Today, on the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, the we celebrate the contributions of female researchers who are advancing knowledge and innovation in rewilding and ecosystem restoration across Europe.
Sara Cazzaniga, a Postdoctoral Researcher at ETH Zurich, studies the invisible yet powerful world beneath our feet: soil microbes. While rewilding often focuses on visible changes in landscapes and wildlife, Sara’s work uncovers how bacterial and fungal communities drive ecosystem recovery from the ground up. By linking below-ground microbial processes to above-ground ecological outcomes, her research helps ensure that soil biodiversity is recognized in policy and restoration strategies, providing essential evidence for informed decision-making.
Lena Lopez, a PhD researcher at the Technical University of Munich, is driven by the potential of science to catalyse coexistence between humanity and nature. As part of WILDCARD, she models land allocation scenarios for rewilding and proforestation across the European Union. Her work explores how different land-use pathways can support biodiversity while considering social and economic dimensions, contributing valuable insights for policymakers and landowners.
Lucia Seebach, a researcher at the Forestry Research Institute of Baden-Württemberg, Germany, brings a lifelong passion for environmental protection and geoecology to WILDCARD. Inspired by experiences in wild landscapes and national parks, she focuses on forests with the potential to become wild again. By accompanying natural forest development and studying ecosystem processes, Lucia’s research highlights the resilience of nature and the importance of giving ecosystems time and space to recover.
Together, Sara, Lena, and Lucia exemplify the interdisciplinary and forward-looking science at the heart of WILDCARD. Their work not only advances understanding of rewilding but also provides evidence to support sustainable land-use policies and biodiversity conservation. On this day, we proudly recognize their contributions and encourages the next generation of women and girls to pursue careers in science and environmental research.
Across Europe, landscapes are quietly changing. Mountain farms and pastures are being abandoned, forest management is easing in some regions, and climate and policy pressures are reshaping how land is used. For some, these trends raise concerns. For others, they open a powerful question: where could nature return, at scale, if we let it?
Rather than asking where rewilding should happen, this work asks a more grounded question: where is rewilding most likely to happen, given social, economic, and environmental change? The answer provides a much-needed baseline for understanding Europe’s rewilding potential – and for shaping future policy and restoration strategies.
Seeing opportunity in land-use change
Rewilding in WILDCARD is not a single process. It emerges through different pathways: when agricultural land is abandoned and forests naturally grow back; when managed forests are allowed to mature and develop more natural structures (proforestation); or a large step towards rewilding can be taken by going from intensive agricultural use to new mixed-use forests where ecological needs are explicitly addressed.
First main pathway to wilder forests in Europe: Agricultural abandonment can trigger rewilding from croplands/grasslands/mosaics toward more natural forest states, either by shifting into a combined-objective forest (some continued management alongside recovery) or by moving into close-to-nature forest through more hands-off rewilding.Second main pathway to wilder forests in Europe: Proforestation, instead, focuses on existing forests, reducing management so plantations or multi-use stands mature into close-to-nature forests.
To capture this complexity, researchers explored eight future scenarios that reflect different development pathways for Europe. These scenarios cover both the IPCC Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and the IPBES Nature Futures Framework, ranging from business-as-usual futures to more ambitious, policy-driven nature restoration pathways. More particularly, the IPCC Shared Socioeconomic Pathwaysdescribe different ways society, economies, and governance might develop in the future, from current trends to transformative change. The IPBES Nature Futures Framework adds perspectives on how humans value and interact with nature. Together, they offer a comprehensive picture of how Europe’s landscape could evolve, visually showing how different socio-economic choices and visions of nature we prioritise can shape future land-use patterns.
At the heart of the analysis lies the CLUMondo model, a spatially explicit land-use model that simulates how land systems evolve under changing demands, policies, and biophysical conditions. The model projects land-use changes across Europe from 2020 to 2050, at a fine resolution of 1 km², allowing researchers to zoom from continental patterns down to regional detail.
Mapping Europe’s rewilding hotspots
Despite the diversity of futures explored, a striking pattern emerges from the WILDCARD work: forest recovery is an important feature in almost all scenarios.
