By Santiago Alarcón, Gesche Schifferdecker, Sara Cazzaniga, and Yannick de Win.
Not far from Brno, in the Czech Republic, an inspiring team of experts from various countries came together for a two-day workshop combining theory and practice on soil sampling. The workshop provided an immersive, hands-on experience focused on one of the most vital, complex, and still largely unexplored components of terrestrial ecosystems: the soil.
Organized by the WILDCARD project and involving both project researchers and external specialists, the soil sampling workshop aimed to align diverse research objectives under a shared mission: highlighting the critical role of soil in the context of rewilding. Over the two days, participants worked in two contrasting forest environments: one with soft, loamy soil that made the sampling procedure easy, and another with hard, rocky ground that challenged their adaptability and resilience. Thanks to the strong commitment of the group, once the technical training and minor hurdles were behind everyone, we group fully immersed ourselves in the environment. The workshop fostered a deep connection, not just among the participants, but also with nature and the often-overlooked world beneath our feet.
For many of us, soil might seem like little more than the “dirt stuff” we live on. But for Sara Cazzaniga from ETH Zurich, it’s a constantly shifting landscape of hidden stories. “Working with forest soil is particularly fascinating because of how much it varies”, she said. “Not only between sites, but even across different spots within the same forest.”
Sara came to Brno hoping the workshop would demystify the dense and challenging soil sampling protocol – and right from the start, she found a collaborative and supportive team. “As soon as we arrived at the first demonstration site, the outdoor setting felt just right,” she said. “Thanks to the shared insights and helpful observations, what initially felt difficult started to make sense. The hands-on practice really helped us become more comfortable and confident with applying the protocol.”
The group was a vibrant mix of backgrounds and expertise – from seasoned soil scientists to enthusiastic newcomers. That diversity quickly became a strength: beginners brought fresh questions, while more experienced participants shared field-tested tips. Everyone contributed with the shared goal of making the soil sampling protocol work – not just for science, but for nature, too.
“We had such a great mix of perspectives,” Sara added. “It made the tools and resources – like the app, FAQs, and videos – feel much more accessible and practical.”
Also, Yannick de Win from the Research Institute for Nature and Forest (EV-INBO) echoed that enthusiasm, “People often think of forests as trees, birds and mammals, but so many fundamental processes continuously happen belowground. That’s where trees and roots develop and where carbon is stored, thanks to the great diversity of organisms that live there.”
As part of the WILDCARD project, the teams at EV-INBO and Silva Tarouca Research Institute (VUK) will analyze both soil and forest floor layers to understand soil carbon dynamics, while Sara will extract environmental DNA from soil samples to investigate microbial community composition across different forest successional stages throughout Europe. Their combined efforts aim to reveal how soil carbon and biodiversity have shifted over time – specifically in areas where agricultural land and pastures were abandoned more than 70 years ago or forest management had been stopped.
The ultimate goal is to provide deeper insight into the potential for forest restoration and to inform strategies for climate change mitigation in the near future.
What began with this workshop is hoped to grow into a powerful reminder: that soil holds essential clues to the health of our planet and our future. In Brno, the WILDCARD team not only collected soil samples – they also planted seeds of knowledge, collaboration, and curiosity, laying the groundwork for more sustainable land management across Europe.
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.
As Europe’s forests expand, a growing treasure trove of natural resources is emerging—one that extends far beyond traditional timber. Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) are gaining recognition as a vital economic, social, and environmental asset across the European Union. From edible fruits and mushrooms to medicinal herbs and resins, these resources support local economies, sustain traditions, and enhance biodiversity. Yet, despite their importance, clear guidelines for their collection and trade remain absent from EU policies, raising concerns about their sustainable management.
A Growing Opportunity
Europe’s forest coverage has surged by 30% since the 1950s, driven largely by socio-economic shifts such as agricultural land abandonment. As farming declines in marginal areas, forests—both natural and artificially planted—have reclaimed the landscape. In parallel, forest management strategies are evolving, with many regions shifting away from intensive timber production toward conservation-focused approaches, known as “proforestation”. We also investigate this rewilding approach in the WILDCARD project, where we for example investigate how biodiversity below and aboveground develops after the abandonment of forest management (more info here).
