Re-introducions: Vital work or a waste of money?

The California Condor was saved with one
of the most expensive re-introduction projects ever. 

Re-introductions are undeniably expensive. the cost of rearing and caring for animals in captivity (often using specialist techniques), the expense of transporting animals to the release sites as well as costs related to preparing the release site and monitoring of individuals once they have been released means that the bills for re-introductions are large. One of the most expensive re-introduction projects is that of the California Condor which has cost $35 million since 1987. That is a lot of money by any standard, and in the chronically underfunded world of conservation it may wrinkle a few noses to think about the other huge befits that that money could have had if diverted elsewhere; such as protecting habitats.

Even if the animals are released there is no guarantee that they will survive and be successful. Food, disease, predators, climate, weather and stress caused from captivity and transportation can all stop a population from growing, surviving and reproducing. Even the best feasibility studies cannot predict everything and sometimes there will be factors that haven’t even been considered that cause a re-introduced population to wither and die off. Research undertaken by the University of Exeter looking at 45 case studies of predator re-introductions found that only 30% of released animals survived. Most deaths were caused by humans by things such as shooting and traffic collisions.

A good re-introduction can be (and often is) the jewel in the crown for many conservation organisations. Indeed, the list of species re-introduced just in the U.K makes for impressive reading. There is a huge variety: everything for Sea Eagles to Cirl Buntings to Field Crickets to Short-haired Bumblebees, the list goes on and of course Red Kites are thrown in for good measure. Then we have species that have re-introduced themselves, either by re-colonising naturally (like the Avocet) or by escaping from captivity (like the Wild Boar). Each of these re-introductions helps to replace just a little bit of out lost biological heritage. So, in many ways the funds put into these projects help to protect and rewild our precious and delicate ecosystems. 

The Return of Wolves brought
massive benefits for the
ecosystems of Yellowstone.

Re-introductions often focus on keystone species, these are species on which an ecosystem depends in some way. So, returning them will have large ecological benefits. The classics example here is the return of Wolves to Yellowstone National Park. The story is complex, but it boils down to the retied wolves control numbers of grazers in the park. This then allowed other species such as beavers to increase in number and help to restore a healthy ecosystem. More about it can be found here.

Re-introductions of species can have many benefits to the human population of the area as well. Restoring ecosystem functions can reduce the risk of flooding as well as reduce costs associated with processes such as water cleaning. Returning large charismatic species to an area can increase ecotourism, boosting the local economy. Moreover, these flagship species can act as a sort of ‘poster boy’ for conserving the wonder habitats on which they depend.

Overall, despite the drawbacks, when done properly re-introductions are a valuable weapon in the conservationists’ arsenal. Strict guidelines relating to re-introductions from the IUCN mean that any project must be evaluated and deemed to have a high likelihood of success. This means that minimal money is wasted and we can restore some of our lost natural heritage and make the world around us just a little bit wilder. 

Whose Land is it Anyway?

If there is one good thing about human beings it’s our ability to get a lot done in a short time. Unfortunately this also applies to altering and changing the natural environment (mostly for the worst). The scale of human based impacts on ecosystems is huge particularly when it comes to damaging and changing the habitats present to suit our own needs. To make it worse the funds to try to fix (or at least limit) the damage are often frustratingly limited.

The Tree Sparrow took advantage of agricultural
expansion, but has since declined markedly. 

Thankfully for us nature can be flexible. Species can adapt to take advantage of altered land and the new niches and opportunities it presents. Whether this is Pied Wagtails roosting near vents on rooftops, Blue Tits using a nest box or Carabid beetles colonizing conifer plantations; life does its best to succeed. These examples are all of species that have exploited a new niches or opportunity in the short term. But given long enough whole communities can adapt to exploit a new habitat that has been created by man. I mentioned Farmland birds in my last blog post and I will talk a bit more about them now as they are a fascinating example of such a 'cultural community'. 

These birds have shown remarkably adaptability to human alteration of the landscape. All of the species we today associate with farmland (Yellowhammers, Linnets, Tree Sparrows etc) are primarily seed eaters. So naturally they would occur in open grassland habitats.

 Brief history lesson: the farmland in the U.K didn't just spring up by itself; it came about as a result of mass deforestation beginning sometime between 5000 - 4500 BC. This was for some species a death knell; but not these little pioneers. Populations moved and grew to exploit these new niches that had been created and it was a boom time for them. Fast forward 7000 years and these species are in serious decline: Yellowhammers by 54%, Linnets by 60% and Tree Sparrow by 90%. As a result huge efforts are being put into helping these species, with 65% of U.K farmland now under some sort of stewardship scheme. And rightly so it’s important to protect the species we have; they are all we have got left. 

As good as nature is at adapting and species amazing ability to colonise new habitats is; it’s a simple fact that the ecosystems that form around man-made habitats are often drastically different and sometimes a lot less diverse than there natural counterpart. So it could be argued that working to conserve and improve the population of species present is not enough to fully repair an ecosystem.

Beavers bring massive
benefits to wetland ecosystems. 

Step-up rewilding. This relativity new idea is gaining favour amongst conservationists. Advocated by people such as George Monbiot, rewilding aims to conserve on a large scale, protecting whole ecosystems and natural processes by returning them to their natural state (i.e pre-human impacts). Such projects often involve conversion of habitats to their natural state, such as re-forestation, and many include re-introductions of species and top predators to help bring ecosystems back into balance, by linking up habitat fragments and improving the overall ecosystem quality species populations tend to increase and become more stable. Re-introducing the right species can have huge benefits for the ecosystem as a whole, such as Beavers. Additionally, restoring ecosystem functions bring benefits such as minimising flood risk (reforestation) and water cleaning (reed beds). 

So whose land is it anyway? Which option is better, conserving the species we have or undertaking large and expensive rewilding projects to restore the species and habitats that should occur in an area? The truth is there is no clean cut answer. For some areas and habitats it makes sense to rewild; for example the reforesting of Scottish uplands to expand Caledonian Forest. However often some areas can’t be rewilded; maybe they are two small or the land use is too important to be changed. In these cases it makes sense to do our best to conserve the species already present.

So I guess it boils down to this. Humans have changed ecosystem and habitats so much that much of the land doesn’t really 'belong' to any species now. So the question of 'Whose land is it anyway?' becomes irrelevant. We need to do our best to conserve as much biodiversity as possible. The best way to do this is to be pragmatic….