yeah, I think for restoring ecosystem,
for restoration ecology, it'sit's really looking at habitat
composition, species population.
So you look at the component ofthe ecosystem, really.
While rewilding marks a shift infocus from those components of
the ecosystems to the emergentproperties of interactions
(17:47):
between these components.
So that's when I said we movefrom a linear way of thinking to
a system thinking withrewelding, it's really that.
So we're not looking at eachcomponent separately, but really
at processes, functions,structure.
So we might not have all thecomponents we would like to have
(18:09):
in a rewilding um landscape.
But if the processes are comingback, that's what we're looking
for.
SPEAKER_00 (18:17):
So, for example, if particular plant species are not
there anymore, uh and you know,maybe the even the animal
species that are introducedmight in an extreme example
might not even be the same ones,but they still sort of do the
same thing for the landscape.
They still maybe they maintain asavannah kind of landscape, for
example, or a group ofsomething.
SPEAKER_01 (18:37):
And that's exactly what they're doing in the
Pleistocene rewilding.
You know, they're gettingrelatives of extinct species.
We can't bring them back now,maybe maybe later, but not now.
So it's really to restore theevolutionary potential, and we
use species that are surrogates.
Um, so it's not exactly the sameones, but and even in um farm
(18:57):
rewilding, the the idea isreally to use the livestock, um,
what they do, the grazing.
And even if originally it waslarge wild herbivores, now we're
using livestock.
It's not exactly the same, butit's really about processes.
The only issue, and that's theissue that the farmers were
talking to me about, is thatit's it's very hard to know
(19:21):
what's what amount of oflivestock you can have so it
doesn't destroy your vegetation.
And it's um it varies with time.
And now with the droughts, youknow, there are more and more
droughts in the Karoo or likefloods and then big droughts.
It's really hard to find.
So sometimes you have farmerswho have a certain amount of
sheep and they have to uh limittheir the the size of their
(19:44):
livestock because the land isnot taking that anymore, it's
too much grazing, or they needto change or rotation uh do the
rotational system more oftenthan they used to.
And so so it's it's alwaysdifficult when it's humans who
have to control the processbecause we we can't take into
account absolutely everything.
(20:05):
Well, if we say we leave naturedo its thing, well, the big
herds of herbivores they willmigrate when they need to, they
will know there's the the foodis not there anymore and they
will they will migrate or thehalf of the the herd might die
because there's not enough food,and you know all of this is more
um yeah, it's done by nature.
SPEAKER_00 (20:25):
Yeah, it's kind of like the more we manage, the
more we have to manage.
SPEAKER_01 (20:29):
Yes, exactly.
SPEAKER_00 (20:30):
You have to maintain what you've started kind of
thing.
And I guess rewilding is theopposite idea to that.
SPEAKER_01 (20:35):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (20:36):
So, Maureen, I think you you've covered a lot of pros
and cons already, but I wantedto ask you sort of specifically
about the pros and cons ofrewilding.
I I think you've sort of hintedat various ones on either side,
but but could you kind of giveuh an overview of let's say the
main pros and cons of this uhvery broad concept?
SPEAKER_01 (20:56):
Yeah, sure.
Um I think um there are manydifferent groups tend to gain
from rewilding, you know, fromfrom conservationists to local
communities to rural economies,tourism operators as well, or
climate and water managers.
We can even think of publichealth advocates because the
(21:16):
benefits are very broad.
They range from restoringbiodiversity.
So we we mentioned bringing backpredators and natural processes
as an example, but they it'salso improving vital ecosystem
services, like, for example,water purification, um,
pollination is another example.
(21:39):
Um, so rewilding in its idea,it's really to help landscapes
become more resilient to change.
So they can withstand challengeslike droughts, like we were
talking about, or floods, um,which are all very important in
time of climate change.
So that's what you want to dowith rewilding, and that's why
(21:59):
it could be uh positive for manydifferent stakeholders.
There are also economic gainsthrough nature-based activities.
Um, so that could be ecotourism,that's the first one we think
about, and recreation becausethey create local jobs.
But there are also otherbenefits we don't talk about
very often, like the culturaland psychological benefits.
(22:24):
When you have a landscape thatis being rewarded, you improve
the well-being of people who canuse this landscape.
