BY PAULA NUNES

Dear Editor,

I read with interest Calum Campbell’s Blackgame Dewilding article of April 30th in your magazine.

I see that rewilding has become a focal point in environmental discussions in the UK, with proponents highlighting its benefits in enhancing biodiversity and helping ecosystems adapt to climate change.

Rewilders’ idea seems to be to allow lands, often previously used for grazing, to revert to a more natural state. This rewilding process can have several positive effects. For instance, plants in rewilded areas absorb significant amounts of carbon dioxide, mitigating climate change. Additionally, these plants help manage water more effectively, reducing flood risks by storing rainwater in their leaves and allowing it to filter into the ground.

Biodiversity, crucial for human survival, has been shown to benefit immensely from good rewilding. Many of the medicines we rely on come from plants, and a diverse ecosystem supports a wide range of flora and fauna, which in turn supports human life. Rewilding can help reverse species extinction by reintroducing vital plant and animal species. For example, the reintroduction of beavers in parts of the UK has, in some parts as compared to other unsuccessful projects, improved water quality and created new habitats for other wildlife.

Despite these benefits, rewilding is not without its drawbacks. Mismanaged rewilding projects can cause harm to existing biodiversity. A notable example is the now infamous Oostvaardersplassen project in the Netherlands. Here, introduced species such as Konik horses and Heck cattle overgrazed the land, leading to vegetation loss and a significant die-off of animals during harsh winters due to food scarcity.

Rewilding can also disrupt local economies. Farming, particularly sheep farming, and crop production can suffer as rewilded areas are no longer available for agriculture. This has economic implications, as farmers lose their livelihood. However, there are examples where small-scale rewilding on farms has improved biodiversity and provided benefits like better water management and a more diverse diet for livestock.

Aesthetic concerns also play a role in the rewilding debate. Iconic landscapes such as the Lake District and the Somerset Levels are valued for their managed beauty. Rewilding these areas could change their appearance, which may not be welcomed by those who cherish these traditional landscapes.

The controversy surrounding rewilding is further fuelled by its ambiguous definition. For some, rewilding means minimal human intervention, while others see it as a slight shift in land management practices. This lack of clarity leads to misunderstandings and resistance, as different stakeholders have conflicting visions of what rewilding should achieve.

Given these complexities, an alternative approach might be more impactful on a global scale. Planting trees in the Amazon rainforest, for instance, addresses several pressing environmental issues more effectively than localised rewilding in the UK. The Amazon is a crucial carbon sink, absorbing vast amounts of carbon dioxide and playing a vital role in regulating the global climate. Additionally, the Amazon supports unparalleled biodiversity, and its deforestation has severe consequences for global ecosystems.

Investing in reforestation in the Amazon offers multiple benefits. It helps combat climate change by sequestering carbon, preserves biodiversity, and supports indigenous communities who depend on the forest. For example, reforestation projects have been shown to restore habitats for endangered species and improve local livelihoods through sustainable practices. Maybe British taxpayers should be spending on this rather than wasting their monies on local rewilding projects, especially if they believe in the extinctionists’ ‘climate emergency’.

Furthermore, global agreements like the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework highlight the importance of addressing biodiversity loss on a worldwide scale. Focusing resources on reforestation in the Amazon aligns with these international goals and provides a more significant global impact compared to petty rewilding efforts in the UK.

While rewilding in the UK has its merits, it often appears surplus and unnecessary when considering the broader environmental challenges humans face. Redirecting efforts towards planting trees in critical areas like the Amazon rainforest can achieve more substantial global benefits. This approach not only helps mitigate climate change but also supports biodiversity and human communities on a larger scale. A balanced strategy that prioritises both local and global environmental needs is essential for creating a sustainable future.

Yours faithfully,

Paula Nunes

Anápolis, Brazil