Ayní sits calmly and stares through the bars of her cage. The 4-year-old jaguar was recently relocated to a pen near Corrientes, Argentina, from a similar center in Brazil, where she was born to parents rescued after flooding in the Amazon. But her keepers hope she won’t be here for long. If she is healthy and adept enough to live in the wild, she will become the latest jaguar reintroduced across two national parks in Argentina, joining 40 of her fellows.
A nature revolution is happening in northern Argentina, aimed at restoring a healthy and balanced ecosystem. Back in the wild, Ayní could be part of it.
The jaguar is a national icon in Argentina; its image is emblazoned on the 500 peso note. These creatures once roamed free in large numbers throughout the Gran Chaco forest, which stretches over nearly 400,000 square miles in the country’s north, as well as parts of Paraguay and Bolivia. But today the species is near extinction. There are thought to be fewer than 250 living in the wild across the entire country, according to the Jaguar Project, an Argentine conservation group. The goal of the “rewilders” — as many call themselves — is to bring them back, boosting their numbers and restoring them to their former role as one of the country’s top predators.
Rewilding is one of the proposed solutions for the biodiversity crisis facing many parts of the world. While the idea has recently gained momentum, it has also generated controversy. Rewilding can take many forms, but they all focus on restoring environments and ecosystems to a previous state that is said to be, or have been, more “natural.” To its advocates, rewilding is about rescuing our most threatened species and bringing balance back to ecosystems that have suffered decades of degradation at the hands of humans.
Yet to its critics, it is an example of conservationists pursuing a nostalgic and idealized version of a past that no longer exists. Or worse, some say, it reinforces the capitalistic idea that nature is a “commodity” which needs to be protected from humans. When, exactly, was the ecosystem perfectly in balance? And even if we could restore that time, is it worth doing if it means marginalizing local communities or building barricades between humanity and nature?
Indeed, species reintroduction projects exist in countries from Scotland to Mongolia. But they are also central to one of the fiercest debates in conservation: Are they an effective way to undo the damage done by humans to our precious environments? Or are they, as some opponents argue, an unacceptable attempt to play God?
The term “rewilding” was first used in the 1990s and became popularized following the publication of a 1998 study that established the concept of the “three Cs”: cores, corridors and carnivores. According to the Rewilding Institute, the “ultimate goal” of rewilding is to “mitigate the species extinction crisis and restore healthy and sustainable ecosystem function.” “Cores” refers to core areas that could be rewilded by the creation of nature corridors or other efforts that support keystone carnivores, which have a disproportionately large effect on their ecosystems. Within this framework, there are different approaches. Some advocate for passive rewilding, which involves simply protecting an area and abandoning it, allowing nature to reclaim it with little to no human intervention. Others seek to use rewilding to mitigate the effects of climate change. Some approaches also focus on reintroducing species. All seek to restore ecosystem balance.
The global biodiversity crisis is more acute in Latin America than anywhere else on Earth. Along with the Caribbean, the region is a biodiversity gold mine. According to some estimates, it is home to half of the world’s primary forests, which are largely untouched by humans and retain their natural ecological structure and processes. The Amazon basin alone contains one-tenth of the biodiversity on the planet.
Just as in the rest of the world, however, this treasure trove of wild animals and flora is under threat. A 2022 Living Planet report from the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Zoological Society of London found that the wild species the groups monitored in the region had declined by an average of 94% between 1970 and 2018 — the highest figure in the world. This loss of biodiversity is “one of the main threats to the region,” said Joaquin de la Torre Ponce, regional representative at the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
It is in the context of the species extinction crisis that some conservationists have turned to rewilding. In Argentina, the Rewilding Argentina Foundation has so far reintroduced nearly 80 animals into two parks in the north of the country. When New Lines visited the foundation’s quarantine center in Corrientes to observe Ayní, there were also 17 red-footed tortoises, gathered lazily in an outdoor enclosure, a pair of giant otters named Ibegua and Ariranha, and two giant anteaters. The organization hopes that all can eventually be returned to the wild, to thrive and perhaps even transform the way that local ecosystems operate.
Jaguars like Ayní, whose enclosure at the foundation offers a platform that is strangely reminiscent of a cat’s scratching post, are at serious risk of becoming the latest victims of the species extinction crisis. Jaguars can travel 6 miles in a single day searching for food, making them particularly susceptible to the forest loss that has blighted Latin America. The loss of a forested corridor could mean that a jaguar is confined to a small area that is unlikely to have enough food to sustain it. Or it could force the animal into the open, increasing the chances it could clash with humans and be killed.
Jaguars are further threatened by wildlife trafficking, the second most important driver of biodiversity loss, according to Renata Cao, Latin America specialist at Traffic, a U.K.-based organization that advocates for legal and sustainable trade in wild species. Poaching is common in places like Bolivia and Suriname, where there are still relatively high numbers of jaguars living in the wild. Although organized poaching is rarer in Argentina — largely because of the comparatively small number of jaguars in the wild — there have been high-profile cases of their deaths being caused by human conflicts.
