Defining rewilding for Scotland's public sector: research findings

4. Workshop: main findings

This section focuses on the themes and findings of an online deliberative workshop with public sector representatives held in April 2023. The workshop focused on discussing and defining rewilding for Scotland's public sector. The main findings were: the work by the IUCN CEM Rewilding Thematic Group is useful but some adaptation is required for Scotland's public sector; communication on rewilding can be challenging with different societal groups; and it will be useful to give more attention to how rewilding relates to existing terms and policy processes.

The main themes discussed in the workshop are outlined below.

Suitability of the International Union for Nature Conservation's (IUCN) Rewilding Thematic Group's definition of rewilding for Scotland

There was general cautious interest in the work and outputs of the IUCN Rewilding Thematic Group (RTG) work, but not unanimous support. In summary, the RTG definition was seen to need adaptation, whilst its principles to guide rewilding were supported but seen as requiring strengthened attention to social issues.

Figure 2 shows the results of a poll given to participants early in the workshop, after they had heard the presentation of the RTG's work by its co-chairs. During the discussion that followed, attendees identified several concerns or ideas for how a definition might be made more suitable for Scotland.

IUCN definition's suitability for use in Scotland (rated 1-4, with 4 being 'It is suitable' and 1 being 'It is not suitable': 13% answered '1', 26% answered '2', 39% answered '3' and 22% answered '4'."/>

The group accepted the definition's emphasis on restoring the autonomy of ecological processes – what one participant referred to as 'managed demanaging'. However, several attendees felt that the definition and principles could be strengthened. There were two main areas of concern: attention to social issues, and attention to accessibility. These are described below.

• Firstly, several participants strongly felt there was a need to strengthen attention to social aspects and issues. This point was made both by some of the academic experts and by some of the participants who work with rural communities, land-managers, and other stakeholder groups. The principles offered by the RTG do acknowledge the need to work with people and consider society. However, a few participants felt attention to these issues was relatively 'superficial', i.e. in not fully reflecting opportunities for empowerment, and so recommended more attention and prioritisation. Rewilding proposals that seek to truly engage with, empower and benefit local communities or other stakeholder groups require commitment, and may encounter tensions and challenge visions of rewilding in ways that are not easily resolved. One participant noted that other IUCN-related work, for example on Nature-Based Solutions, was more convincingly felt to reflect issues of rights and justice. This is an important point in the context of Scotland's goal for a Just Transition, and long-standing concerns around access and rights to land (for example, Warren, 2002). Other participants noted that Scotland already has its own commitments and guidance that relate to working for society, and especially for working with local communities. These apply to rewilding, as for any approach to land and landscape management.
• Secondly, several workshop participants suggested that the language of the IUCN Rewilding Thematic Group's definition may not be accessible to non-specialist audiences, for example as it uses several scientific terms such as 'trophic' and 'biota'. This point was made both by those who have contact with rural communities and other stakeholder groups, and also by those participants whose own backgrounds did not involve specialist environmental science training. This was agreed to be an important point for a definition that should be used and understood by individuals who do not have specialist ecological backgrounds. Additionally, those who worked with rural communities identified that some of the language within the RTG definition could be emotive and potentially provocative to some groups. Any use of the term rewilding is likely to inspire different reactions amongst different members of the public, ranging from inspiration and interest through to fear or hostility. It may be inevitable that the term 'rewilding' is associated with certain ideas, but any definition should not add to its controversy, as this prevents constructive communication.

It may therefore be useful to propose a specific definition for use in Scotland that is written in more accessible language, and that also places a greater emphasis on social issues. It was recommended that any use of the term in Scotland should allow opportunities for society to benefit from rewilding, and it should be clear that rewilding does not automatically preclude human presence in landscapes.

Two additional recommendations were made, to inform a definition:

• Firstly, any adjustments or new definitions should be confident, rather than defensive or apologetic. One participant suggested this, and several agreed. A useful definition of rewilding was felt to be one that asserted and bounded the possibility of rewilding, to inspire and guide action, without highlighting and encouraging debates over the more controversial aspects of rewilding.
• Secondly, several participants noted that Scotland already has commitments to working with and for communities affected by land management, especially under the Land Reform Act and Land Use Strategy. These commitments and their supporting guidance, such as the Scotland's Land Rights and Responsibilities Statement, should be referred to, and should not be duplicated in any new definitions or guidance on rewilding.

What other terms are seen as related or useful?

Workshop participants referenced several related and useful terms, including: 'restoration', 'regeneration', and the idea of 'enhancing' nature. These terms were felt to be useful, and to share rewilding's emphasis on encouraging and strengthening natural processes. They do not have the potentially provocative connotations of 'rewilding' noted above, which can complicate communication with some members of the public.