You give educationalopportunities, people can access
world places, and we saw justhow much that mattered, right,
during the COVID pandemic, evenfor people who hadn't valued
that before.
So, for the positive sides, Iwould say it's all of this.
(22:48):
It's very broad what I'm sayingnow, but I just give an
overview.
But it definitely also can bringchallenges.
I would say challenges more thancons because we can always find
solutions.
For example, the return of largeherbivores and predators can
increase human wildlifeconflict.
We know that there could be cropdamage, livestock losses, safety
(23:11):
concerns for farmers, forexample, or pastoralists, uh,
even local residents.
But these impacts they canalways be reduced, you know,
with good conflict mitigation,compensation schemes, good
governance as well.
Um, all of this requires carefulplanning, but it's possible.
Another aspect that I think isimportant to take into account
(23:33):
is rewelding can change how landis used.
And that can be difficult forlandowners or rural communities
or even industries that rely onum more intensive agriculture or
hunting or resource extraction.
That doesn't mean that thatcan't go together, but it's
something to consider that thatmight be a challenge.
(23:55):
And they are also obviously, I'mthinking more for like um in
Africa now, but important socialand equity considerations.
If you have rewelding projectsthat overlook indigenous or
traditional users, they riskmarginalizing those communities
with customary land rights.
So that's particularly importantto consider, and we're talking
(24:18):
more and more about thosethings, which is great.
And another uncertainty youmentioned earlier was the
ecological uncertainty, right?
If you restore species orprocesses, sometimes it can have
unintended effects.
So we we mentioned uh, I think aspread of disease, but also you
know, unexpected trophiccascades that we didn't think
(24:39):
about.
So all of these are, I wouldsay, I would not say cons, but
they are definitely challengesto think about.
And so policy makers andconservationists need to really
address these issues andcarefully plan the projects and
really talk to the public toexplain what they're trying to
do.
There's also this perception ofthe public about wild landscapes
(25:03):
that can be misinterpreted asneglect.
At least I see that a lot inEurope.
So, in the end, it's reallyabout you know, governments,
land managers, they have tobalance all these diverse
interests and moving thoseprojects forward, but also
listen to the differentstakeholders and try to find
solutions.
SPEAKER_00 (25:22):
Just to kind of move away from the South African
examples for a moment, you know,I mentioned in our email
correspondence about the wolvesin Europe example.
Yeah.
My understanding of thesituation is that throughout
like almost all of WesternEurope, wolves had been were
basically extinct, right?
And then they started a decadeor two ago, they started
(25:43):
reintroducing them.
I might have my facts reallyinaccurate here, but you can
correct me.
But the it's been prettysuccessful.
So the wolves have beenincreasing in numbers, and there
are other examples of this inother parts of the world as
well, in North America and inAfrica and other places.
And so you've got a situationnow, as far as I understand,
where I think farmers are theones who are least happy about
(26:05):
this.
And I just kind of I guess myquestion would be how much of an
issue is this of people who areforced to live off the land
essentially versus people whowho don't have any direct
consequences of of there being apredator on the land?
It seems like there could be theones who are supportive of it
are the ones who are notaffected.
(26:26):
So, how do you mitigate the thatargument?
SPEAKER_01 (26:30):
Yeah, so uh I just want, sorry, you mentioned that
wolves were um reintroduced inWestern Europe, but they they
came back naturally.
It's very important to say itbecause, especially in the
conflict between stakeholdersabout predators or about wolves
in that case, some stakeholders,like farmers, some farmers think
(26:51):
that conservationists havereintroduced wolves into Western
Europe.
That's not the case.
They came back completelynaturally, um, mostly because
um, you know, people wereleaving the countryside, um,
there were less and less peoplein the forest, in the fields,
and so wolves started uh comingback.
It's the same story with thegolden jackals, by the way,
(27:12):
they're coming back as well, andwe now have golden jackals even
in France, which are not manybut a few, and that's really
completely um natural processes.
So there were animals that werereintroduced, you know, like the
beavers, the Eurasian lings,bisons, things like that.
But the wolves um was notreintroduced in Europe, it was
(27:33):
really a natural movement.
So I think it's very importantwhat you're saying, and I would
say it's one of the thingsconservationists, not just
people who do rewilding, butconservationists in general must
be um very careful about,especially when we talk about
large carnivores, it's to notromanticize carnivores without
(27:57):
reckoning with real costs.
