From antagonistic conservation to biodiversity democracy in rewilding

The importance of conservation is matched by its potential to provoke contention, especially for rewilding. Treating rural peoples as biodiversity “problems” has given way viewing them “solutions,” but most needed a turn toward democracy, resolving conflicts and balancing rural-urban interests despite knowledge value disagreements. According the 2019 Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity Ecosystem Services global assessment report, some 1 million species may be threatened with extinction. Many drivers loss, including alterations in land use overexploitation, have only accelerated last 50 years. After failing meeting 2020 Aichi Targets, Convention Biological Diversity been developing set goals action-oriented targets Post-2020.1Perino A. Pereira H.M. Felipe-Lucia M. Kim H. Kühl H.S. Marselle M.R. Meya J.N. Meyer C. Navarro L.M. van Klink R. et al.Biodiversity post-2020: Closing gap between national-level implementation.Conservation Lett. 2021; : e12848https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12848Crossref Scopus (6) Google Scholar These ambitious aim not stabilize loss 2030 also allow recovery area, connectivity, integrity natural ecosystems 15% 2050. To achieve these goals, combination all sea under integrated spatial planning, effective implementation protected areas conserving wilderness 30% planet, placing 20% degraded restoration targets. In order large-scale will required, rewilding one approaches that deployment.2Perino Fernandez N. Bullock J.M. Ceaușu S. Cortés-Avizanda Kuemmerle T. Lomba al.Rewilding complex ecosystems.Science. 2019; 364: eaav5570https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav5570Crossref PubMed (193) concept evolved since late 20th century. Earlier emphasis large connecting corridors carnivores focusing complexity promoting ecological succession dynamic functional view ecosystems.2Perino Rewilded habitats are defined their resilience recurring disturbances such fire. Trophic relationships multiplex diverse. Species interactions “engineer” environment. Rewilding practice encompasses many strategies, agricultural abandonment, allowing vegetation dynamics urban parks, diversifying forests, non-management disturbances, reintroductions, restoring connectivity. But goal eventually realizing more self-regulating landscapes. Ecosystems inexorably intertwined human society. Wilder landscapes present both risks benefits people. experience can culturally psychologically valuable, high-integrity provide number services beings, flood protection, pollination, wildlife game. changes invariably come risk social conflicts. People already live could targeted rewilding, inside outside areas. Currently, over quarter billion people areas, reach area expansion scenarios.3Schleicher J. Zaehringer J.G. Fastré Vira B. Visconti P. Sandbrook Protecting half planet directly affect people.Nature. 2: 1094-1096https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0423-yCrossref (62) estimates do include other restoration, world population lives landscapes.4McDonald R.I. Mansur A.V. Ascensão F. Colbert Crossman K. Elmqvist Gonzalez Guneralp Haase D. Hamann al.Research gaps impact growth biodiversity.Nat. Sustainability. 2020; 3: 16-24https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0436-6Crossref (121) While interventions pose low or indirect (e.g., passive regeneration native grassland bring increased fire shrub encroachment), carnivore reintroduction recolonization higher perceived immediate local livelihoods even psychological distress among pastoralists.5Zahl-Thanem Burton R.J.F. Blekesaune Haugen M.S. Rønningen wolves farmers Norway.J. Rural Stud. 78: 1-11https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.05.010Crossref (10) Conservation’s relationship role evolved. were widely treated “problem” during much century (Table 1). this presenting residents at least theory. We argue averted idealizing either scientific knowledge. Rather, solution democracy.Table 1An overview competing frames movement, people, scienceStakeholder engagementDominant periodDistribution responsibilityOrientation knowledge/valuesRural problembefore 2000local communities responsible degradation biodiversityscientists conservationists (typically from backgrounds) prove how should managed protect source correct environmental valuesurban citizens scientists act prevent extractive behaviorRural solution2000–2020local best managers guardians study ILK incorporate it understanding learn traditional systemsurban main through remote impactsBiodiversity democracyafter 2020both key stakeholders actors landscapesa diversity values preferences nature across needs incorporated democratic decision making rewildingscientific applied implementing solutions Open table new tab Throughout century, policy increasingly “followed science.” United States elsewhere, issues decreasingly settled process, becoming administrative matter experts and/or decided within court system.6Dax M.J. Grizzly West: A Failed Attempt Reintroduce Bears Mountain West. University Nebraska Press, 2015Crossref Traditionally, seen having privilege “speak for” which ostensibly When spoken nature, agriculture ways life usually absent target critique. spread indigenous hunting gathering often blamed losses biodiversity. For years, science presumed rather than demonstrated non-native habitat “non-habitats.”7Vellend Behavioral economics scientists.Philos. Top. 47: 219-237https://doi.org/10.5840/philtopics201947112Crossref rendered part “the problem” default. Interview data bear out. Katherine Cramer’s interviews Wisconsinites, resentment university researchers bureaucrats was motivated feeling latter held contempt life. Residents saw interlopers who refused acknowledge did possess.8Cramer Politics Resentment: Consciousness Wisconsin Rise Scott Walker. Chicago 2016Crossref Conservation efforts floundered because resentment. instance, proposed introduction grizzly bears Montana’s Bitterroot Mountains stymied polarization mistrust. came symbolize declining “Old West,” built upon ranching, mining, forestry, ascendance “New West”, ecotourism. sort invasion, an imposition vision believed urban, liberal newcomers. “real” advocates extermination Old West lifeways. One landowner put bluntly: “I don’t think about bears. This power.” compromise plan languished amidst increasing gridlock before fading into irrelevancy.6Dax historical episode illustrates rewilding’s Even cases involve strikingly similar. Wetland former border East Germany succumbed resistance. Farmers cited worries possible damage fields felt compelled “narrate