Wildlife trafficking is the main threat to the red-footed tortoise, also known as the yaboti. It was once ubiquitous in the forests of Argentina and is nicknamed the gardener of the forest because it eats native foliage and distributes the seeds, regenerating the environment. Those days are long past, though. Outside of the foundation’s efforts, the last time a live tortoise was spotted in the wild in Argentina was in 2002.
The decline reveals the ways that wildlife trafficking drives the destruction of species. Between 2017 and 2022, 463 Chaco tortoises in Argentina alone were seized by authorities, but hundreds more are taken each year, often destined for the exotic pet trade.
Along with potentially rejuvenating ecosystems, rewilding projects claim to provide a direct solution to this sort of poaching by providing a home to animals when they are rescued from the illegal trade. “All the tortoises we are using for the reproduction projects are rescued from the illegal pet trade in Paraguay,” said Sebastian Di Martino, conservation director at the foundation.
Beginning in 2022, 40 tortoises have been released into El Impenetrable, a national park in the Chaco province in Argentina’s northern region. The 17 animals New Lines saw in Corrientes will soon follow them, pending a quarantine period. Tortoises famously do everything slowly. Their glacial metabolism means it could take several months for any diseases to show themselves. Meanwhile, 36 jaguars have been released into Ibera, in the Corrientes province, along with four females at El Impenetrable, to join three wild males.
Predator-prey relations are a crucial component of rewilding. Keystone species are what make an ecosystem tick. All other species fall into place around them, and the loss of one can cause an imbalance. According to the rewilders, bringing apex predators back can restore that balance. Their presence has a “cascading” effect on the ecosystems they form a part of — but not always in ways you might expect.
That is the case in Argentina. “Jaguars are one of the top predators [in Argentina], they control the populations they feed on,” said Alejandro Serrano, a biologist at the Corrientes center. “They make the environment balanced. When we hunted them, we took away one of the most important pieces of the puzzle — it is unnatural, unbalanced. There are more herbivores than there should be.” Putting the cats back has rebalanced things. “When we put them back, we see that they have had a key role in [rejuvenating] endangered bird populations,” he added. “With jaguars again, we see less foxes, and foxes used to prey on the bird eggs.” The region’s grasslands, previously ravaged by a rampant population of capybaras, have recovered too.
Three decades ago, a similar ripple effect unfolded in the United States, when wolves were reintroduced into Wyoming’s Yellowstone National Park. Their return led to ecosystem recovery: By curbing the overgrown elk population, they allowed overgrazed vegetation to recover.
Rewilding advocates view these changes as positives, and those campaigning for rewilding in their countries look to their potential. In the U.K., there is a campaign to reintroduce the lynx, which last existed in the British Isles more than 1,000 years ago. “The U.K. is one of the only countries in Europe without an apex predator. That is a source of great shame and embarrassment,” said Paul O’Donoghue, from the Lynx UK Trust. “In the U.K., you see deer sitting on the side of the road. They behave like ponies. If you put a few lynx out, that behavior would change. We would have much healthier forest ecosystems, much higher levels of biodiversity and more robust ecosystems that are more resilient to climate change.”
But how are conservationists to determine the ideal ecosystem to strive for? And what level of ecosystem balance is most desirable? There is a school of thought that claims such projects are “playing God.” In a 2020 letter to The Economist, the ethicist Robyn Boere and agrologist Neil Strange claimed a contradiction in rewilding. “This concept of ‘natural’ excludes humans, but at the same time envisages a highly managed, human-constructed landscape achieved by human processes, undertaken for human goals, and based on the best human guess of what those landscapes used to be like,” they wrote. “Let us call rewilding what it is: another attempt to manage our natural environment for specifically human goals.”
To Di Martino, such arguments are frustrating. “If we have the power to destroy, then why don’t we use the same knowledge to restore,” he said. “The ones who destroy don’t ask themselves these existential questions.” In Argentina, he said, rewilders are aiming to recreate the conditions of around 500 years ago, before the arrival of European colonizers.
And what if the “ideal” ecosystem is home to some harsher realities than imagined? In the 1980s, a group of conservationists began rewilding at Oostvaardersplassen, a 12,000-acre site in the Netherlands. Thousands of deer, horses and cattle were introduced, and the organizers implemented an entirely hands-off principle, refusing to intervene and allowing nature to take its course. The project would become one of the most controversial conservation projects ever conducted, after thousands of animals died during a harsh winter.
“The idea of turning spaces over to be repopulated by plants and animals that are, for the most part, left to their own devices makes sense in general,” said Robert Fletcher, an academic and co-author of “The Conservation Revolution.” “But it’s very difficult, I think, to actually leave a place alone and accept all kinds of consequences that might actually not be good for biodiversity. Systems are dynamic. When a fire comes in, do you let it go or do you suppress it?”