Um so when we elevate largecarnivores as a symbol of
ecological success, we cannot atthe same time downplay or assume
away the real potential negativeimpacts they can have on local
people.
And that's as we said, it'slivestock losses, but it's also
(28:18):
fear, psychological trauma thatwe don't talk much about.
I've read recently a very goodreport done by a French agency
called INRAE, where they werediscussing the psychological
trauma of farmers who are losingsheep in France.
It's a very good report, and umI think we should talk more
(28:38):
about those things.
And if we don't, um that's gonnahave serious impacts in terms of
resentment, retaliatory andillegal killings.
We see it in Europe with links,with wolves, loss of trust
between stakeholders.
We can't discuss anymore, wedon't trust each other, and then
failure of coexistencestrategies.
So, one example I know a bitabout is the Eurasian links
(29:03):
reintroductions in parts ofEurope that have sometimes been
done without stakeholders'concertation or not sufficient
stakeholder concertation withoutcompensation schemes or conflict
mitigation.
And I'm talking now, if I I cangive the the exact example, but
the the only reintroduction oflinks we had in France that was
(29:26):
between the 1980s and um and the1990s, and um stakeholders,
especially hunters, felt theywere not concerted enough.
And so it created you know a lotof illegal killing of links and
lots of conflict between actors,and still today we are
struggling with that, like 40years later, 50 years later,
(29:49):
which is crazy.
Um, so also manyconservationists are going to
look at the support for thespecies uh in terms of you know.
General public support, andthey're gonna say, Oh, um, 80%
or 90% of the people arepro-links reintroduction.
Okay, but what they call thegeneral public is not the people
(30:11):
who are necessarily directlyimpacted by those carnivores.
So we should also be verycareful what we who we talk to.
Um maybe the general public isum want more links in France,
and great.
But then we should also talk tofarmers who are going to deal
with you know the everyday lifewith the links and see what they
think and what they want.
(30:32):
And I think more and more thethe the projects in rewilding in
conservation are taking thoseaspects into consideration, but
it we're still not completelythere.
There's still a lot of work todo in this field.
SPEAKER_00 (30:49):
Something that I've think that I've noticed, but
please I'd like you to correctme if I'm wrong about this, is
that the rewilding idea in inEurope has really taken off
recently.
And you mentioned uh, well, youcorrected me about wolves, but
you mentioned about beavers anduh bison and a couple of others.
Is that a relatively recentphenomenon, as I suspected it
(31:11):
was?
And and if so, you know, why hasit happened now?
You know, why not in the past?
SPEAKER_01 (31:18):
I think there are different reasons, but one of
them would be um maybe thesocial political and funding
drivers that could explain thedifference between Africa, where
it has always been uh you know,wild species and people have
been living with wildlife,versus in Europe and in the US,
where we're now talking aboutrewilding.
(31:39):
Um in Europe and in NorthAmerica, there have been rising
environmental movements andpolicy frameworks, and also
high-profile reintroductions,like we said, the beavers, the
bisons, the Eurasian links, andin the US, the wolves that have
created this fertile ground forrewilding.
And now rewilding is a visible,funded and media-friendly
(32:04):
umbrella.
You know, we talk aboutrewilding, there's a public
appetite for bringing natureback, yeah, and the narrative
appeal of charismatic species topropel the term rewilding.
Well, in Southern Africa, Ithink conservation funding and
practice have always orhistorically been more
(32:25):
institutionally embedded aroundprotected areas and
anti-poaching, livelihoods.
So the goals were pursued inunder different terminologies
and incentive structures.
So in yeah, in the US and inEurope, we talk about rewelding,
bringing back uh nature,restoring what was lost.
(32:47):
So it's all this culturalnarrative that is important.
And it's it is what resonated inpost-industrial societies, you
know.
Uh, we we mentioned about uhurbanization, um ecological
disconnection.
The approach of natureconservation that was developed
in the 1980s on those continentswas also aging, and there was
(33:10):
really a need for a new, morehopeful, maybe and empowering
environmental narrative.
While in Southern Africa, Ithink many communities have
long-standing relationships withwildlife, even if they are
complex and sometimesconflicted.
