Unfinished business on rewilding - a comparison between Rewilding Britain and Rewilding Europe


Its peak bluebell season in local woods, and yet somehow I find myself begrudging the presence of so many people, rarely seen at any other time, when I have walked those woods for 12 months of the year. It is their leaving of the paths and the trampling of the bluebells so that their photograph can be taken amongst them that irks. It’s not as if they are following roe deer trails, which would at least lessen their impact on the ground flora. Am I being too precious? Shouldn’t I welcome this attention to woodland, despite its momentary engagement?

Never far from the idiocy of conservation management

I am less troubled out on the rocky foreshores at low tide, where few people venture far from the surer footing strandlines nearer the high water mark. Yet I wish more would take an interest other than shepherding out the odd child to go pond netting, but I do not welcome the voracious winkle pickers who seem bent on taking every one of these molluscs. The rocky foreshores at low tide are fabulous worlds of colour and life that I return to again and again for inspiration and sheer enjoyment. Recently back from five days on the Northumberland coast, I was very lucky with the weather when so much else of the North had snow, although the Cheviot Hills in the distance were capped with white. The waves were stupendous, crashing against the rocks at high tide. Further out, on Braidcarr Rocks and Annstead Rocks at low tide, the rocks are covered in colourful gardens of seaweeds, from dark red through pink, to yellow-brown, orange, green and brown, the green of their chlorophyll being variously masked by xanthophyll pigments (see green, brown and red seaweeds in (1)). The irruption of colonies of a small button-like, yellow-brown seaweed became even more interesting when the larger, older buttons had long, narrow, strap-like, mostly unbranched, fronds growing from the centre of the button. They lay like tresses of hair over the rocks, but I would have liked to have seen them reaching upwards as they are uplifted at high tide. The common names of this seaweed are unsurprisingly Thongweed, Buttonweed, or Sea Spaghetti (Himanthalia elongata (2)).

Just as stunning were the rock pools, with the inevitable pink of coral weed (Corallina officinalis (3)) and encrusted coralline (Lithophyllum incrustans (4)). A few red-beaked shelducks were an uncommon sight for me, as they grazed on the low-tide rocks. More expected were the male and female eider ducks that were just milling around in the shelter of the harbour at Seahouses, or on low-tide rocks, before they will be going off-shore to the Farne Islands to breed, with only the females coming back to the foreshore with young later in the year. The cooing ah-whoo song of the male eider as it impresses a female is a very unduck-like (sound in (5)). Kittiwakes and fulmars were taking up occupancy of nesting sites on the few cliffs, their cacophonous sounds staking their territorial claims (sounds in (6,7)). Terns were arriving, their characteristic flight call alerting you to their presence before you set eyes on them (sound in (8)). The oystercatchers, which never desert us and are here all year, voice their characteristic grumpy alarm and then flight call when they fly off disturbed (sounds in (9)). A lone seal popped its head up.

While I revel in the colour and soundscape of these rocky Northumbrian foreshores, I am never far from the idiocy of conservation management, the dunes behind these foreshores targeted over the years for conservation grazing. I noted the futility of this back in 2007, the forlorn hope that grazing will somehow extend the area where the wild plants of the sparsely vegetated areas of the foredunes may take root (10). I have got fed up over the years tossing back clumps of weeds and piles of woody debris that presumably volunteers have dumped over the fence from the Northumberland Wildlife Trusts reserve onto the foredunes north of Beadnell. It is bad enough that this grazed reserve has sucked up agri-environment funding since 2008 (Entry Level plus Higher Level Stewardship - AG00266738) without having the insult of its trash despoiling the wild nature of the foredunes. I was particularly galled when the National Trust subsequently sought to fill its boots as well with agri-environment funding when it fenced off a narrow strip of land in 2010 immediately below the Northumberland Wildlife Trust reserve so that it too could be grazed (Entry Level plus Higher Level Stewardship Agreement Reference - AG00301684). The road side of this land has always been fenced and gated, but it is the obtrusiveness of the fencing along the foredune side, and its poor implementation of step-overs where the barbarity of the barbed wire is such that it is a hazard to those crossing over from a campsite to the beach. I took photographs with the intention of shaming the National Trust and Natural England, but you get tired of the studied avoidance of any responsibility for such mediocre work, and in the cause of a conservation dogma that has little to substantiate it because there is more likely to be a loss of existing botanical interest at this site than for it to gain anything new. While there was plenty of evidence of their presence in the piles of excrement, the ponies had been moved off that narrow strip and up to another National Trust fenced dune area to the north of Seahouses (within the same HLS agreement). However, a sign remains, entreating me not to feed the ponies:

“Through conservation grazing they are helping the wildflowers and coastal grasses to flourish”

A dichotomy that needs teasing out

The latter is the sort of rhetoric that usually ends up amongst my collection of the nonsense of conservation speak (11). I am less assiduous nowadays in keeping it up to date because I am so tired of having to be critical of a mainstream conservation dogma that is so insubstantially warranted that it should have dissolved away by now (12). In the same way, I’m tired of being bogged down in the mess that is “rewilding” now, trying to inject some sanity, and while I still have some unfinished business on that, I long to get back on to an exploration of nature connectedness over the coming months. That I have unfinished business, even despite expending so much effort on it recently (13,14) is a need to ever more puncture the conceit that continually refashions and reimages that conservation grazing. It ranges from advocacy of a “biocultural heritage”, an “eco-cultural nature”, from the likes of Ian Rotherham, a professor in Natural and Built Environment at Sheffield Hallam and a serial propagandist and self-publisher. He asserts that an historic time-line has been generated that supports the concept that cultural habitats and ecologies have descended from “analogues in the primeval European environment” – this is the justification of the Vera theory of open landscapes driven by herbivores – and which is put at threat by the withdrawal of that cultural pressure, that farming pressure, in a process of abandonment that Rotherham equates to “rewilding” (15). On the other hand, there are the passive and trophic “rewilders” like “Rewilding” Europe that believe that herbivore pressure is a missing natural process in maintaining naturally open landscapes  – the Vera theory of open landscapes driven by herbivores – and which must be reapplied to wherever there is allegedly abandoned land to “rewild” it (13,14,16). Thus while there is a shared belief between Rotherham and “Rewilding” Europe in the theories of Vera, the former sees abandonment as a result of “rewilding”, whereas the latter sees abandonment as being in need of “rewilding”. This dichotomy needs teasing out.

I am flattered that Rotherham accuses me (and Steve Carver, George Monbiot) of myth making: that the release from farming would not inherently be good for wildlife; that re-creating past landscapes is misleading and misinformed; and he gives the typical scare story that the self-will of nature-led land will result in it becoming clogged with invasive, non-native species (15). Rotherham has made “cultural severance” his catchphrase, seeing the end of “traditional and customary management” as being the most serious current threat for nature conservation. I can see having an argument with Rotherham would be hard going, as he often overlooks inconvenient evidence, such as the recent paper from Professor Mark Robinson, an environmental archaeologist at Oxford, who pretty much debunks the historical time-line support for Vera’s theories as being original nature (17). Robinson argues that the episodic nature of Neolithic agriculture, the opening of woodland for grazing and then abandonment after the land is grazed out, is akin to what Robinson calls “Vera cycles”, named after the cyclic nature of Vera’s hypothesis for woodland generation and break up. Robinson adds to the list of drawbacks inherent in accepting the Vera theory, with the issue of the spread of small-leaved lime being the most telling. Lime is a shade tolerant but grazing-vulnerable tree, which spread over large areas of England by the mid-Holocene in the face of whatever grazing pressure prevailed in the late Mesolithic. Also telling is this from Robinson (17):

“The evidence discussed above suggested that ‘Vera cycles’ did not occur in European woodland with a natural level of herbivores but they now occur when human interference has resulted in a higher population density of herbivores either by removing predators such as wolves or, as is the case for the ponies of the New Forest in England, by the grazing of domestic animals in the woodland”

Rotherham can’t even acknowledge an historical situation when population density and thus the impact of humans was so low as not to be a dominating force, as it probably was through much of the Mesolithic. Thus he has an unacknowledged dig at Trees for Life (18) by trashing its reinstatement of the Caledonian Pine Forest, asserting that it is “inherently wrong” to create patches of the forest (15):

“The reality is that most landscapes lacking trees in northern Scotland have done so for thousands of years. The history is that these were not ‘wild’, ‘natural’ areas but settled populated landscapes”

Rotherham also does not get what self-willed means, he doesn’t understand that it has no past, only a present and future state (19). He himself is wrong that release from farming is bad for wildlife, as is contradicted by Oxford ecologist Clive Hambler (20) as well as the evidence in front of anyone’s eyes if they visit Scar Close, a limestone pavement ungrazed since 1974 (21,22). He rarely offers evidence for most of his critique other than, as Steve observes, that the way he backs up all his assertions is with references to his own assertions made in other papers written by him, which no doubt reference the same assertions he makes elsewhere. What Rotherham wants is wilder landscapes, but not so wild that there is not still a cultural connection, an ecocultural landscape that has a biocultural heritage. Thus he references large herbivore projects such as at Knepp in Sussex and Ennerdale in the Lake District that “offer alternative visions of a wilder futurescape that resonates with many historic landscapes”

