Rewilding: A controversial solution to stop the biodiversity crisis.

March 31^st, Mols Bjerge National Park outside of Aarhus, Denmark. Along the Bjergetapen hike, close to The Mols Laboratory, a car has pulled over to the side of the road, next to a fence. The car is full of hay.

On the other side of the fence a group of wild Exmoor ponies have gathered. A man in a hoodie with the logo “NoFFF” on the back is continuously throwing bundles of hay over the fence to the horses while a woman is filming and taking pictures.

They both agree that the horses look very thin. It’s been a long winter.

On the poles of the fence there are signs attached saying that the area is part of The Mols Laboratory. Feeding the animals is prohibited and illegal.

The activists are part of an organisation in Denmark fighting against rewilding of animals, amongst other things, because they believe it’s harming the animals who can struggle to find food in the winter.

But are the animals really suffering, or is this part of nature?

Making nature wild again

Rewilding is a nature conservation approach that focuses on restoring natural processes and ecosystems by letting nature take care of itself. It often involves reintroducing different species of animals to the given area.

In the case of Mols, these animals are the Exmoor ponies and Galloway cattle. Mols has an estimated population of 70 wild horses and cattle combined.

The area has been subject to a lot of controversy due to claims of poor animal welfare with animals starving in the winter, and actions like activists feeding the animals is nothing new in the area.

The lab used to be run by The Natural History Museum in Aarhus, but after 10 years of research and controversy, a new owner has stepped in and bought the facility with a takeover on the 15th of April 2026, The Hempel Foundation, an organisation focusing on creating multiple rewilding hubs all over Denmark, with Mols being their newest edition.

New owner, new agenda

The Hempel Foundation says it wants to continue rewilding and building upon the heritage from The Natural History Museum, but with one fundamental change.

Where the approach to rewilding in The Mols Laboratory has always been reactive, meaning that animals were only removed from the area, when it was necessary to comply with the Danish animal welfare law and avoid starvation and suffering.

The Hempel Foundation wants to take a proactive approach, meaning that they will start feeding the animals when necessary and in general monitor the welfare of the animals better than previously. This is part of their 9-step plan listed on their website.

This has sparked the debate of animal welfare vs. biodiversity once again. But is it that black and white?

Death is part of nature

On one side of the debate, there are pro-rewilding people like professor in biology at institute of eco science at Aarhus University, Rasmus Ejrnæs.

Since the debate about animal welfare in Mols started, he has been outspoken about why he thinks we need rewilding, and why it’s not a problem if some of the animals die.

“We need rewilding because we need places where nature can be wild and untouched without it having a purpose”, says Rasmus Ejrnæs.

He emphasizes that natural regulation of animals in form of death by hunger and starvation is simply part of the natural ecosystem. He also says that this would happen no matter how big of an area we give the animals, and that it also happens in places where there are no fences.

But he also says that rewilding must happen within fenced areas, because we have decided that everything outside the fences must be used for other purposes, like farming, and that if we had no fences we would end up with too many animals all over the place.

Beyond the numbers

The Mols Laboratory has been doing rewilding of large herbivores for 10 years with the goal of restoring biodiversity to the area, and with great success.

A 2022 study from Aarhus University, which Ejrnæs co-authored, shows that having large herbivores grazing all year round increases the number of species in a specific area with up to 40%, this includes both plants and insects.

The purpose of rewilding is not to produce more species of plants and insects, but to restore a self-managing ecosystem. Therefore, you cannot conclude from the study whether the rewilding is succeeding or not, but it indicates, that rewilding creates a better environment for biodiversity.

If you ask Ejrnæs, the real value of rewilding is the simple fact of experiencing wild nature and seeing large animals live their natural way without human interaction or control, and if we want that, we also must accept the ways of nature and that we cannot control everything.

This includes death.

Proactive rewilding

Meanwhile, the The Hempel Foundation have a slightly different approach. At their core they want to continue the rewilding project that The Natural History Museum has been running the past 10 years, but as with any other major company takeover, they also bring their own agenda.

“We want to continue rewilding and do ambitious projects, and we want to create the wildest and coolest nature”, says Marianne Damholdt Bergin, manager for the rewilding HUB at the Hempel Foundation.

The Hempel Foundation has published at 9-part plan for Mols with changes they want to implement. A general thing in their plan, is that all their initiatives are proactive and they will monitor the animals very closely and intervene when needed.

“The Mols laboratory will change practices so that full and adequate feeding can now be carried out to ensure that all animals maintain an acceptable condition all year round”, it says on The Hempel Foundation’s website.

This is part of their proactive approach to rewilding, and part of their tactic to continue the rewilding project while also silencing the debate around animal welfare raised by groups like NoFFF.

But is it then still wild nature?

It’s all about ‘how’

Anton Asklund Johnsen is heading the board of directors behind the industry organization Danish Natural Grazing and is CEO of Krak & Ko, a company focusing on biodiversity, nature care, grazing and advising others on these topics.

He does not believe that the debate about rewilding is as black and white as it can easily be drawn up to be.

In his opinion both reactive and proactive rewilding are valid methods that both have the potential to work well, and it’s not about pro or against rewilding, it’s about good or bad administration, no matter which method you use.

“The biggest misunderstanding about rewilding is that it’s just about letting nature run wild, that’s simply not true”, says Anton Asklund Johnsen.

Taking responsibility

He believes that as soon as you put animals in a fenced area, rewilding or not, then humans have the responsibility for the welfare of the animals regardless of whether suffering comes from hunger, disease or injury.

In that sense, rewilding doesn’t mean that you give up the responsibility.

At the core of Johnsen’s argument is that the debate is not about biodiversity vs animal welfare, but about completely different ways of managing nature.

Where Ejrnæs believes that we must accept the suffering as part of nature, The Hempel Foundation and Johnsen think that this can be avoided and that we have a bigger responsibility.

“It’s possible to increase biodiversity without compromising animal welfare”, says Johnsen.

Fundamental changes

To work against the misconceptions of rewilding and making it more accepted and understood in society both Ejrnæs and Johnsen agrees that it must be taken to higher political level.

Johnsen believes that we need more professional administration and better mediation.

“We need to communicate not just scientifically, but also emotionally.”, says Anton Asklund Johnsen

He thinks that there is a lot of benefits in having wild nature, but we need to be better at making people understand why it’s important in more ways than what numbers can show. We need people to experience it.

Part of a bigger picture

Environment ranks 5th on the World Economic Forum’s “Risk Report” from 2026 because we are facing a biodiversity crisis, not only in Denmark but worldwide.

Denmark is a country with a lot of farming and very little wild nature. Less than two percent of the nature in Denmark is wild, and in that sense, it’s not something that people are used to seeing

What Ejrnæs, Johnsen and The Hempel Foundation all agree on, is that it’s very important that we get more wild nature and make it more accessible for people. That is the real value of rewilding.

Rewilding serves as the means to create the change they all want and help to reach the UN’s sustainable development goal #15: Life on Land that aims to “Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss.”

Normalize the wild and reconnect

The methods of doing rewilding will probably always be up for debate. As soon as it involves the welfare of animals, people will have opinions about what’s good and bad.

First step is normalizing wild nature, and having people get used to seeing and interacting with wild animals and all the biodiversity it entails.

“The future of wild nature depends not only on science – but on whether people are willing to reconnect with it.”, says Johnsen.

No activists or people against rewilding wanted to participate in the article.