The strongest signals appear along Europe’s major mountain systems – the Alps, Pyrenees, Carpathians, and the Dinaric–Šar–Pindus arc – where steep terrain, lower agricultural profitability, and existing forest cover create favourable conditions for natural regeneration. These landscapes form the backbone of Europe’s potential rewilding corridors.
Different processes dominate in different regions
Proforestation is most common in areas with relatively large and not very intensively managed forests, where reduced intervention allows forests to develop toward near-natural conditions.
Agricultural abandonment and rewilding are most likely in marginal farmland, particularly in Southern and Central Europe, where retreating agriculture opens space for forest regrowth.
Combined-objective forests emerge on previously cultivated lands mainly in Central and Eastern Europe, where land is released from agriculture but remains partially managed for multiple benefits. While not rewilding per se these transitions make an important contribution to a wilder Europe.
When these processes are combined, they reveal a coherent continental picture: rewilding potential clusters in uplands and less productive landscapes, while Europe’s intensively farmed lowlands largely remain under production.
Graphic: Total rewilding probability map of Europe, representing areas with different levels of agreement across all eight land-use change scenarios. The maximum probability is reached when the conversion from croplands (arable and permanent), grasslands, mosaics and managed forests to close-to-nature forest occurs in all eight scenarios
Why policy matters
One of the most important insights comes from the “SSP2 – Planned Rewilding scenario” developed by WILDCARD researchers. Here, rewilding is not left entirely to chance. Spatially guided towards areas of potentially high ecological importance and good chances on rewilding success, policy-supported measures produce more connected and coherent forest recovery patterns than spontaneous abandonment alone. In other words, how we guide rewilding matters as much as where it happens.
These first maps do not offer final answers – and they are not meant to. Instead, they provide a continental baseline: a shared reference point for exploring trade-offs, biodiversity outcomes, and climate benefits in the next phases of WILDCARD. As future deliverables refine these scenarios and link them to ecological and social outcomes, one message is already clear: Europe’s forests of the future are taking shape now – and understanding where nature can return is the first step toward letting it thrive.
Europe is unique. Within a relatively small geographical area, an extraordinary diversity unfolds: landscapes, climates, forests, and species form a natural treasure of remarkable richness. This biodiversity is one of Europe’s greatest strengths – but also one of its greatest challenges. Protecting and understanding biodiversity is not a one-time task; it is a continuous effort that can only succeed if we work together.
Diversity, by its nature, brings complexity. This is true not only for Europe’s ecosystems but also for the way we observe and measure them. Forests do not stop at national borders, yet the methods used to monitor them often do. While standards for forest inventories exist, each country or institution has developed its own dendrometric survey methods (the measurement of tree and stand characteristics such as tree diameter, height, volume, and growth), shaped by national priorities, management objectives, and historical tradition. As a result, long-term forest information has traditionally been built for regional or national analyses rather than for a harmonised European perspective.
And yet, within this diversity lies a hidden treasure. Across Europe, enormous amounts of valuable data already exist. The key question is: how can we bring this information together? How can we harmonise these datasets to unlock their full potential and create a “golden state” of knowledge that allows us to address pressing issues such as how to store carbon efficiently, reduce biodiversity loss, and understanding and responding to the impacts of climate change? Achieving this requires not only technical solutions, but also time, expertise, and resources to build and maintain a shared database capable of supporting a wide range of scientific and policy-driven questions.
Dendrometric survey (photo @Wevell v. Krüger)
What Is dendrometric data and why do we need it?
Dendrometric data form the backbone of forest monitoring. They include measurements such as tree diameter, species, height, volume, and deadwood – key indicators for forest structure, growth, and carbon stocks. Collecting such data is not new. In many countries, dendrometric measurements have been part of National Forest Inventories (NFIs) for centuries, providing invaluable long-term records.
In strict forest reserves (designated areas of forest set aside e.g. for conservation or research purposes), however, systematic dendrometric monitoring often started much later. One can imagine the current situation as a large puzzle: countless pieces collected over decades, sometimes centuries, using different shapes and scales, all in different countries. Today’s challenge is to fit these pieces together into a coherent European picture that allows us to understand past developments in forest reserves and respond effectively to current and future environmental challenges on a wider scale.