This transformation described above is unlocking new opportunities for rural communities. As abandoned farmland returns to nature, an abundance of wild foods, medicinal plants, and other valuable forest products becomes available. Moreover, proforestation encourages the accumulation of deadwood, creating ideal conditions for mushrooms and other fungi to thrive. The resurgence of long-forgotten plant species further enhances the diversity and economic potential of these landscapes.
Economic and Cultural Revival
For many rural and forest-dependent communities, NTFPs already provide a crucial source of income, particularly where large-scale timber production is not viable. Small-scale farmers, foragers, and local businesses benefit from the collection, processing, and sale of these natural goods, offering an alternative to traditional agricultural economies.
Beyond financial gains, the resurgence of NTFPs fosters a cultural revival. Many of these products have deep roots in traditional medicine, cuisine, and folklore. Their renewed presence in forests is helping to reconnect people with their natural heritage. Ecotourism is also flourishing, as activities like guided foraging tours, wildflower picking, and educational walks focused on medicinal plants attract visitors eager to engage with nature in a meaningful way.
Policy Gaps and Future Challenges
Despite their increasing importance, NTFPs remain an underregulated sector. While key EU policies such as the EU Forest Strategy, the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) acknowledge the value of these resources, there is little guidance on sustainable collection and trade. Without clear regulations, the risk of overexploitation looms, which can threaten the long-term availability of these products and the ecosystems that support them.
A Path Forward
To fully realize the potential of NTFPs, the EU must develop comprehensive policies that balance economic opportunity with conservation. Guidelines for sustainable harvesting, certification systems, and incentives for local businesses could help ensure that these resources remain abundant for future generations. As Europe’s forests continue to evolve, so too does the relationship between people and nature. By embracing a closer-to-nature approach and fostering a diversified forest economy, NTFPs can serve as a bridge between conservation and rural development—proving that forests offer far more than just timber.
For rewilding to occur, a combination of conditions must be met. Various factors may come into play, from agricultural abandonment to new forest set-asides and policy decisions on nature protection. But all things considered, which regions of Europe are most likely to experience significant rewilding?
This is one of the central questions WILDCARD researchers set out to answer, particularly through the work of our project partners at VU Amsterdam. While a robust conclusion requires extensive investigation and will only be available at the end of the project, their preliminary findings are already shedding light on potential rewilding hotspots. These insights, though early, help satisfy our curiosity and guide the progress of our other research streams while we wait for more precise answers!
Their approach is to analyse land cover in Europe through two lenses or modalities: rewilding through natural forest expansion, capturing agricultural areas that are likely to undergo rewilding following abandonment, and through proforestation, which occurs once forest management ceases, allowing forests to regenerate naturally. Both past and projected abandonment were considered. So, what do the results tell us?
Agricultural abandonment hotspots
For agricultural abandonment, Southern andEastern Europe emerged as the regions with the most extensive potential hotspots in the future. Considering both partial and full agricultural abandonment, predictions point that the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal), Romania (central and southern), Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia, and the Alps (northern Italy, Switzerland, and Austria) will emerge as hotspots for this process, with large agricultural areas projected to transition into natural ecosystems by 2050.
Additional notable regions include parts of Western Europe, particularly central and southern France and central areas of the United Kingdom. Most abandoned territories in the Alps and Eastern Europe are expected to experience full abandonment, leading to the establishment of new unmanaged or low-intensity forests. In contrast, most abandoned areas in Western Europe and the Iberian Peninsula are projected to undergo partial abandonment, resulting in mosaic-shaped ecosystems rather than forests. In Eastern European countries, partial agricultural abandonment is also widespread, especially in Romania and, to a lesser extent, Albania.
Proforestation/ forest set-asides
In contrast, for proforestation, the most prominent and constant hotspots appear to be located in Northern Europe, with a focus on northern Finland and fragmented locations along Norway and northern Sweden.
In Eastern Europe, the highest frequencies of proforestation were observed in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro. Western, Central, and most of Southern Europe do not exhibit significant proforestation according to our preliminary results.
Underlying scenarios and methodology
Our preliminary findings are grounded in analyses of past data as well as projected land abandonment. The historical data analysis uses satellite data on land cover, coupled with existing maps and databases from former projects and initiatives. Future projections used models aligned with IPBES’ Nature Futures Framework, which outlines three scenarios of land use between 2020 and 2050 (“Nature for Nature”, “Nature for Society”, and “Nature as Culture”).
