Everything Under Control? Comparing Knepp Estate rewilding project with 'traditional nature conservation

Abstract

Rewilding is an increasingly prominent concept in conservation, but one that has attracted controversy. Debate frequently focuses on control, with rewilding presented as reducing human control of nature. Opposition to rewilding often stems from a perceived lack of control - and associated perception of increased risk and uncertainty. I explore the concept of control in conservation. I identify that control is not a simple, linear concept, but consists of multiple dimensions. Using a lens of control, I compare two ethnographic case studies: the Sussex Wildlife Trusts Old Lodge nature reserve; and Knepp Estate, one of the most influential rewilding projects in the UK. These sites ostensibly represent high-control and low-control examples of conservation. I outline how Old Lodge does not exert precise control in all respects, but rather involves elements of uncertainty and negotiation. I describe how Knepps model of rewilding reduces control in some dimensions but increases it in others. I conclude that, while Knepps rewilding does represent a significant conceptual departure from traditional conservation, it should not be characterised simplistically as an approach that reduces control. Based on this analysis, I argue that reduction of control should not be assumed to underpin the concept of rewilding. Rather, there is interplay between different control dimensions that combine to form different configurations of control. With this understanding, debate about rewilding - and conservation more broadly - can avoid simplistic characterisations of reducing control and become instead an active discussion of what configuration of control is desired. This analysis could be seen negatively by those who argue that Knepps version of rewilding does not sufficiently reduce human control of nature. In contrast, Knepps approach can be seen positively as opening new conceptual space while retaining human involvement. It supports the argument that versions of rewilding can be legitimate, innovative components of plural conservation strategies.