The narrative is more aboutsustainable coexistence,
economic integration, then umthe rediscovery of nature or the
(33:34):
return of nature.
It's it has always been there.
I I would say it's it's that,mostly.
SPEAKER_00 (33:42):
And what's next in terms of rewilding?
You know, I think things arequite different now to what they
were 20, 30 years ago.
But if you look 20 or 30 yearsinto the future, do you see you
know a lot more speciesreintroduced to parts of the
world like Europe?
And and how how do you think itmight change in in Africa?
I mean, are the whichever placesyou focused on most?
(34:04):
Like, how do you see thingsevolve?
SPEAKER_01 (34:08):
Well, in in Europe, um especially Western Europe, I
see some really positivechanges.
And and a good example is thework done by this organization I
mentioned earlier, RewildingEurope, where they really work
with people in landscapes thatare you know that that are not
(34:28):
very um natural, like theprocesses are not there anymore,
and they're they're reallyworking to bring nature back,
but with people, with the localpeople.
And I think that's really good.
And they don't necessarilyreintroduce species or they
they're going to reintroduce afew species here and there in
different projects, but it'salso the species are going to
(34:49):
come back naturally if the thelandscape is there, if the
processes are there, and ifpeople have acceptability
towards those species, you know.
So in Europe, I I have apositive, I think I'm I'm quite
positive on where we are going.
Although the politicization ofconservation is really a
(35:10):
problem.
We see it with the wolves.
So yeah, I would say that that'sthe scary part.
Um in Africa, it's well, Africais so big, it's really hard to
say in Africa, but I work inCentral and West Africa, and
mostly in West Africa.
And there, I was quite negativewhen I started working there
(35:31):
because you see those tinylittle patches, those national
parks that are those tiny littlepatches of natural land that are
not fenced.
It's not like in SouthernAfrica, it's not fenced at all.
And there's a lot of poaching,lots of species have
disappeared, especially thelarge carnivores.
But actually, speaking with thegovernment, um there's a real
(35:54):
will to bring back some iconicspecies and develop tourism.
And the local people want to getjobs around conservation.
And um, we see with places likethe New Colokoba National Park
in Senegal, the lion populationis increasing because there's
been really a great effort doneby the directorate of the
(36:17):
national park to increaseanti-poaching and to work with
local communities.
And so it's also kind ofrewilding in a way.
Um, if the lions were, you know,they were at a level that was so
low, I don't think they werereally um uh playing their role
uh as apex predators, but nowwith their population growing,
(36:38):
they are restarting to be theapex predators they they're
supposed to be.
So I think we need to bepositive to stay positive
because there are so many badnews in conservation, but it is
going to be extremelychallenging everywhere.
Um, just because um conservationis not a priority.
So I think we need to talk aboutit.
(37:01):
Doing podcasts is great.
Talk about rewilding, listen towhat people have to say about
it, uh, listen to fear ofpeople, trying to find
solutions, work together to havemore wild spaces around because
we need them.
We really need them forwell-being.
SPEAKER_00 (37:18):
I think you might have partly answered this just a
moment ago, but you mentionedthe politicization of I think
you were talking specificallyabout the wolves in Europe or
the European situation ingeneral.
Maybe can you just say a littlebit more about that?
You know, how is it beingpoliticized?
SPEAKER_01 (37:35):
Yeah.
I think with rewilding we can,or with conservation, we can
have this issue if we ignore thecultural and the identity
dimensions by framing rewildingpurely in biophysical terms, you
know, failing to see thatwildlife, land use, livelihoods
are embedded in culturalidentity, values, and history,
(37:58):
then the potential impacts arecultural alienation,
politicization, backlash,reinforcement of the narratives,
you know, them versus us.
That could be an issue comingfrom conservation.
Um, for example, if I if I takeuh an example in Europe, um,
(38:19):
rural communities they sometimesperceive rewilding or
conservation projects, such asreintroductions, as a urban
elite project that doesn'treflect their relationship to
the land or their daily lifestruggles.
Same in Africa, we have like uhsome conservation in the past
that have ignored spiritual orcustomary ties to landscape.
(38:42):
You know, when when the firstnational parks were created in
Africa, they were moving peopleout.
That was their ancestral land.
So that can create a backgroundfor this politization.
And then, of course, politiciansare using that to then push
their agenda forward.