The areas most likely to be rewilded are those that consistently appear across all three scenarios.
In the next three years of WILDCARD, these results will be refined by updating the models and accounting for specific scenarios that represent different options of forest management strategies and implementation of biodiversity and carbon targets. These are aimed at improving our estimates of the potential for rewilding as well as depicting what locations could benefit from rewilding under alternative policy options.
For more information, read our report “Preliminary scenarios of potentially available land for rewilding due to agricultural abandonment and set-aside forests” by clicking the button below.
Learn how to collect soil data with our new video guide!
While many studies have explored how the presence of vegetation and animals change during rewilding, the hidden world of soil has received far less attention. Yet, soils represent the largest terrestrial carbon pool, and accommodate more than half of the Earth’s biodiversity. There’s still a lot we don’t know about how carbon stocks and soil biodiversity respond when nature is left to recover on its own. This is partly because soil is incredibly complex, expensive to study, and varies greatly from place to place.
The WILDCARD project is working to close this gap. By collecting data on soil carbon and biotic communities, the latter using advanced environmental DNA (eDNA) techniques, we aim to better understand how soils respond to rewilding. This will help us learn more about the role of soil in storing carbon and supporting biodiversity.
Instructional videos
To support the WILDCARD consortium and other organisations involved in the project, our partner Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) created a series of videos that explain the steps for collecting soil samples. These videos complement the project’s written soil sampling guide, developed by INBO and the Silva Tarouca Research Institute (VUKOZ), making it easier to follow the process in the field. The information gathered will help us track changes in soil carbon and biodiversity as rewilding progresses in forests where management was halted and on abandoned farmland. The videos and soil sampling protocol can aid other projects and researchers in doing similar investigations, thus generating consistent and harmonised data across different initiatives.
Discover our video guide:
Video #1 Sampling the forest floor
This video shows how to collect samples from the forest floor using a frame with a known surface area. It covers the steps of:
Identifying the fresh litter layer (OL) and fragmented and partly decomposed forest floor layer (OFH) and telling them apart from the mineral soil underneath.
Measuring the thickness of each layer.
Preparing samples to study their mass, chemical composition, and biodiversity using eDNA.
Video #2 Taking undisturbed soil samples
This video explains how to collect undisturbed soil samples from set depths (0–100 cm) using metal rings with a known volume. These samples are used to measure soil bulk density and the amount of stones (coarse material).
Video #3 Mixing composite samples and taking subsamples
This video demonstrates how to mix soil from different spots within the plot, to create a representative sample for each layer. It also shows the steps to:
Taking smaller samples for chemical and eDNA tests.
Properly bagging, labeling, and recording the samples.
Storing eDNA samples temporarily in a car-based freezer.
Video #4 Taking disturbed soil samples
Learn how to use a soil auger to collect disturbed soil samples from set depths (0–100 cm). These samples are tested for chemical properties over the entire depth range and for biodiversity, focusing on the 0–10 cm layer.
Video #5 Description and classification of terrestrial humus forms
This video explains how to classify the forest floor into different humus forms using a small soil pit. It highlights key features of the forest floor layers and the A horizon to help identify the humus form.
Where will we collect soil data?
The data collected using our soil sampling protocol will be used to study how rewilding affects carbon storage and biodiversity in different environments on the European continent, with a special focus on so-called High-Intensity Sites (HIS). These are carefully chosen locations that represent different ecological and climatic conditions, past land uses, classes of time since abandonment, and where additional data will be collected by WILDCARD.
At HIS-aboveground, our researchers use advanced tools like terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) and unoccupied aerial laser scanning (ULS) to map forest structures and explore their links to biodiversity. At HIS-belowground, the focus is on soil—sampling for chemical and physical properties and analysing eDNA from the mineral soil and forest floor in approximately 300 locations. By targeting these High-Intensity Sites, the project ensures comprehensive coverage and gathers detailed data to understand how ecosystems recover and thrive when left to rewild. This knowledge will help shape strategies for healthier landscapes and better climate solutions.
