Rewilding: A double shield against Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss  

Raghav Sharma on September 29, 2025

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): 

IL REWILDING PER CONTRASTARE LA PERDITA DI BIODIVERSITÀ E PER MITIGARE IL CAMBIAMENTO CLIMATICO 

Can Nature do the Job? A Journey into Rewilding and the Nature Restoration Law

Theresa Frei on March 28, 2025

By Theresa Frei.

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:

  • Henrique Pereira (German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig and Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg) showed a European wide mapping of restoration opportunities connected to climate change mitigation and adaptation.
  • 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.