And with the wolf in Europe,it's terrible what's happening.
(39:05):
So I think we made some mistakesin the past in conservation, and
I think rewilding can helpimproving those uh well, or like
uh fixing those mistakes becauseit's not nature versus culture,
it's really people in naturewith rewilding.
But people I think are are stilla bit afraid of the term.
SPEAKER_00 (39:29):
Yeah, I think um that idea of people in nature, I
was going to ask you when itcomes to dangerous animals.
I think that's kind of where itgets a bit tricky, you know, and
and I guess maybe that's a bigdifference between Europe and
Africa, you know, with uhrewilding in Africa, although
it's not really called thatthere, but there's just any
number of creatures that are adanger to human life, uh,
(39:51):
whereas in Europe that's not,that's usually not, or very
seldom is that actually, maybein with bears that would be an
issue, but otherwise it's andand wolves, I guess.
Um but otherwise it's not reallya really a concern.
You know, I often think aboutthis idea of the Convention on
Biological Diversities vision isabout life in harmony with
(40:12):
nature, and the kind of logicalconclusion of it all is you
know, this idea of a mosaiclandscape, and it's not
stipulated, but you can almostimagine one without any fences.
And the the fact of the matteris that that works in some
situations, yeah, when you know,depending on what those species
are, and it really doesn't workin other situations.
(40:33):
I guess it's just you know thethe idea, the idea of people in
nature or people in harmony withnature, rewilding kind of
embodies that idea.
Yes, but it's not alwayspractical, right?
So um I'm I'm just I'm justwondering sometimes whether
that's really acknowledged inthe in the discussion about
rewilding.
SPEAKER_01 (40:51):
Yes, I see what you mean.
It's it's the idea ofromanticizing nature and our
relationship with nature, like II mentioned earlier.
And um, yes, I I I agree.
Um that's why we need to listento all the voices and um
considering rewelding.
It's a tool for conservation,but as I said earlier, there are
(41:14):
many versions of rewelding, andmaybe in some landscapes we will
never reweld, uh do a trophicrewilding like they did in the
Yellowstone, we will never bringback a large carnivore or even a
large herbivore.
Maybe in those places it willjust be about natural processes,
like um, you know, what riversdo, or like leaving a forest um
more um regenerate naturally, orbut we have, I think, many
(41:39):
different landscapes in Europe,in the US, in Africa, and we can
do all these different types ofrewelding.
And there are places wherepeople are relatively happy to
live with large carnivoresbecause it brings, you know,
like we were talking aboutsouthern Africa, like this the
trophy hunting industry sayingif it's if it pays, it stays.
(42:01):
Um, there are places wherereally having carnivores bring
um money to the people, and it'snot just um negative conflicts.
So maybe in those places we canthink about rewelding as
bringing back large carnivores,but in other places, like
Western Europe is veryinteresting for this because we
lost our wolves and our lynx afew centuries ago, and now the
(42:24):
wolves came back in uh in Francein 1992 and the lynx in 1983
with the reintroductions, butwe're still not completely used
to living with those predators,and that's why there are so many
conflicts, and we're relearningall of this.
So it's it's really hard.
There are lots of conflicts withthe animal, but also between
stakeholders about themanagement of those animals.
(42:47):
But I mean, that's natural.
So we need to just accept it.
We're not going to go around andshoot absolutely every wolf.
So we need to get um to find abalance that will work both for
the wolves, for the the farmers,the conservationists, the
hunters, everyone.
So it's gonna take time.
SPEAKER_00 (43:05):
And what do you this is again maybe a very general
question, but what's your viewof hunting as like a part of
this system?
You know, is there in a futurewhere there are a lot more
wolves around and bison andwhatever?
Like, you know, obviously itwould be need to be controlled
and regulated.
But uh, do you think that that'ssort of like a reasonable kind
of part of the balance ofthings?
(43:27):
Because I mean, again, lookingat the African situation,
populations do get out ofcontrol, right?
Even if they're not causingdirect problems to human beings,
they they can um they canexplode elephants, for example.
SPEAKER_01 (43:40):
Yeah, the the thing is in places where animals have
been restricted to small areas,um, and that's the case for the
elephants, when we look at I Idon't know the numbers by heart,
but when we look at the the thesize of the places they had to
roam in the past versus now,it's tiny.
