What is Rewilding and what does it do differently?

Traditional conservation efforts have been known to focus on restoring species and habitats in isolation and have been guilty or unknowingly working whilst applying the ‘shifting baseline syndrome’ – when conservationists strive to restore species or habitats to previous states which had already been altered or degraded. Rewilding differs in approach by presuming that nature knows how to manage landscapes best and there is no ‘desired state’ to reach, only a wilder one. It instead facilitates towards a healthy, resilient, and rich natural state. And so, rewilding focuses on restoring important components of nature that are absent then lets nature take over. This could mean helping to repair the following natural processes: grazing, predation, regeneration, and decomposition. For example, rewilding interventions that rebuild populations of vultures who rid the landscape of potential diseases when they consume carcasses.

2. Rewilding not only repairs biodiversity damage, but it also enhances it

Companies wishing to assess and reduce their impact on natural capital – natural assets like geology, soil, air, water, and life - often come into difficulty in determining the scale of their impact. This is especially the case if supply chains are complex and significant impacts occur further upstream where raw materials are extracted. One way to start addressing this is to invest in projects which have a Net Positive Impact on biodiversity; they create an overall better effect on the variety of life on earth.

One such example is the reintroduction of keystone species – those that have a profoundly positive impact on their ecosystem – back into their natural habitat. Take the European Bison as an example, their movements on the land control the overgrowth of certain vegetation; they provide food for insects and fertilizer for plants with their dung; and their carcasses feed a variety of animals.

4. There is an over-reliance on carbon-offsetting to mitigate against climate change

One of the most popular ways businesses seek to reduce their impact has been to offset their carbon emissions. While there is definitely value in carbon offsetting, especially in the scale-up of energy efficiencies, the lack of transparency, accountability and concerns raised over the credibility of international standards has tainted carbon-offsetting schemes and their perceived effectiveness.  This is particularly the case with forestry protection schemes where additionality is difficult to demonstrate. A scheme has ‘additionality’ if it can prove that the amount of carbon captured wouldn’t have happened without the scheme’s contribution.  However, cases have arisen where offsets are sold to prevent deforestation, but there weren’t ever any plans to deforest or deforestation occurs in another forest instead.

Growing agreement amongst conservationists and scientists now suggests businesses must look to avoid, reduce, and rehabilitate before even considering carbon offsetting. The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) stresses the importance of implementing change in this order so companies do not "sidestep on-site environmental protection and management". In addition to the avoidance and reduction of emissions, businesses are turning to rewilding to play a proactive part in the restoration of ecosystems and biodiversity. Those who partner with rewilding organisations in conservation efforts can reap the rewards (outlined in the next section) and can showcase the good that can be achieved together. This partnership also has the potential to lead to more environmentally conscious approaches being adopted within businesses themselves further down the line.