Evidence of repeated betrayals

Knepp and Ennerdale are both herbivore (livestock) driven landscapes (23,24) that suck on stonkingly large agri-environment funding: £2.54 million at Knepp (Organic Entry Level plus Higher Level Stewardship - AG00294632) and £1.53 million at Ennerdale (Organic Entry Level plus Higher Level Stewardship - AG00344307, and Entry Level plus Higher Level Stewardship - AG00478850). As I have noted before, Ennerdale has the distinction of being the most over-promoted, but critically unscrutinised restoration project in England that just keeps on giving up evidence of repeated betrayals (24, 25). The latest one I have found turned up in a case study report from 2009, before I became a member of its Advisory Group, but which now puts into context much of the issues of contention that I had. The case studies were prepared for Natural England as examples of land use initiatives that demonstrate “multi-functional use of land”. That description in itself should ring warning bells. The report notes that Natural England occupies a “distinctive and unique position within the project”, that one of its roles as the ”gateway to agri-environment funding” has an “impact particularly on the valley” with the local NE officer regularly attending Ennerdale partnership meetings (26):

“The relationship between the partnership and Natural England is significantly closer than with other stakeholders”

The report’s authors foresaw the consequences of this relationship, and which I subsequently discovered, that Ennerdale was being used by Natural England as a demonstration of the use of agri-environment funding to encourage local farmers to have less dependence on sheep farming by switching to cattle, and to “move further from production oriented farming towards “conservation-led livestock management”” even though there were “no specified or measurable benefits to be delivered on particular timescales set out in the documentation”. It is this “conservation-led livestock management” that presumably Rotherham would approve of as being culturally connected, but what you have to consider is that the project was sold on the basis of it being “Wild Ennerdale”, with a goal of “enhancing its special qualities through allowing natural processes rather than human intervention to shape the landscape, ecology and experience”. What natural processes? What we are seeing is a heavily subsidised cattle farming business being enforced onto a Forestry Commission plantation that has been bashed about to create open areas for the cattle, and which the report highlights as being an issue for the quality of the water abstracted from Ennerdale Lake because of the risk of contamination with cryptosporidium through cattle grazing along the River Liza that drains into the lake. There were only a few cattle in the valley (first introduced in 2006) at the time of the report in 2009 when the first agri-environment agreement was being put in place to fund it (see above) the Ennerdale Partnership asserting that it had addressed the issue of contamination by “commissioning risk assessments specific to Ennerdale, while meanwhile allowing limited numbers of cattle on the catchment” (26). The question has to be asked whether those risk assessments were modified by the massive increase in cattle within the valley after the second agri-environment agreement in 2013 was put in place (see above) the agreement taking me by surprise (24). Moreover, I wonder if there will ever be compliance with the proposed new basic rules for farmers to tackle diffuse water pollution from agriculture in England that require livestock be excluded from water courses to “Reduce pollution by stopping excreta dropping into watercourses” – see Rule 11 in (28).

Comparing “Rewilding” Britain with “Rewilding” Europe

Surprisingly, there is a connection between Ennerdale, along with Knepp and Trees for Life, and “Rewilding” Europe, since the former are referenced as projects supported by “Rewilding” Britain in a recent evaluation report of “Rewilding” Europe that I briefly commented on last time (14). That the evaluation report contrasts “Rewilding” Britain with “Rewilding” Europe opens up the perils we face here in being seen to mimic in anyway the nonsense that is “Rewilding” Europe. The evaluation report was commissioned by Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (PBL) the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, an autonomous research institute within the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (29). The remit of PBL covers researching future social trends and issues in ecological policy, and identification of possible strategic options for achieving government objectives for nature. A frightening implication arises through its commissioning by PBL, that “Rewilding” Europe could be being looked at for funding in delivering Dutch nature policy. That it is a soft evaluation of “Rewilding” Europe by a couple of doctoral students - because it is mainly based on what “Rewilding” Europe told these students - only makes it more frightening, especially when it surmises that as “Rewilding” Europe’s 10-year project term progresses, “governments will play a more substantial role in implementing more flexible rules and regulations for rewilding interventions” (30). The latter is in relation to a recommendation that the authors of the evaluation make for “changes in the wild status of newly introduced ‘wild’ herbivores” and while it is not openly acknowledged in the report, this is “Rewilding” Europe’s aspiration, announced elsewhere, that their plastic aurochs will eventually be allowed to be free living, unlike the cattle they are bred from that as domestic livestock have to be restrained by fencing (31):