They they really have no space.
So obviously, when they're gonnabe either fenced in an area, or
(44:03):
even if it's not fenced, butjust in an area that is
completely isolated from otherparks because all around there's
no more connectivity, becausethey are towns, villages, uh
urbanized valley, whatever wecall them, um then there's a
there's a need for control.
So some people advocate for thefact that the control must be
(44:24):
done by large carnivores.
Uh, for elephants it's a bitdifficult, but um, let's say for
deer in Europe, um, some peoplesay then we need to bring back
wolves, we need to bring backlynx, and that needs to be done
by those animals and the humanhunters.
And then the hunters tend tosay, Well, we can do this job,
(44:45):
we don't need predators on topof it.
That's the job we are doing, andthey're going to compete with
us.
And so it's it's verycomplicated here again.
And I think we need a lot ofconcertation, a lot of um
listening to people,understanding their fear, and um
yeah, that's all the work of thehuman wildlife conflict and
(45:08):
coexistence um field.
SPEAKER_00 (45:12):
If I can just ask one additional question, this is
kind of um separate to all theothers, but I'm just curious to
know what do you think?
You know, we were speaking atthe beginning of the discussion
about uh mammoths as a anextreme uh example of rewilding
or theoretical rewilding.
What would be your view ofbringing back the mammoth if it
(45:33):
were possible to do?
And I know there's all sorts ofinteresting obstacles, but if it
were possible, how would youfeel about bringing back a large
herbivore uh which has been gonefor thousands of years to a
landscape that may have changed,you know, quite substantially
since it was uh removed andwhich would obviously also, like
elephants, would have a prettysubstantial effect on uh on the
(45:54):
ecosystem and the people thatdepend on it?
SPEAKER_01 (45:57):
Yeah.
It's very hard because as ascientist and a conservationist,
part of me is like, whoa, thatwould be so amazing if we
managed to do that.
Already the the science ofmanaging to recreate something
that was extinct is incredible,and then bringing it back and
see how it was, and and then itopens the the door to so many uh
(46:19):
why not dinosaurs, you know?
Like it's well, you know, I wasI was a kid when Jurassic Park
came out, so I think it would beamazing, but we already struggle
to live on a planet where thereare so many people and so few
wildlife species left.
We're already struggling to livewith the small carnivores that
(46:43):
we have.
I'm talking about jackals inAfrica, um, coyotes in the US,
red fox in Europe.
Bringing such a big animal, evenif it's not a carnivore, um,
when we see what's happeningwith the elephants in in Africa
or in Asia, I think it's it'stoo late to do something like
this.
(47:03):
We would need to completelychange our way of thinking about
nature, of our relationship withnature.
We would need to be a lot moreum tolerant and leave space for
other species, um, which I thinkwe really don't do at the
moment.
We don't know how to do.
So I don't think it would bereasonable.
SPEAKER_00 (47:26):
Yeah, that sounds like a very sensible answer.
I also don't really know what myanswer to that question is, but
I think I'd uh I agree witheverything that you just said
now.
I mean, maybe in a, you know,that is expected that the human
population is going to peak uhtoward the end of the century so
and then decline quite fast.
So who knows, maybe in a coupleof hundred years' time it would
(47:47):
be more reasonable to dosomething and also more
possible, right?
Because the technology wouldhave would have advanced.
SPEAKER_01 (47:52):
I think it would be good to already learn to live
with the wildlife we have leftin the different places, um, and
and maybe be a bit less uhcontrolling on the environment.
That's why I like the idea ofrewelding.
We let nature do its thing, welook, uh, that doesn't mean we
we think everything nature isdoing is great, but you know,
(48:14):
maybe being a bit lesscontrolling because uh that
would be interesting, I think.
Um, and restoring all thoseprocesses is really important
for human well-being andsurvival.
And sometimes I think we forgetthat.
SPEAKER_00 (48:35):
Next time I will probably be speaking with
well-known political scientistRoger Pilke Jr., who is known
for his data-driven and criticalanalysis of how science and
policy interact in the world ofclimate and environmental
decision making.
Roger is consideredcontroversial by many
environmentalists, but hisacademic record speaks for
(48:56):
itself, and we'll be delvinginto what he's published.
I hope you can join us.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.