Evolving life sciences and agricultural research approaches may have a decreasing need to access physical resources in future, such as plant seeds or viral material. Information and genetic data may be all that is required for commercial exploitation of biological resources. This POSTnote summarises the challenge this creates for international discussions on the governance of genetic resources and the possible options for addressing these.
Documents to download
-
Rewilding and Ecosystem Services (412 KB, PDF)
There is no single definition of rewilding, but it generally refers to reinstating natural processes that would have occurred in the absence of human activity. In the long term, self regulating natural processes may reduce the need for human management, but in some circumstances human interventions may be needed to kick-start natural processes, such as tree planting, drainage blocking and reintroducing “keystone species” like beavers.
Key points in this POSTnote include:
- Rewilding aims to restore natural processes that are self-regulating, reducing the need for human management of land.
- Few rewilding projects are underway, and there is limited evidence on their impacts.
- Rewilding may provide ecosystem services such as flood prevention, carbon storage and recreation. It often has low input costs, but can still benefit biodiversity.
- Some valued and protected priority habitats such as chalk grassland currently depend on agricultural practices like grazing. Rewilding may not result in such habitats.
- No government policy refers explicitly to rewilding, but it has the potential to complement existing approaches to meet commitments on habitat restoration.
Acknowledgements
POSTnotes are based on literature reviews and interviews with a range of stakeholders and are externally peer reviewed. POST would like to thank interviewees and peer reviewers for kindly giving up their time during the preparation of this briefing, including:
- Lloyd Austin, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds*
- Professor Andrew Balmford FRS, University of Cambridge*
- Professor Tim Benton, University of Leeds
- Professor Richard Brazier, University of Exeter*
- Dr David Bullock, National Trust*
- Charles Burrell, Knepp Wildland Project*
- Tom Butterworth, Natural England*
- Dr Steve Carver, Wildland Research Institute*
- Rob Cooke, Natural England
- Dr Simon Duffield, Natural England
- Dr Mark Fisher, Wildland Research Institute*
- John Gorst, United Utilities
- Dr Paul Jepson, University of Oxford*
- Keith Kirby, University of Oxford*
- Dr Alastair Leake, Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust
- Dr Jamie Lorimer, University of Oxford*
- Simon Mackown, Defra*
- Helen Meech, Rewilding Britain*
- Dr Michael Morecroft, Natural England
- Pil Birkefeldt Møller Pedersen, Aarhus University*
- Professor Henrique Miguel Pereira, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg*
- Nathalie Pettorelli, Zoological Society of London
- Professor Simon Potts, University of Reading
- Christopher Price, Country Land and Business Association
- Claire Robinson, National Farmers Union*
- Dr Christopher Sandom, University of Sussex*
- Frans Schepers, Rewilding Europe*
- Filipa Soares, University of Oxford
- Magnus Sylvén, Rewilding Europe
- Paul Wilkinson, The Wildlife Trusts
- Jake Williams, Zoological Society of London
- Dr Juliette Young, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology*
Documents to download
-
Rewilding and Ecosystem Services (412 KB, PDF)
Related posts
-
-
Plastic packaging waste has become a key consumer concern. In the UK, over 2.2 million tonnes of plastic packaging enter the consumer market each year. Much of this is used in the food sector because plastic packaging is cheap, light to transport, hygienic, and can be used to extend the product’s shelf-life. In the UK around 46% of plastic packaging is collected for recycling, mostly through local authority collections. However several issues with the current systems of plastics recycling persist. This POSTbrief reviews proposals to Defra and HM Treasury to improve plastics recycling in the UK .
-
The effect of consumers stockpiling certain goods and the slow reaction of retailers to ration them exposed the limitations of cost-efficient and streamlined supply chains to be agile and adapt to unforeseen shocks. This suggests that changes may be needed to make the supply chain more resilient. Specific problems arose from the closure of parts of the catering sector and the lack of agility in redistributing supplies from this sector to retail outlets or the food donation/charity sector. This was due to challenges in packaging availability, logistics and labelling requirements; leading to an increase in food loss. Agricultural food producers and the wider supply chain may have incurred significant losses from the impacts of COVID-19. Food processing facilities have been responsible for a number of localised COVID-19 outbreaks. This may be influenced by a range of factors, including the proximity of workers for prolonged periods, the need to speak loudly to communicate over the noise of the machines or the shared welfare spaces external to the factory setting. The immediate effects of COVID-19 on the food supply system are the current policy concern, but the longer-term food system issues highlighted as a result of the pandemic will have to be addressed by considering how to build resilience to possible future shocks.