“Through selective breeding or back-breeding, the Tauros animals are expected to around the year 2025, again have the right, fully natural characteristics of the aurochs and to by then be officially recognized as a normal wildlife species”

If you are wondering why the evaluation report mentions “Rewilding” Britain, it notes that even though “Rewilding” Europe has “pioneered the practice of rewilding in Europe” from its “invention” by them in 2010, there are “contingent developments” that “match or mismatch its efforts”. The match presumably comes from “similar practices in Rewilding Britain”, the mismatch from “distinct regeneration of forests by Trees for Life”. As you would expect, Trees for Life is the sticking point in the propagation of the “more open European landscapes” of “Rewilding” Europe’s approach noted in the evaluation, although in typical fashion, “Rewilding” Europe avoided justifying this with any evidence for the assertions it makes about natural processes (30):

“Whether European landscapes were more open or not in the past is, in any case, not a very productive question considering how human practices dominantly left their traces in contemporary Europe (N-1). Instead we should ponder whether Europe is willing and able to leave its land to more natural processes that can make its landscapes more open”

The evaluation notes that “Rewilding” Britain does not focus on any particular landscape type – “Forests are, for example, not per se meant to be more open”. Instead “Rewilding” Britain is seen to have a “particular focus on carnivores and restoring top-down trophic interactions….but it does not explicitly intend to introduce surrogate grazers such as cows and horses, although it does support projects that make use of cattle grazing such as the Knepp estate and Wild Ennerdale”. The evaluation then gives a history of Trees for Life, noting that the Highlands have become “areas of barren plains” from sheep and deer, and that the “highlands would be restored by replanting indigenous trees and shrubs, and by reintroducing carnivores and other animals. In this light, rewilding is different from re-opening closed forests through grazing. Trees for Life aims to reduce the impact of grazing in order to reclose forests again”

The evaluation notes that initiatives are developing throughout Europe “yet each has its own interpretation and practice of the term ‘rewilding’”. This difference in interpretation comes up again when making comparisons in approach between “Rewilding” Europe and “Rewilding” Britain, but with Trees for Life being the odd one out again – “Rewilding Britain seems to uphold a similar approach, yet its emphasis in projects like Trees for Life differs from the more popular vision of more open European landscapes in the continental approach taken by Rewilding Europe”. Having established this difference, there are then contradictory statements about “Rewilding” Britain in the opening to the Discussion. The first notes the “similar ideals” of “Rewilding” Britain “but with a the emphasis on the production of ‘open landscapes’, which is also present in the visions of Rewilding Europe”. It then becomes a “similar approach” of “Rewilding” Britain, but then repeats the distinction created by the approach of Trees for Life – “yet its emphasis in projects like Trees for Life differs from the vision of more open European landscapes currently favoured under the continental approach by Rewilding Europe”

It may be that the first statement in the Discussion is just a sloppy mistake by the authors, as is shown by the “with a the”! The evaluation report does give the repeated impression that “Rewilding” Europe invented “rewilding” in 2010 and that it alone possesses the authentic approach. The likelihood is that this impression is just reflecting the tenor of the interviews that the authors had with personnel from “Rewilding” Europe, such as the quotation I gave above about openness and natural processes, as well as this instance, where I suspect in both that N-1 is Wouter Helmer, co-founder and “Rewilding Director” of the “Rewilding” Europe (30):

“Rewilding Europe claims that it was not aware of the rewilding movement in the United States (N-1) when it ‘invented’ the term ‘rewilding’ in 2010”

The hard issues about “rewilding”

These comparisons of “Rewilding” Britain with “Rewilding” Europe are not helpful, but it does go to show the tensions that are created by the projects supported by "Rewilding" Britain seemingly facing in opposite directions, and when the facile assumption by the unengaged is that “rewilding” is only about the “more popular vision of more open European landscapes in the continental approach taken by Rewilding Europe”. So, approaches to ecological restoration are to be based on popularity rather than ecological science? Moreover, criticism is building not only on the shifting sands of the definition of “rewilding” (14) but also on its lack of underpinning. The latter is evidenced by the now underway development of the POSTnote briefing on “Ecological rewilding” by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST (32)) and to which I had submitted a perspective on the topic to POST in advance of work starting (14,33). The hard issues about “rewilding” are raised straight away in the introduction to the POSTnote topic eg. “the complexities remain poorly understood with limited amounts of empirical data” and that “rewilding projects are being implemented in the advance of the science of what would be most effective for conservation of native biodiversity, following media popularisation of the approach” plus “There is a need to develop evidence-based arguments and explore the broad-range of effects of rewilding” (32). These are all sentiments also expressed in the Pandoras box critique of “rewilding” published in Current Biology that I covered last time (14, 34).