Lots of deadwood in the site Bechtaler Wald (photo @Lucia Seebach)
How we tackled this challenge in WILDCARD
Within WILDCARD, we addressed this challenge step by step. Firstly, we established a dedicated data taskforce to work on harmonisation issues and to develop a common data template. This meant dealing with very practical issues, such as different names for the same information, varying definitions, and how to handle tricky variables like deadwood.
The first harmonisation trials were carried out with internal project partners across a limited number of sites. Once the approach proved workable, we extended it to external partners within the European Forest Reserve Initiative (EuFoRIA) network, significantly increasing the number of contributing sites. The result is a unique and growing database that will serve as a valuable resource for future research and collaboration across Europe.
Recyling in site Schwarzahalden (photo @Lucia Seebach)
Data heroes behind the scenes
None of this would have been possible without the dedication of the project’s “data heroes.” Harmonising diverse datasets is demanding work, requiring both technical expertise and deep knowledge of forest monitoring practices. Key challenges included dealing with different levels of detail in the data and reconciling fundamentally different monitoring methods – for example, in deadwood assessment, where approaches can vary greatly between countries and institutions. But thanks to the commitment of colleagues of the institution Výzkumný ústav pro krajinu (VUK) in the Czech Republic, these challenges were overcome. VUK, a Public Research Institute dedicated to studying landscapes and their ecosystems, helped to compile dendrometric datasets from more than 800 forest sites all across Europe and harmonized the data within one database. This database ensures that Europe’s diverse forest data can now speak a common language.
In the end, WILDCARD shows that diversity is not a barrier but a strength – if we manage to unite it. By bringing together Europe’s rich and varied forest data of these valuable forest reserves, we are turning a hidden treasure into shared knowledge for the benefit of science, policy, and future generations.
Featured image: forest reserve „Siedigkopf“ in the Black Forest in Germany (photo @Alexandra Kage)
Soil might not be the first thing you notice when walking through a nearby forest. But it’s a quiet, hidden guardian that our forests depend on. It connects trees, insects, and fungi in ways we often overlook. Many soil organisms feed on dead plant residues, making important nutrients available to plants. Additionally, while feeding and digging, they incorporate organic carbon into the soil, improving soil structure and water holding capacity. Healthy, biodiverse soil is therefore essential for making forests resilient and multifunctional and cannot be ignored by anyone working in sustainable forest management.
We are living in a decisive moment, facing two connected global challenges: the loss of biodiversity and climate change. As rising temperatures accelerate the disappearance of species, it is clear we need to rethink how we live with nature and how we manage our land. Traditional conservation efforts have had mixed success, and more and more attention is turning to restoration – bringing nature back – as a lasting solution.
The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration and the EU Nature Restoration Law both urge member states to “prevent, halt, and reverse” ecosystem degradation. In Friuli Venezia Giulia (FVG, Italy), a WILDCARD Case Study, nature is already making a comeback: over the past 50–60 years, forest cover has nearly doubled (from 160.000 to over 300.000 ha), now covering around 40% of the region. Much of this change has happened quietly as old pastures and terraced fields were left to rewild, with a warming climate helping forests spread higher up the mountains, as shown in a research by Valentina Olmo (University of Trieste) and a team of researchers from different countries, including WILDCARD Coordinator Giorgio Alberti. Across the EU, the story is similar: since the 1990s, forested areas have increased by about 14 million hectares, clear evidence that passive rewilding is already reshaping the landscape.
Example of the recolonisation of abandoned meadows by forest vegetation in the municipality of Tapiana, Udine (Credits: Luca Cadez)
Pros and Cons of Rewilding
Olmo and her team caution that more trees do not always mean more biodiversity. Their initial findings have shown that the trajectories of plant and microbial biodiversity in the soil (fungi and bacteria) and those of carbon do not always coincide or are not always positive. Moreover, numerous national and international projects are investigating not only the impacts of natural reforestation on carbon stock dynamics in the various components of the ecosystem and on plant, animal and microorganisms’ biodiversity, but they are also verifying the level of acceptability of these rewilding processes by local populations and the possible economic tradeoffs.