histories, decades-long grievances,” effort attempt impose anti-agricultural “ideology.”9Pieck S.K. Conserving novel layered along inter-German border.Landscape Res. 45: 346-358https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2019.1623183Crossref (2) No doubt short except history exclusion, stretches back removal groups national parks arguably continues contemporary push Summarized “ideal type,” where everywhere superior know-how. It pristine results being privileged those biodiverse now realize turns enemies. recognize (ILK) ( Table forest gardens tended First Nations Pacific Northwest richness surrounding landscape, 150 years after end management communities.10Armstrong C.G. Miller J.E.D. Ritchie P.M. Lepofsky Historical land-use explains plant trait diversity.Ecol. Soc. 26: 6https://doi.org/10.5751/es-12322-260206Crossref And similar studies exist pastoral forestry systems.11Ellis E.C. Gauthier Klein Goldewijk Bliege Bird Boivin Díaz Fuller D.Q. Gill J.L. Kaplan J.O. Kingston al.People shaped terrestrial 12,000 years.P Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 118e2023483118https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023483118Crossref (147) necessarily require “pristine” nature. At level, recognized this. political discourse Scotland found rewilders distancing themselves narrative creating without unilaterally imposing animal reintroductions. “new storyline” emphasizes essential beneficiaries “nature-based economies.”12Martin Fischer McMorran Smith Taming – social: How people.Land Use Policy. 111: 105677https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105677Crossref (7) recognition turning solution.” NGOs like World Wildlife Federation declare majority Such statements omit complicated questions regarding practices actually so protective. Polynesians driven extinction up bird Central 4,000 1,000 ago,13Pimm S.L. Moulton M.P. Justice L.J. extinctions central Pacific.Philos. T 1994; 344: 27-33Crossref arrival humans regions several megafauna Pleistocene.14Barnosky A.D. Koch P.L. Feranec R.S. Wing Shabel A.B. Assessing causes Late Pleistocene continents.Science. 2004; 306 (5693): 70-75https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1101476Crossref (716) Centuries deforestation grazing Mediterranean mountain landscapes, leading corrective state afforestation programs 19th confrontation communities.15Navarro abandoned Europe.Ecosystems. 2012; 15: 900-912https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-012-9558-7Crossref (416) “modern” societies blame, anthropological evidence nevertheless shows always ecologically friendly. addition, too presented impoverished reasoning potentially enhanced. talk plurality, learning depicted one-way street. recent article rightfully critiques ends concluding protection means simply “empowering stewardship Indigenous communities.”11Ellis “Rural solution” ideal type polar opposite “people problem.” denigration culture replaced romanticization, Commodification Poverty, schemes associated maintaining populations hamper capacity adapt deal economic demographic changes.16Penna-Firme Brondízio E. commodifying poverty: communities, Quilombola identity, Brazil.Habitus. 2007; 5: 355-373https://doi.org/10.18224/hab.v5.2.2007.355-373Crossref Urban no longer saviors tasked empirically verifying wisdom values. form “epistocracy,” wherein subset knowledges dictate action development pathways. debate mirrors disputes public administration technology rightful expertise. reflected today discourse, divided “follow science” populist pleas respect “common sense” ordinary dilemma persists tendency mistake problems, something repeated Both urbanites legitimate stake decisions, involving cultural, experiential, economic, values, if farther away. Resolving doesn’t really “indigenizing” systems urbanites, neither people’s inclusion hinge robustness “traditional knowledge” adherence certain ideas nativeness. Instead, answer lies doing fairly negotiating find tentative work well enough stakeholders. insightful case involves biodiversity-enhancing agri-environmental schemes, flower planting delayed mowing, Dutch farmers. previous institutional arrangement emphasized control, frequent audits ensure individual compliance. Framing problems fostered frustration model, delegated responsibility planning farmers’ collectives, lowered transaction costs sowed goodwill. Some began seeing “guardians landscape.” participating environmentalists remained skeptical would enough, advance ecosystem antagonism apathy.17de Vries J.R. der Zee Beunen Kat Feindt P.H. Trusting system. Interrelation Interpersonal Trust collective management.Sustainability. 11: 7022https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247022Crossref (18) does nearly go far enough. Agri-environmental helpful inducing embrace moving away “problems.” lets mainly insofar they follow scientists’ instructions. democracy mutual giving broader influence setting Rewilders toxic chemical policy. bureaucratic system created Toxic Substance Control Act highly adversarial, relying definitively proving harms against costs. Industry demanded “sound slow moderately precautious “self-regulation.” Massachusetts, contrast, developed collaborative model Toxics Reduction Act. Firms pay fees proportion toxics. legislation institution, Institute, assist firms reducing chemicals. Together codevelop functionally equivalent benign substances processes. reduced 40% first 15 program, contrasting paltrier declines.18Rayner Sarewitz Policymaking post-truth world.Breakthrough 13https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-13-winter-2021/policy-making-in-the-post-truth-worldGoogle sidestepped antagonistic stalemate, mention endless debate. Most importantly, changed. Rather trying risks, Massachusetts tasks government together reduce hazards, interests. works asks combine distinct expertise answers. achieved locals adversaries, cultural productive balanced aspirations rewilders. focus interests, totally accept each other’s equally valid, goals. supranational better so-called “land sparing” “land-sharing” approaches. easy look calls dedicate third Earth see future them. still necessary, support incremental mosaic different uses. outcome policies kind socio-ecological succession. habitat, expect process evolving hopefully diverse resilient, take time. dimension different. replacement “intensive” “self-regulating” enabling participate story scientifically well-grounded trustworthy responsive. Support provided German-American Fulbright Commission German Centre Integrative Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, funded Foundation (FZT 118). authors