Banner photo credit: Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO)
In Europe’s rural landscape, the sight of abandoned agricultural fields is increasingly common. In some cases, the abandonment of less fertile or less accessible cultivation sites is caused by mechanisation and intensification of agriculture. In others, it is rural population exodus that leads to a decline in land management. Such transformations of the agricultural environment create a unique opportunity to study vegetation succession: the process through which the species and habitats in formerly cultivated fields change over time.
Studying vegetation succession is relevant for both environmental conservation and ecological restoration initiatives, as it provides researchers with important information such as species richness, the rate of succession, and what kinds of habitat tend to become established through natural processes. But research in the field does not come without challenges. One of them is how to observe long-term vegetation changes in a consistent and comparable manner. Another is how to cover a wide range of environmental conditions.
To better understand the strengths and weaknesses of different observation methods, WILDCARD researchers from the University of South Bohemia conducted a study gathering data from abandoned fields of the Bohemian Karst Protected Landscape Area, in the Czech Republic, since 1975. The research paper, recently published in the Journal of Vegetation Science, represents the first study of vegetation change in old fields spanning multiple decades that combines two frequently used survey methods. It compares fields in various successional stages at the same point in time (chronosequence), which results in faster acquisition of results but has limits in predicting restoration processes in disturbed sites, and the use of semi-permanent plots, which requires greater effort as researchers resurvey comparable areas at different points in time.
Our researchers found that a chronosequence approach can reliably reveal general successional patterns comparable to those obtained from semi-permanent plots. The combined method showed that both approaches studied in detail show similar succession patterns, regardless of the sampling methods used. However, to avoid pitfalls in measurement and sampling methods, the authors suggest combining different approaches to generate more reliable results. Their analysis of vegetation succession has also shown that, in fields with a moderate supply of moisture (mesic areas) a woodland landscape with the presence of trees and shrubs emerged within 25-30 years. Dry fields, conversely, continued to be dominated by perennial grasses, accompanied by scattered trees and shrubs.
Řehounková K., Tichý L. & Prach K. 2024. Succession in abandoned fields: Chronosequence data verified by monitoring of semi-permanent plots. Journal of Vegetation Science 35: e13303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jvs.13303
On Monday, 17 June, months of deliberations culminated in the adoption of the new EU Nature Restoration Law by the Council of the European Union. The first-of-its-kind regulation aims to put measures in place to restore at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea areas by 2030, and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050.
What role will rewilding play in the implementation of the new legislation? We posed this and other questions to Gert-Jan Nabuurs, project partner in WILDCARD and Professor of European Forest Resources at Wageningen University and Research. Check out his answers below!
What is your first reaction to the approval of the legislation?
It is extremely good news that the law has passed, even though the text is much weaker than the original, presented two years ago. The first version said 30% of the degraded habitats types shall be in good condition by 2030, while the approved text says countries shall start measures to improve the state of these habitats. So we went from a target to an intention to execute, which is a big difference. But it is still very important that this intention is written down formally as a law.
What is the potential importance of rewilding for the legislation as a nature restoration strategy?
The rewilding of abandoned lands and proforestation are important strategies in achieving the law, which contains an article with clear assessment criteria for forest restoration (Article 12), such as standing and lying deadwood, share of forests with uneven-aged structure, forest connectivity, carbon stock, among others. From now on, EU Member Countries will be tasked with finding areas whose conditions they can improve and restore, with the responsibility of locating their own funding and resources for these activities. Rewilding can gain relevance as a restoration approach because its implementation costs are relatively low compared to other approaches.
What will be some of the law’s main implementation challenges?
Member States that voted against the law will not be keen to start very quickly, and there is no penalty if they don’t achieve targets which have become a bit more vague. Additionally, we still lack knowledge on how to monitor certain indicators that need to be assessed to determine if restoration was successful, and to do it cost-efficiently.
What knowledge will be provided by WILDCARD to support the law’s implementation?
The project will provide assessments on how biodiversity responds to rewilding measures, such as which species and functional groups most benefit from it. Carbon sequestration and socioeconomic aspects will also be assessed, helping to devise recommendations on future rewilding hotspots that are ecologically important and socially acceptable.
By Davide Pettenella and Mauro Masiero (University of Padova, Italy)
In recent times, the tip of a large iceberg called rewilding has been spotted in the vast ocean of nature management and ecological restoration. Profound global and local changes have shaken this iceberg from its glacial platform, sparking ample interest in rewilding approaches. Although most attention is directed to the iceberg’s visible tip, rewilding conceals deeper complexities below the surface. Unveiling hidden depths would help a better understanding of rewilding as an emerging, wicked topic.
