Rewilding enablers and constraints in rewilding cases (Deliverable D2.1, Horizon Europe Project No. 101081251)

Le résumé fourni par la source

Rewilding practice is subjected to many factors that enable and constrain the effectiveness and progress of rewilding. Drawing from the experience of eight (wildE) rewilding case studies across Europe from different countries and socioeconomic contexts (https://www.wilde-project.eu/case-studies) the study identified sixteen enabling factors (“enablers”) and sixteen constraining factors (“constraints”) affecting rewilding practice. Results of a survey amongst case study leaders show that the strength of enablers and constraints changed from case study to case study. However, there was clear consensus across all case studies that the strength of enablers was larger than that of constraints, suggesting that factors facilitating the success and progress of rewilding practice are stronger than those obstructing it. The survey also suggests that there is no single “silver bullet” for rewilding success in any given rewilding project, rather multiple enablers need to align to foster success collectively. We found that 11 of the 16 enablers identified were important across all case studies. In contrast, factors constraining rewilding were generally more idiosyncratic for every case study, suggesting that the obstacles to rewilding changes with socioecological/local context. The study also evaluated which dimensions of rewilding were facilitated or constrained more frequently. A surprising result that emerged is that despite the heterogeneous and wide social, economic and ecological contexts represented by wildE case studies, many rewilding projects already put strong emphasis on devising measures that address the Human dimensions (Social, Economic and Policy aspects) to harness success and prevent failure. In addition, as would be logical, the Natural dimensions of rewilding also experience frequent enablers, by promoting the development of desirable Ecological and Biophysical features, and Climate change adaptation measures. However, the two wildE forestry case studies did not report strong provisions for Climate change adaptation, and Climate change mitigation was poorly accounted for (either positively or negatively) among all eight wildE case studies. Overall, the study suggests that, despite prevailing views on the potential and the future of rewilding as a mainstream restoration practice are rather skeptical, rewilding projects across Europe experience many enablers, leverage the Human dimensions as much as the Natural dimensions of rewilding, and experience a much more reduced number of idiosyncratic constraints. Yet Climate-smart aspects need more attention in some instances, particularly Climate-change mitigation. It is important to bear in mind that the survey builds on the expert judgement of case study leaders of which most are academics, who drew upon information gathered in local stakeholder workshops across eight case studies in different socioeconomic and cultural contexts, and, despite revealing some strong patterns and commonalities, both the stakeholders and the case studies are a subset that does not represent the whole range of rewilding intervention types. In addition, survey results must be taken with caution in respect to replication: the views of a case study might not fully represent the views of other similar case studies elsewhere.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.