The purple line in the four graphs shows the trends in the abundance (number of species) of the herbaceous plants, woody plants, fungi and bacteria as carbon accumulated in forest stands of different ages, originating from abandoned agricultural land. It can be seen that the number of species, particularly plants and fungi, increased with the increase in accumulated carbon (and the age of the stand) up to a certain point and then decreases. As of bacteria, however, there is an almost linear growth in relation to accumulated carbon. This suggests that ecosystems with greater carbon accumulation are not always the most favourable for biodiversity conservation, and that this relationship depends on the organisms considered (Credits: Lorenzo Orzan)
Proforestation: Letting Forests Mature
A complementary approach, proforestation, simply suspends timber management to let stands age naturally. Accumulating deadwood boosts carbon storage and creates microhabitats for fungi, insects, and cavity-nesting birds. The Wildcard project and the newly established Italian National Registry of Old-Growth Forests are studying how unmanaged stands handle climate stress, fire risk, and pests. Whereas scaling proforestation more widely must also weigh timber, water regulation, soil protection, and tourism values. Achieving such a balance will require dialogue among scientists, planners, and stakeholders.
Letting forests regrow naturally or leaving them unmanaged, can help tackle biodiversity loss and climate change. Europe’s restoration policies show how abandoned farmland has turned into forest and weigh the benefits and trade-offs of these approaches for carbon storage, biodiversity, and local economies.
To learn more about it and the case of Friuli Venezia Giulia (FVG), read the article by clicking on the link below (only in Italian):
When I walk through a forest, I am always struck by the sense that there is more happening than I can perceive. My eyes trace the trunks of trees, the canopy stretching above me, and the shafts of light breaking through in places. But I also know that much of the forest remains hidden from my view. Forests are not some layers of vegetation; they are complex, three-dimensional worlds. They grow upward, outward, and in intricate layers, creating habitats within habitats. To truly understand how these structures form and evolve, we need tools that go beyond what our senses and traditional methods can capture. That is where LiDAR comes in, and why it has become such a powerful part of our work in the WILDCARD project.
LiDAR – Light Detection and Ranging – allows us to map forests in three dimensions at centimetre-to-metre resolution. By sending out laser pulses and measuring how they reflect, LiDAR creates an extraordinarily detailed picture of vegetation structure. From airplanes, it can cover entire landscapes, but in WILDCARD we focus mainly on ground-based and drone-mounted systems. These cover smaller areas, yet their precision is remarkable, revealing the layers of the understory, the openings in the canopy where light filters through, the presence of exceptionally large trees, and the way these elements combine into complex arrangements across a site. What excites me most is how LiDAR connects many different domains: a single dataset links the technical world of remote sensing with ecological research and the very practical sphere of management and policy. It shows us what remains invisible to aerial photographs and ground surveys – the fine-grained complexity of the understory, the architecture of the canopy, and the shifting patterns of light and space that drive ecological processes. And what truly matters is not just capturing these patterns but translating them into indicators that reflect biodiversity, turning three-dimensional point clouds (the reflections of laser beams emitted by the scanners) into ecological meaning.
Drone pilot Bára Kobosilová ready for the start at Jansheideberg site, Belgium. Picture: Dan Cigánek
For rewilding, this information is crucial. Rewilding is not just about leaving land unmanaged and hoping for the best. It is also about letting natural processes unfold and observing how they gradually create new ecological opportunities. LiDAR allows us to measure these changes. By comparing sites of different ages and management histories – what we call a space-for-time substitution or chronosequence – we can track how complexity develops once human interventions stop. Over decades, forests shift in structure, forming vertical layers, creating gaps, and offering niches for species that depend on a dynamic habitat. These transformations are difficult to capture with traditional field plots, which often rely on sampling a small number of trees or features. LiDAR, on the other hand, gives us a comprehensive picture and a repeatable way to observe these changes across dozens or even hundreds of sites.
With LiDAR, we can start to ask why forests behave the way they do. Why do carbon accumulation and biodiversity often rise together in some places, while in others the two seem to diverge? How does structure influence species composition? And how might we use this knowledge to guide rewilding in ways that support both climate goals and biodiversity? These are questions that matter deeply, not only to scientists but to policymakers, land managers, and communities who want to see landscapes recover.