The launch of “Rewilding” Britain is mentioned in the POSTnote topic introduction, as are Knepp and Ennerdale as small scale projects. Given the need for “Rewilding” Britain still to make an impact, I think that the tensions about “rewilding” are in critical need of addressing, and which I identified a few months ago when I questioned how the broad church of interest that is currently associated with “Rewilding” Britain can be accommodated within a high aspiration for natural vegetation, but without compromising it, when you won’t see anything about restoration of natural vegetation being a key aim on the “Rewilding” Britain website (35). I pointed out that you can get a measure of how broad a church that is by looking at the projects supported by “Rewilding” Britain, and where the hyperbole and lies of the likes of Ennerdale are repeated, and of other areas that are herbivore-driven and gorging on agri-environment subsidy. Well, well, a couple of doctoral students in the Netherlands in their contrast of "Rewilding" Britain with "Rewilding" Europe have also been able to pick up on the tension that this broad church creates, by noting the disparate aspirations and approaches within the projects supported by “Rewilding” Britain.

A spectrum of increasing wildland experience

It is difficult to get people to have the discipline to recognise and acknowledge these distinctions, when instead it is easier just to lump everything into one amorphous category. However, that risks a defining of “rewilding” through popularity rather than any coherent measure of its approach to ecological restoration. Steve recently coined the terms rewilding-lite” and “rewilding-max” as a short hand distinction to what he acknowledges as points along a wildland continuum/spectrum (36). Earlier, almost nine years ago, I gave a view of that spectrum in terms of increasing wildland experience, based partly on “rewilding” initiatives that had so far started in Britain, and on some of the wilder places I had walked (37). While it is a long list, it is worth repeating here so that you see where I respectively placed Ennerdale, Knepp and Trees for Life in that spectrum, even accepting that I seem back then to have bought in to some of the hyperbole about Ennerdale and Knepp:

  • Farmland that is influenced by the move to funding schemes for greater environmental stewardship;

  • Hybrids of farming or other land use with nature conservation that include Wicken Fen, the Great Fen, Marr Lodge etc., anything the Grazing Animal Project and the RSPB does, most of what the Wildlife Trusts do, the National Forest (but this initiative could be promoted into the next category if there was some visionary planning on new woodland use), and Wild ENNERDALE as it is now but, depending on what happens with its land use, it could move up

  • Genuinely new developments in productive land use that better integrate natural processes, such as savannah grazing (as in the regenerative Wildland Project at the KNEPP Castle Estate), Forest Habitat Networks, agroforestry, forest farming, continuous cover forestry; protection of water catchment through regeneration of native forestry such as at Loch Katrine;

  • Some National Nature Reserves, but not SACs, SPAs, SSSI because the designation often imposes too high a management intervention for wildness to be apparent; most of the coastal realignments such as Wallasea, Alkborough, Alnmouth, Freiston;

  • The greater provision of often publicly owned, local, close to urban, lightly managed woodland and green space (green infrastructure) and including some Local Nature Reserves and any nearby recreational Forestry Commission woodland (i.e. Southey Woods), all of which have little or no extractive use, but where public access is encouraged; many Woodland Trust local woodland projects; quarries reclaimed by native woodland that have access;

  • Rewilding projects with open access that set off uncompromisingly to regenerate naturally vegetated landscapes that will not then be commercially extracted, such as Carrifran, Hardknott Forest in the Duddon Valley, the Gairloch Estate in Wester Ross, the areas of Caledonian pine forest regenerated by TREES FOR LIFE;

  • Non or minimal intervention ancient woodland of reasonable size and predominantly of native broadleaf (Colt Park Wood, Ling Gill) or native conifer composition; coastal cliffs, sand dunes and bars, and undeveloped estuaries and salt marshes;

  • Future, large-scale, publicly owned Core Wild Areas or Large Natural Habitat Areas that will cement the concept and values of wildland into the British landscape, and which will allow sufficient area and habitat for the functional ecology of natural process to prevail, and where the successful reintroduction of extirpated mammalian species can take place. These CWA/LNHA would be nodes, buffered and networked by other wildland types of the continuum