What are different pathways to rewilding and how do these approaches build on various ideas of human-nature relationships? We will embark on a journey to navigate these depths onboard a “socioeconomic and policy” submarine. Join our crew to gain a perspective different from – or, at least, complementary to – more ordinary periscopes.
Italy as a case study
We will explore just a part of such a vast ocean, as, for simplicity and concreteness, we will refer to Italy as a case study. Though building on a specific example and acknowledging it does not allow us to grasp the full complexity of rewilding, we will try to draw some general considerations and conclusions.
Why Italy?
With the highest biodiversity rates in Europe, vast mountainous ranges, and extensive forest coverage, Italy presents an intriguing landscape for rewilding efforts. Approximately two-thirds of the country consist of marginal areas, which are predominantly home to national forests. Moreover, Italy boasts a significant percentage of protected areas, encompassing about one-fourth of its territory. Finally, nearly half of the population resides in urbanized areas, occupying only a fraction of the national landmass. All these factors play a crucial role in shaping rewilding dynamics and trends across the country.
The Val Grande National Park, one of the many mountainous protected areas covered by lush deciduous forests in Italy. Credit: Priscila Jordão
Three pathways to rewilding
Within the targeted context three main pathways to rewilding emerge: (i) passive rewilding, (ii) rewilding as a green marketing strategy and (iii) active rewilding.
Passive rewilding can be described as rewilding unintentionally deriving from the abandonment of managed natural areas. A good example is provided by the natural reforestation of pastures and farmlands in Italian mountainous areas, which has been the main driver behind the doubling of the national forest cover in the last 70 years. Today forests cover about 37% of the country and since 2021 semi-natural areas have exceeded intensively and semi-intensively farmed lands at the national scale. This process, however, has not been envisioned by a long-term strategy, nor planned or supported through actions and investments. It is also poorly perceived by society at large. Furthermore, it does not come without risks as it might result in the spread of invasive alien species and increasing exposure to hazards associated with climate change, such as wildfires, windstorms, pest attacks etc. It might also lead to social issues, such as in the case of the spread of ticks and tick-borne diseases in the Dolomites, as well as human-wildlife conflicts (e.g. involving bears, wolves, wild boars etc.).
Rewilding as a green marketing strategy links to the emergence of a specific market segment consisting of the so-called Lifestyle Of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS) consumers that are very sensitive to multiple sustainability aspects rather than price, and show high brand fidelity. Their purchase behaviour is driven by values like “greening”, local products, fairness etc. and they are very much attracted by wild products such as wild meat, herbs, sap water, etc. It is not by chance, therefore, that many products bear names and brands linking to their wild and natural origins, such as for example “wild” (e.g. wild asparagus, wild mint, etc.), “mountain” (e.g. mountain milk and cheese, such as mountain parmesan) or “forest”. A variety of standards, certification systems and labels have been created to ensure these products meet a range of environmental, quality, health, and socioeconomic requirements. Examples include (among others) forest certification standards like those set by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and even specific standards for wild products, such as FairWild.
Finally, active rewilding refers to actions taken to restore and conserve natural resources consistently with several policy initiatives aiming to mitigate climate change effects and protect biodiversity, such as the Kumming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework and policies within the EU Green Deal (e.g. the EU Biodiversity strategy for 2030, EU Nature Restoration Law, etc.). Within this framework, a strong emphasis has been given to nature-based solutions (NBS), defined by the European Commission (2015) as “solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience.” The NBS concept builds on the ecosystem approach to incorporate different forms of green interventions. Possible NBS-related actions and strategies might include active rewilding by recovering natural processes that would have occurred without human intervention (e.g., setting and maintaining strictly protected areas), proforestation, i.e. stopping forest management practices to leave forests to natural evolution dynamics (e.g., old coppice stands converted into high forests), and active and purposive land restoration to recover human-degraded areas, for example with reference to Natura 2000 sites (e.g., species enrichment, ecological connections, wetland building etc.).