One participant noted that for most people the term 'wilderness' implies the absence of people and infrastructure, so can implicitly seem quite negative, or focused on emptiness. By comparison, these other terms may be more positive. For example, regeneration is associated with regenerative farming and agricultural land, a process which clearly involves a high degree of human activity and benefit.

However, the group agreed that many of these approaches had much in common, and what mattered was the ethos of supporting both nature and societal well-being. This was a relevant challenge for all parts of Scotland's land and landscapes; but the approaches and labels used were expected to vary in different situations. One participant pointed out that there had been a strong tradition on managing for nature in designated protected areas, but that strengthening natural processes was needed in all settings, from upland peatlands and agricultural land, to urban places such as city centres.

Several workshop attendees expressed interest in having an overview of the 'spectrum' of terms and concepts, to understand which are appropriate to select in particular contexts. The choice of terminology was expected to reflect situation, intention and also the stakeholder groups engaged or affected by a proposal. Several agreed that language must always be carefully chosen to reflect the audience one wishes to communicate with: what is engaging and motivating for one group may be alienating to others.

When or how is it useful for Scotland's public sector to refer to rewilding?

Most workshop participants felt there was not at present a strong need to refer to rewilding. There were several reasons for this. One important reason is that no Scottish policy documents or duties presently refer to rewilding. Indeed, there had been a deliberate decision not to refer to it within the recent Scottish Biodiversity Strategy. Additionally, some felt that there are no areas of land in Scotland that are large enough to allow autonomous ecological processes, so could not imagine a strict definition of rewilding ever being applicable.

For other participants, the connotations of rewilding meant that it is a term they were very reluctant to use. Points they raised included:

• Firstly, the focus on a return to a past state – which (rightly or wrongly) is associated by many with the 're' in 'rewilding' – was felt to be unhelpful and inappropriate. Prehistoric landscapes simply cannot be recreated in modern Scotland, especially given climate change.
• Additionally, some noted that the idea of 'wilderness' in Scotland is often applied to landscapes that are actually rather unnatural (for example, reflecting the results of muirburn^[12}) and potentially associated with past injustices and the Highland Clearances. As such, rewilding was referred to by one participant as a 'disruptive' concept, likely to be associated by some audiences with the exclusion or removal of people from landscapes, and with the introduction of large mammals such as wolves.
• The public should not be understood as unvarying: different sectors of society, communities and individuals can all hold different and potentially plural ideas about rewilding. That said, those with experience of working with land-managers and rural communities felt rewilding would provoke emotional and divisive responses from at least some of those that they had to work with; for this reason, they strongly preferred not to use the term.

Some of the workshop participants – but not all – did feel that a unified reference point might still be useful, to help respond to other organisations and groups using the term. Because rewilding is occasionally mentioned in the media and by other groups and organisations, many who hear the term may feel some level of familiarity with it. This familarity may engender more interest in discussing rewilding, than if other terms were used that sound more specialist or obscure. However, several other participants who work with communities and land-managers did not feel so confident that rewilding would be helpful in this way. They expected that the term rewilding would generate negative emotive reactions – for example, by land managers who fear loss of existing livelihoods, rural communities who oppose reintroductions of large mammals – and so they generally preferred to use terms that did not have 'baggage' (in other words, terms that did not already have strong preconceptions and were less likely to generate emotional reactions).

There was stronger interest in understanding the 'spectrum' of relationships between rewilding and other terms and concepts (see above ). There was also interest in highlighting any implications for existing designations, goals or activities, for example how it would relate to or affect UNESCO Biosphere Reserve goals (such as in the South of Scotland), which encourage a living and working countryside. One participant suggested reviewing the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) for references to rewilding.

Conclusion

This chapter has summarised the findings of an online deliberative workshop with public sector representatives held in April 2023, which focused on discussing and defining rewilding for Scotland's public sector.

As outlined above, the definition of rewilding that has been proposed by the International Union for Nature Conservation's Rewilding Thematic Group was very helpful for informing a discussion of rewilding, but attendees felt that it requires adjustment for use by the public sector in Scotland. A new definition is needed that emphasises the term's central meaning of creating autonomous natural processes, is written in accessible language, and which attends to social benefits and issues.

Any use of the term rewilding is likely to inspire different ideas and reactions amongst different members of the public. This is unavoidable and there may be times when it is better to use different terms that do not provoke such strong associations. To aid communication, it may be useful for future work to further explore perceptions of rewilding across Scottish society.

The workshop did not provide clear insights as to when it may be useful for Scotland's public sector to refer to rewilding; to explore this, it may be worth carrying out future work to establish links with pre-existing policy priorities and processes, and to clarify relationships with other terminology.