Rewilding and Landownership: a Mutually Transformative Relationship

Rewilding can be defined as the process of returning land to a state of non productivity, thereby allowing nature to "regain its rights". It mobilises networks of nature conservation activists and practitioners, who view this proposal as a transformative tool with the potential to not only protect biodiversity, but also to catalyse social transformation (Gammon, 2018). This transformation is defined by the acceptance of a relationship with an autonomous and beyond human control environment. This paper explores the growing tension between nature conservation objectives, particularly the rewilding movement, and the defense of private property rights in Europe. Drawing on firsthand observations of heated debates between landowner representatives and proponents of non-management, the analysis reveals a deep conceptual and political confrontation. Utilizing the sociology of translation (Latour et al., 2013) and a multi-scalar study of public policy instruments (Lascoumes & Galès, 2007), the article deconstructs the "competing translations" of wild nature and property. It highlights radically different visions: on one hand, a utilitarian and transformative conception of land, where forests are primarily spaces for economic development and labor; on the other, a "poetic" view of the landscape (Emerson, 1849) and a trust in nature's free evolution as a condition for optimal biodiversity. The analysis distinguishes two groups of actors with opposing management rationales—conservationists advocating for minimal intervention and landowners defending active management and profit maximization—while acknowledging their internal heterogeneity and strategic alignment within the European arena. The emblematic case of Scotland is used to illustrate how the history of land privatization ("Highland Clearances") and the persistence of land accumulation (by "absentee landlords" and "Green Laird") shape contemporary conflicts and raise questions of justice and legitimacy. The paper argues that the confrontation over rewilding is not merely about management choices, but fundamentally questions the nature of rights associated with private property, whose variability (e.g., right to roam, differentiated management rights in Europe) is often obscured by an absolutist interpretation. Finally, by exploring alternative models such as "convivial conservation" (Büscher & Fletcher, 2019; Buscher & Fletcher, 2020) and drawing lessons from heritage preservation, the article proposes to move beyond binary oppositions to foster an "embodied utopia and realistic romanticism" that integrates the ecological, social, and historical dimensions of the relationship to land.