It was never my choice to name a new organisation to promote ecological restoration in Britain as “Rewilding” Britain (38) because it does not need a crystal ball to have foreseen that this would end up in it being compared with “Rewilding” Europe, and that there would be a presumption that “Rewilding” Britain would share the nonsense panacea of the “more popular vision of more open European landscapes” of “Rewilding” Europe. It goes to the credibility of “Rewilding” Britain that it resist that presumption, that it always distances itself from “Rewilding” Europe, and that it is capable of differentiating between the distinctions in aspiration and approach at different points along the wildland spectrum.

Mark Fisher 5 May 2016

(1) The Seaweed Site: information on marine algae


(2) Himanthalia elongata, The Seaweed Site


(3) Corallina officinalis, The Seaweed Site


(4) Lithophyllum incrustans, The Seaweed Site


(5) Common Eider: Somateria mollissima, Xeno-canto Foundation - Sharing bird sounds from around the world


(6) Black-legged Kittiwake: Rissa tridactyla,  Xeno-canto Foundation - Sharing bird sounds from around the world


(7) Northern Fulmar: Fulmarus glacialis,  Xeno-canto Foundation - Sharing bird sounds from around the world


(8) Common Tern: Sterna hirundo,  Xeno-canto Foundation - Sharing bird sounds from around the world


(9) Eurasian Oystercatcher: Haematopus ostralegus,  Xeno-canto Foundation - Sharing bird sounds from around the world


(10) Harting Down - obsession with conserving man-made landscapes, Self-willed land November 2007


(11) The nonsense of conservation speak, Self-willed land


(12) Pullin, A. S., Knight, T. M., Stone, D. A., & Charman, K. (2004). Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biological conservation 119: 245-252


(13) The free for all of trophic rewilding, Self-willed land January 2016


(14) Trophic occupancy and the rehabilitation of the meaning of rewilding, Self-willed land April 2016


(15) Rotherham, I.D. (2015) Bio-cultural heritage and biodiversity: emerging paradigms in conservation and planning. Biodivers Conserv 24:3405–3429


(16) Bison habitat preference becomes a pawn in the disputed natural vegetation cover of Europe, Self-willed land November 2015


(17) Robinson. M. (2014) The ecodynamics of clearance in the British Neolithic, Environmental Archaeology. 19: 291-297


(18) What we do, Trees for Life


(19) Wild Park, Brighton - not so wild now, Self-willed land December 2013


(20) Hambler, C. (2015) Evidence-based or evidence-blind? Priorities for revitalising conservation. ECOS 36(3/4): 22-25


(21) Rare and precious – words devalued by the conservation industry, Self-willed land May 2011


(22) Saying goodbye to ash, Self-willed land January 2013


(23) What is rewilding? Self-willed land September 2013


(24) Large carnivores as the focal species for reinstatement of natural processes in Britain, Self-willed land November 2014


(25) Watching the naturalness return to the Carrifran Valley, Self-willed land April 2015


(26) Annex A. Wild Ennerdale. In Defra land use project: demonstration case studies workstream (TP1688). Prepared for Natural England by In-House Policy Consultancy, March 2009


(28) Consultation on new basic rules for farmers to tackle diffuse water pollution from agriculture in England, DEFRA September 2015


(29) About PBL, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency


(30) Pellis, A. and de Jong, R. (2016) Rewilding Europe as a new agent of change? : exploring the governance of an experimental discourse and practice in European nature conservation. Wageningen University


(31) Large herd of Sayaguesa cattle brought to Velebit for the Tauros Programme. Rewilding Europe 28 November 2014


(32) Ecological rewilding, Environment and Energy, Areas of Work, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology


(33) Ecological rewilding: Planned work, ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Wildland Research Institute February 2016


(34) Nogues-Bravo D., Simberloff D., Rahbek C., Sanders N.J. (2016) Rewilding is the new Pandora’s box in conservation. Current Biology 26: 87-91


(35) A challenge to Rewilding Britain, Self-willed land August 2015


(36) Carver, S. (2014) Making real space for nature: a continuum approach to UK conservation ECOS 35(3/4): 4-15


(37) Wildness in the literary landscape, Self-willed land July 2007


(38) The challenge of Lost Island - making ourselves wilder, Self-willed land September 2014



www.self-willed-land.org.uk  mark.fisher@self-willed-land.org.uk