Pictures: Bára Kobosilová and Dan Ciganek
From our pilot sites we already have encouraging results. We have built a robust processing pipeline and developed a first set of structural indicators. The early patterns are striking: rewilded stands seem to show higher levels of both vertical and horizontal complexity than managed stands. These structural differences are precisely the kinds of features that many species depend on, and we anticipate strong correlations with independent measures of biodiversity. At the same time, we are grappling with real challenges. Data collected from different sensors and platforms do not always align neatly, and we need to harmonise them to ensure comparability. We are also learning about the limits of scale – how small a plot can be before its complexity becomes too difficult to measure reliably. These are technical hurdles, but they are also stepping stones that will allow us to expand our analysis across the entire WILDCARD network.
For me, the most exciting aspect of this work is its potential to shift how we think about rewilding. Forests are often described as carbon sinks or as habitats for species, but the WILDCARD project reveals them as both at once: living, evolving, complex three-dimensional systems. With the LiDAR technology we can not only see but also measure the richness of their structure and begin to understand how it shapes biodiversity and carbon dynamics together. That knowledge can inform rewilding strategies, guide conservation investments, and support policies that build resilient ecosystems. Forests are more than collections of trees. They are dynamic, intricate habitats that we are only beginning to understand in full. LiDAR gives us a way to step into that complexity, to capture it with unprecedented precision, and to tell the story of rewilding in three dimensions. For WILDCARD, it means we are one step closer to making the so far hidden patterns measurable, and to building the knowledge that will help rewilding succeed at scales that truly matter.
What if rewilding Europe were a strategic board game – where every forest hides a secret, and every move helps decide the fate of our ecosystems?
Welcome to WILDCARD. The Forest Game, an exciting new podcast that turns the complex science of ecological restoration into an immersive, continent-spanning adventure. Produced by our WILDCARD project in collaboration with Starter, this innovative audio series invites listeners to journey through Europe’s diverse and often overlooked forest landscapes, exploring how damaged ecosystems can be restored and reimagined.
Each episode of The Forest Game acts as a “strategic move” on a metaphorical game board. Listeners join scientists, researchers, and forest experts in unraveling stories of nature – from identifying remnants of true wilderness to balancing human needs with ecological integrity. Along the way, they encounter powerful narratives of transformation and hope, as well as strategies to bring forests back to life in all their complexity.
By using the metaphor of a board game, the podcast breaks down complex ecological concepts into engaging, accessible narratives. Every dice roll reveals new challenges – wildfires, invasive species, fragmentation – while each game square unveils a tale of resilience, research, and renewal. The result is a unique blend of entertainment and scientific insight, making forest restoration not only understandable, but thrilling.
The series is written by Silvia Giralucci (Starter) and produced under the scientific supervision of Giorgio Alberti from the University of Udine. Editorial guidance comes from Gesche Schifferdecker of the European Forest Institute (EFI), with voice-over by Rahel Könen and post-production by Santiago Alarcón, also of EFI.
Whether you’re an environmental enthusiast, a science lover, or simply curious about the future of Europe’s landscapes, WILDCARD. The Forest Game offers a fresh and thought-provoking perspective on one of the most pressing challenges of our time. Ready to roll the dice on the future of our forests? Tune in and play along: WILDCARD: The Forest Game Podcast – Wildcard
In the quiet forests of Northeastern Romania, near the town of Suceava, a remarkable rewilding story is unfolding.
This short film takes us into the heart of Vânători Neamț Nature Park, where the European bison, once extinct in the wild, is once again roaming free. The journey began in the 1970s, when the first bison were brought to Romania by the National Forest Administration. But it wasn’t until 2003, with support from a World Bank project, that the dream of rewilding took real shape, with infrastructure built and the first animals arriving in the park.
By 2012, the first five bison were released into the wild. Since then, more have followed, year after year, slowly rebuilding a population that had vanished. But this isn’t just about restoring a species. It’s about restoring balance between open fields and forest, between people and nature.
The European bison is more than a keystone species. It’s a national symbol, deeply woven into Romanian and Moldavian heritage. Its presence now supports local economies, from eco-tourism to traditional crafts, and fulfills important EU conservation goals.
And while the term “rewilding” may be new to some, the idea isn’t. As Laura Bouriaud from the Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava says, “we are living with nature. Even if we didn’t put this name on it, rewilding is part of our life.”
Imagine walking through a primeval forest – towering trees with gnarled branches, thick undergrowth, and chaotic piles of fallen branches and logs. It would also be bursting with life, from the mats of moss and lichens covering logs, to the birdsong echoing across the canopy, or the insects of all sizes buzzing around on a hot day.