Framing values behind rewilding policies
In a recent review, Himes et al. (2024) framed nature values from existing research into three main blocks: instrumental, intrinsic and relational. These blocks combine with non-mutually exclusive life frames introduced by the IPBES in 2022 to describe people-nature relationships. The “Living from nature” frame builds on the idea of nature as contributing to human needs and wants: this anthropocentric life frame mainly refers to instrumental values and links well to provisioning and regulating ecosystem services. For example, it might refer to the expected contributions of forests and natural areas in offsetting carbon emissions towards carbon neutrality. This frame mainly links to rewilding as a green marketing strategy.
The categories of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values by Himes et al. (2024)
The “Living in nature” frame focuses on nature as a place with which people develop physical and symbolic relationships. This strongly links to relational values and cultural ecosystem services as well as to the social dimension of biodiversity conservation in terms of recognizing and respecting the worldviews, values and traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities.
The third frame, “Living with nature”, implicitly implies intrinsic values i.e., the right of each species to exist and live for their own sake and regardless of any instrumental value and utility. Such a frame reflects ongoing debates and initiatives on nature rights, and it might be associated with passive rewilding.
Finally, the “Living as nature” frame sees nature as a physical, mental and spiritual constituent of self, thus rejecting the people-nature dichotomy and, rather, seeing humans and nature as part of a broader community. This last frame, as well as the second one, seems to be more connected to the idea of active rewilding.
Concluding remarks
Like most wicked problems, rewilding is a complex and not univocal topic – so are possible approaches to it. Passive rewilding may look like an easy and low-cost option, but it may carry direct and indirect risks as well as hidden costs. On the other hand, active rewilding demands solid scientific foundations confirming positive environmental spillovers, while at the same time considering possible socioeconomic trade-offs.
Wicked problems cannot be addressed via simplistic approaches and one-size-fits-all solutions. Given the deeper complexities beneath the surface, we should keep exploring and observing from different angles. Navigating these depths requires acknowledging the intricate dynamics and embracing diverse approaches, considering multifaceted, complementary, and harmonised solutions towards rewilding.
Carbon storage is one of the most important ecosystem services provided by forests to society. However, methods to monitor and report forest carbon stocks are still poorly understood. A new paper by WILDCARD researchers of the Universities of Turin and Udine, in Italy, compares different methods to estimate carbon stocks in old-growth forests of the Dinaric Alps in the Balkans, finding that direct and indirect methods result in significantly different carbon estimates.
The paper compares direct carbon assessment methods, such as field measurements, with indirect approaches, such as IPCC standard methods, finding that the latter tend to underestimate and overestimate carbon stocks, depending on the site considered. It also revealed that a few large trees (5%) concentrate a high amount of carbon stock (36% of carbon) in the study areas, which store a total of 507 Mg C ha−1. The results indicate that old-growth forests in the Dinaric Alps are the largest forest carbon sinks in Europe.
The paper “The largest European forest carbon sinks are in the Dinaric Alps old-growth forests: comparison of direct measurements and standardised approaches” was co-authored by researchers from the Universities of Montenegro and Banja.
The XIX “Aree Fragili (Fragile Areas)” Conference “Going wild again: Socio-spatial trends in fragile rural areas” took place on 22 and 23 March in Rovigo, Italy. Organised by the Università degli Studi di Trieste and the Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry (TESAF) of the Università degli Studi di Padova (UNIPD), the conference was designed to present and discuss rewilding initiatives from different angles.
UNIPD staff delivered four presentations and contributed to the debate as well as to the coordination of two parallel sessions and a round table. Davide Pettenella and Mauro Masiero, involved as researchers in WILDCARD, were the keynote speakers at the conference, addressing the topic “Rewilding between growing wild and renaturalisation: an economic perspective“.
In a dedicated presentation, Laura Secco, also involved in WILDCARD, explored the current state of European forests and the trends of transformative change represented by global initiatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals, the Decade of Ecosystem Restoration and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and their echoes in Europe such as the European New Green Deal and the European Union Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. In this context, she presented two both WILDCARD and the OptFORESTS project, focused on forest genetic resources.
By building on the two projects, she reflected on different though complementary perspectives – i.e., spontaneous rewilding and human-driven processes. From a policy and socioeconomic point of view she discussed how to support forest management practices in order to turn forest socio-ecological systems more resilient.
