Restore or rewild? Implementing complementary approaches to bend the curve on biodiversity loss

Abstract

Biodiversity loss and climate change are arguably the most pressing challenges of our time, each intimately and inextricably linked with human well-being and the future of the living world. These two major environmental crises are fundamentally connected, not only in terms of the driving processes, feedback and mechanistic links, but, critically, also in terms of potential solutions (Pettorelli et al., 2021). Nature recovery, in particular, has gained significant traction in recent years as a solution to jointly address the biodiversity crisis and climate change emergency, with research suggesting that the restoration of the planet's most degraded areas in combination with the protection of biodiversity hotspots could significantly boost carbon sequestration capacity while preventing about 70% of predicted species extinctions (Strassburg et al., 2020). The prominence of nature recovery has been further encouraged by the Bonn Challenge and the United Nations (UN) Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, which aim to spur global actions to prevent, halt and reverse the degradation of ecosystems.Ecological restoration is a long-standing and highly organised practice with a dedicated international society, clear goals and a great

Rewilding as a Multifaceted Concept and Emerging Approach: The Romanian Experience

“…The biodiversity and climate crises can be jointly addressed by integrating restoration and rewilding approaches, capitalizing on their strength and targeting different socioecological contexts [25]. The multifaceted field of restoration ecology is reflected by various and broad definitions of restoration [12], as they were given by the Society of Ecological Restoration, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, and the IUCN.…”

“…The multifaceted field of restoration ecology is reflected by various and broad definitions of restoration [12], as they were given by the Society of Ecological Restoration, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, and the IUCN. If restoration is recognized in mainstream conservation and policy, rewilding is viewed as an alternative way to achieve the large-scale recovery of nature [25]. In the opinion of Shackelford and McDougall [12], rewilding is a branch of restoration-related practice that has experienced a surge in the last few decades.…”

“…In the opinion of Shackelford and McDougall [12], rewilding is a branch of restoration-related practice that has experienced a surge in the last few decades. Beyond their definition, the successful integration of the restoration and rewilding agendas requires both scientific congruence and policy support and coordination [25].…”

“…Monitoring biodiversity, ecosystem services, and other key variables requires costs, resources, and time that could be prohibitively expensive and challenging to policymakers [65]. Major policy platforms and international funding agencies are requested to sustain the coordination and integration of restoration and rewilding, viewed as complementary and synergistic conservation approaches [25]. In Europe, rewilding funding is supported by rewildingspecific NGOs (i.e., Rewilding Europe and Rewilding Britain) and also by major research funding programs (i.e., Horizon program, Biodiversa+) that included rewilding in their calls to action [20].…”

Active management is required to regenerate the Caledonian forest: Alladale as a case study

“…Rewilding is often expected to require large areas of land (Pettorelli & Bullock, 2023; but see e.g. Mills et al, 2017), and thus projects are commonly found in high elevation, high latitude, remote areas (Jepson et al, 2018), as is the case for protected areas in general (Joppa & Pfaff, 2009).…”