In Argentina, rewilders carried out significant assessments to ensure the habitat was suitable for the animals. “We are bringing back the jaguar in two places,” Di Martino said. “But before that we had to create very large habitats where they can live without too much intervention. Maybe if you introduce a species to a small place, then you need to do a lot of active management forever.”
What to do about humans? This is a question that rears its head in discussions about all conservation projects, rewilding or otherwise. The creation of protected areas can sometimes require relocating the people who live there, or forcing them to accept restrictions on the way they live. For example, many communities used to living in the forest rely on small-scale hunting or logging to support their way of life. Such activities are strictly prohibited in protected areas.
The marginalization of Indigenous communities is also a risk. The Rewilding Argentina Foundation is lucky in Chaco. The land that is now El Impenetrable was once owned by a large-scale landowner who lived a relatively humble existence. El Impenetrable was turned into a national park in 2017. However, even in cases where former ranches have been turned over to rewilding, there are still ethical questions. While rewilding initiatives may not directly contribute to the displacement of Indigenous and rural communities, they can unintentionally reinforce historical patterns of exclusion, especially when they occur on land shaped by a history of appropriation.
Many of the Indigenous local communities in Chaco, however, are positive about the work being done. Viyen Leiva, 45, is a leader of the Qom community and speaks of a strong connection to nature. “It’s very difficult for us to understand these conflicts or contradictions between the human world and the natural world, to understand why people ask whether the jaguar is important or not. We believe nature is just one thing and that we are part of it. Plants, animals, water and humans — we are the same thing. Animals need to be there, they must be there,” he explained.
This is a contradiction at the heart of many species-reintroduction projects. Should they be attempting to create a separation between humans and nature, to protect wildlife from human activity? Or are humans a part of the natural world?
In a 2015 paper titled “Rethinking rewilding,” Dolly Jørgensen, a historian of the environment at the University of Stavanger, claims that “rewilding discourse seeks to erase human history and involvement with the land and flora and fauna.” She adds: “Such an attempted split between nature and culture may prove unproductive and even harmful. A more inclusive rewilding is a preferable strategy.”
Di Martino is acutely aware of the need to include people in conservation efforts. Community engagement, he said, is vital for rewilding projects to be successful, and the best strategy is to show that the reintroduced species are an opportunity for local development. “Our approach is economic,” he explained. “We complement local economies with wildlife and nature tourism. So the jaguars are an opportunity [for local people], not a conflict. They take care of them because they associate them with job creation.” These jobs are most likely to be in “eco” and wildlife tourism. It is possible, for example, to take tours to El Impenetrable in the hope of seeing some of its diverse wildlife.
But that context is different depending on where you are in the world. In Europe, “we have a lot of people — we are not aiming for wilderness where no one is allowed,” said Laurien Holtjer, engagement director at Rewilding Europe, a group promoting rewilding projects in Europe. “We have to aim for a situation where we thrive together, where we can live with nature.”
By creating a world in which humans and wildlife coexist in, or close to, rewilded areas, some argue nature is being commodified, reinforcing capitalist power structures and potentially further marginalizing local communities.
In “The Conservation Revolution,” Fletcher and co-author Bram Büscher write, “Mainstream conservation is fundamentally capitalist and steeped in nature-people dichotomies.” It has a “continued fascination” with “wilderness” and “pristine areas,” they argue, which separates society and culture from nature. Such conservation is “not adequate to save nature,” they write. The anthropologist Melissa Leach, now an emeritus fellow at the U.K.-based Institute for Development Studies, has also previously been critical of modern “green grabs,” which can be seen to serve as a continuation of colonial power structures, with local people sidelined in the name of environmental protection.
This line of argument — that mainstream conservation projects should be kept separate from capitalist enterprise — is exasperating for Di Martino, in light of the seriousness of the crisis gripping our species. “Maybe you decide to fight capitalism. I don’t think that’s our battle or agenda,” he said. He emphasized that his focus is on the “terrible destruction” wrought to the planet. Dwelling too much on ideological battles, he suggested, risks paralysis at a time when decisive and immediate action is needed.
“The extinction crisis is the mother of all crises. Not only because of its impact, but because it’s not reversible. Once you lose a species globally, then you cannot bring it back, at least with the technology we have now.” Even as conservationists are split over whether rewilding is the answer to this problem, they all agree that the natural world is worth fighting for. But how do we do it?
In Argentina, where vast, empty landscapes remain, there is perhaps potential to create isolated havens of wildlife and keep them separate from human civilization. In Europe, where land untouched by humanity is scarce to nonexistent, there needs to be a way in which humans and nature can coexist.
Rewilding is not without its critics — and its controversies. But the urgency of the extinction crisis means that many think there is no time to waste debating approaches. “We need to act now,” said Alicia Delgado, a biologist at the Rewilding Argentina Foundation and part of the team caring for Ayní. “Science says, ‘Look, study, wait.’ These things are necessary, yes, but we don’t have time for that.”
Become a member today to receive access to all our paywalled essays and the best of New Lines delivered to your inbox through our newsletters.