Primeval forests like this are a rare sight in today’s Europe. But this is changing as ever more forests are set aside from active management, allowing nature to take the reins. We would expect to see an increase in biodiversity within these “rewilded” forests, but is that really true? This is one of the key questions the WILDCARD project is asking, and answering it will be the main goal of my research for the next couple of years. What I can already tell you is that the answer will not be as straightforward as it may seem.
Forests change over time – and so does their wildlife
Following a large disturbance or a clearing, forests will go through a series of development stages, which vary in many aspects: most obviously tree height, but also the tree species present, the vegetation layers or the deadwood volume. Many forest organisms rely on a specific combination of those features, and thus thrive only in forests at specific development stages. For example, butterfly species (such as the silver-washed fritillary, Argynnis paphia, pictured below) need sunny clearings with young vegetation for their larvae and flowers for nectar. The three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus, pictured below) and the white-backed woodpecker (Dendrocopos leucotos) instead prefer old forests with decaying trees, which they can use for nesting and foraging.
Silver-washed fritillary (Argynnis paphia), in the Black Forest (Germany). Source: João M. Cordeiro Pereira
This means letting forests develop into old age will probably not help all species – rather those adapted to older, undisturbed forests. Since traditional forestry often removes deadwood and harvests trees before they reach full maturity, these old-forest specialists are often the most threatened – and the ones most likely to benefit when we as humans step back. This is why these species will be in the center of my analyses.
Counting species is not enough
And how should biodiversity be measured? At the scale of individual forest reserves or research plots, simply measuring the number of species (the species richness) can be misleading. Within some species-rich groups, such as plants or ground beetles, most species are either generalists (using various habitat types) or depend on open habitats. Thus, over time, unmanaged forests may witness no change in species richness or even a decline, as the canopy closes up. However, this can obscure that, in fact, old-forest species of high conservation value may be recovering. That is why, in my analyses I will focus on which species appear (the community composition), rather than how many, as time goes on after management has stopped.
Eurasian three-toed woodpecker (Argynnis paphia), in the Black Forest (Germany), where this species is critically endangered at the regional level. Source: João M. Cordeiro Pereira
The hidden role of legacies and the landscape
Some species struggle to return even after a forest recovers. Why? Let us take the example of the blue ground beetle (Carabus intricatus, pictured below). This a large-bodied, flightless species, that relies on a stable forest habitat. If its environment changes, it has a limited ability to disperse in search of new habitat. If this species’ habitat in a forest patch was degraded in the past, and if this patch was too isolated from other areas with good habitat, this may have led to a local extinction of the beetle. The species would then have trouble returning, even if conditions improved. This means today’s biodiversity is not just the result of current management or the absence of it – it is also shaped by past events and how well-connected forest habitats are.
Blue ground beetle (Carabus intricatus), in the Black Forest (Germany), where this species is vulnerable both at regional and national levels. Source: Sebastian Schwegmann.
What is next?
My aim is to identify more clearly which components of forest biodiversity profit from non-intervention – and which elements may be the “blind spots” of this approach. To do this, I am working with a large amount of biodiversity data, contributed both by WILDCARD partners and external institutions (mostly in the EuFoRIa network). This data spans across multiple countries, forest types and taxonomic groups, and offers a unique opportunity to answer these questions. However, it also poses unique challenges – the data is very heterogeneous and often collected using different methodological approaches. Right now, I am working on bringing all datasets together, documenting and harmonizing them (a big job in itself!), before embarking on statistical analyses. Despite the challenges, I cannot help but feel excited to discover the stories hiding in these forests and share what I learn along the way.
As I stepped into the conference hall in Brussels, I was looking forward to hearing the talks from some of the leading experts when it comes to restoration in Europe. Around 150 researchers, policymakers, and (some) practitioners had gathered from across Europe for the policy event, When Nature Can Do the Job: Fostering Co-Benefits for People and the Environment in View of the Nature Restoration Legislation. Hosted by the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency CINEA, the Horizon Europe Projects WILDCARD, WILD-E and REWRITE, as well as the Society for Ecological Restoration Europe, this event was more than an academic discussion—it was a forum where science met policy, and where the future of Europe’s landscapes was discussed.
