A report on rewilding conflicts and conflict management strategies in view of EU policies prepared by a team of researchers from Wageningen University and the Institute of Forest Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences has been published as a deliverable of the wildE project.
The report examines how current policy frameworks support rewilding across Europe. It identifies the principal sources of conflict associated with rewilding initiatives, together with approaches to address them.
Key Findings
Rewilding is increasingly reflected in European policy frameworks
A huge positive finding for rewilding science is that rewilding principles are becoming more visible within EU and national biodiversity, climate, and nature restoration policies. Even though the term rewilding is not explicitly used, the EU Biodiversity Strategy and the Nature Restoration Regulation provide an important basis for advancing rewilding objectives.
Implementation remains uneven, and existing agricultural and forestry policies can create barriers to rewilding efforts. Current funding opportunities largely depend on individual projects.
Future implementation could be strengthened through more stable financing mechanisms, including biodiversity and carbon credit schemes, targeted incentive programmes, and sustainable nature-based economic activities such as eco-tourism.
Successful implementation relies on inclusive governance. To build legitimacy and enable adaptive management rewilding approaches need early stakeholder engagement, transparent decision-making, integration of scientific and local knowledge, and long-term monitoring. These are critical factors in the success of rewilding efforts.
Rewilding conflicts are primarily linked to wildlife and land-use interests
Conflicts are rarely driven by ecological factors alone. Most concerns and confluects associated with rewilding arise from species recovery and wildlife expansion, particularly in relation to large carnivores such as wolves; this relates to the often held perceptions of rewilding which are not always accurate or likely..
Four recurring dimensions of conflict were identified:
- Values-based conflicts concerning differing views of nature and conservation goals.
- Interest-based conflicts related to e.g. economic impacts and land-use priorities.
- Knowledge-based conflicts concerning whose expertise and evidence inform decisions.
- Process-related conflicts linked to participation, transparency, and decision-making.
Addressing only ecological or technical aspects is rarely sufficient; effective conflict management requires attention to all including the social, economic, and governance dimensions.
Stakeholder engagement is essential for long-term success
Perceptions of rewilding vary considerably across regions and stakeholder groups. Even the term rewilding is often interpreted differently, reflecting local contexts and interests. The most common conflicts concerned competing land uses, including agriculture, forestry, tourism, renewable energy development, and real estate expansion. Two approaches emerged as particularly important for conflict mitigation:
- Meaningful stakeholder engagement, including early involvement of affected communities and long-term trust-building.
- Compensation and benefit-sharing mechanisms, which may include financial support, new infrastructure, skills development, wildfire protection measures, or other locally relevant benefits.