I was eager to engage with the discussions on the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRL), a landmark law passed by the European Commission in June 2024. Though the regulation had been diluted during political negotiations, it still represents a significant step in the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030. The Regulation requires Member States to establish National Restoration Plans, but key questions are still to be discussed: where should ecological restoration be implemented? What are the most suited approached to restoration? Could passive rewilding be a cost-effective solution? And what are the societal perceptions surrounding such restoration?
Nature’s Role in Restoration
The event began with a series of presentations exploring the capacity of nature to restore itself. The term rewilding surfaced repeatedly, often used as synonym for restoration and emphasizing management efforts that aim to reduce human intervention on a site while reestablishing natural processes in the ecosystem. The speakers provided diverse perspectives:
Jette Bredahl (University of Copenhagen) examined how nature-based solutions could contribute to the EU’s climate policy.
Sven Wunder (European Forest Institute) dissected the economic aspects, highlighting that while rewilding is a useful tool, it is not a universal solution.
The dialogue made one thing clear – nature has immense potential to restore degraded ecosystems, but its effectiveness depends on regional conditions, existing policies, and economic feasibility.
Learning from Practice: Restoration Case Studies
The second session brought theoretical discussions into reality. Practical examples illustrated how restoration projects across Europe were making an impact:
Wouter Helmer (Rewilding Director of Rewilding Europe) showcased how rewilding efforts along the Rhine had transformed the river basin into both a flood prevention measure and a hub for ecotourism.
Iris Möller (Trinity College Dublin) discussed coastal restoration projects, emphasizing how natural processes could enhance climate resilience.
Jens Christian Svennig (Aarhus University) challenged conventional forestry approaches, urging a shift away from the closed-forest paradigm towards more dynamic and open forest landscapes.
These case studies provided hope—when nature is given the opportunity, it can indeed do the job. However, it was evident that success depended on governance structures, financial support, and the integration and participation of local communities and stakeholders.
The Political and Financial Realities of the NRL
The final session confronted the broader challenges facing the NRL’s implementation:
An Cliquet (University of Ghent) warned that the NRL’s success hinged on its coherence with other EU policies, particularly the Common Agricultural Policy and energy regulations. Future lawsuits, she noted, would likely define how strictly the regulation would be enforced. She emphasized that we know from the Habitats Directives that especially scientific evidence and deteriorating habitats were decisive in the past for a strict interpretation of EU legislation.
Jan Verheeke (Flemish Environmental Council, Vice-Chair EEAC Network) showed inspiring insights from his work for the Flemish government: He shared success stories from engagement of environmental councils with local stakeholders that supported the implementation of restoration projects. He stressed the challenges with integration of stakeholders, the work with adjacent policy makers, and loosing track of the objectives due to excessive monitoring requirements.[GS1] He highlighted the need for good and strong local governance mechanisms and reminded everybody that dealing with divergent interest is a crucial part of the process. Finally, he emphasized the need to find compromises, and acceptance for underlying values and mindsets.
Ariel Brunner (BirdLife) addressed funding concerns. Some restoration needs can be solved in an economically cheap way (he mentioned for examples beavers building dams for free) – but more expensive and long-term efforts are under threat, amongst others because of the growing influence of right-wing politics across Europe, which pose a direct challenge to environmental policymaking and funding. Brunner therefore argued for a dedicated restoration funding scheme that cannot be misused for other purposes. In general, he stressed that budget for restoration should not be seen as costs but as investments into benefits for the society and nature in the long run.
Humerto Delgado Rosa (Director for Biodiversity, DG Environment, European Commission) closed the event, sharing insights from the political process of launching the NRL.
Reflections and the Road Ahead
As the event concluded, I was inspired by the scientific insights and the success stories of rewilding in practice. However, I was acutely aware of the hurdles that lay ahead—political resistance from the right, funding constraints, economic interests. Finally, the question of how to align an EU policy restoration agenda with local people’s interests and cultures of using the land remains a continuing process.
From a political perspective, the NRR is a step in the right direction, but its success will depend on how the National Restoration Plans will be implemented in the Member States. This will be a continued process of advocacy, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the integration of local needs. Above all, it requires the willingness to embrace nature’s ability to restore itself.
