Rewilding and Land Reform: A Shared Path to Restoring Nature and Equity
Exploring how rewilding and equitable land reform together foster biodiversity, social justice, and sustainable economies.
Efforts to restore nature have taken on new urgency in an era of rapid biodiversity loss, climate change, and social inequity. Two strategies—rewilding and land reform—are increasingly intertwined in conversations about conservation and justice. But what do these terms mean, why are they so deeply connected, and how should future ecological restoration center both nature and people?
Understanding Rewilding: Letting Nature Take the Lead
Rewilding is the large-scale restoration of ecosystems with the goal of allowing natural processes to reassert themselves. Instead of intensively managing every element of a landscape, rewilding supports the return of keystone species, reconnects habitats, and allows ecosystems to evolve with minimal human intervention.
As defined by leaders in the field, rewilding:
- Restores self-sustaining ecological processes
- Reverses biodiversity loss by bringing back missing species
- Reduces intensive human control over land
- Can be active (e.g., reintroducing animals) or passive (simply allowing nature to reclaim space)
For example, projects like the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone or restoring the Iberá Wetlands in Argentina show dramatic transformations: predator-prey dynamics are restored, vegetation flourishes, and native species rebound, all with ripple effects for the wider ecosystem.
Land Reform: Shifting Ownership and Decision-Making
Land reform refers to changes in ownership, management, or access to land—especially correcting historic injustices related to colonization, inequitable land distribution, or exclusion. In much of the world, including the UK and formerly colonized nations, land is often held by a small, privileged minority. Historic dispossession and exploitation mean marginalized communities—indigenous peoples, local farmers, or previously colonized populations—frequently lack access to land, even as they bear the brunt of environmental degradation.
- Disproportionate land ownership remains a global issue, especially in countries with a history of colonial rule
- Access to land directly shapes who can benefit from or participate in ecological restoration
- Without equity, new conservation approaches risk repeating old patterns of dispossession
Land reform thus includes restitution, legal changes, or shifts in governance that place land stewardship in the hands of those historically excluded.
The Inseparability of Rewilding and Land Reform
On the surface, rewilding and land reform may appear as separate issues: one rooted in ecology and the other in social justice. In practice, the two are fundamentally linked. Conservation that ignores who owns or controls land, or excludes local communities, can easily reproduce the harms it claims to fix. Truly resilient, just ecosystem restoration requires both genuine rewilding and meaningful land reform.
Why Rewilding Needs Land Reform
- Empowerment: Indigenous and local communities hold deep ecological knowledge and histories of sustainable land management. Yet, without legal access to land, their participation in rewilding is limited.
- Justice: The same communities most impacted by ecological degradation are often sidelined in policy and practice. If rewilding is done on lands acquired via dispossession, it may perpetuate historical injustices.
- Longevity: Ecological restoration tied to local stewardship is more likely to endure, as communities directly invest in the health of their land.
- Socioeconomic Benefits: Land reform can distribute the economic gains of rewilding (ecotourism, carbon credits, ecosystem services) more equitably.
What others are reading
Why Land Reform Benefits from Rewilding
- Restoration Revenue: Rewilded landscapes create business opportunities—ecotourism, sustainable harvesting, contracts for ecosystem services—that can support local economies.
- Cultural Recovery: Restored ecosystems provide spaces for traditional practices, ceremonies, and knowledge transfer.
- Climate Resilience: Ecosystem restoration helps buffer land against droughts, floods, and other impacts worsened by climate change.
- Biodiversity Gains: Returning diverse, self-willed nature supports food security, pollination, and health for people living on or near the land.
Historic Roots and Modern Realities
The current distribution of land and the very notion of ‘wild’ spaces have been shaped by historical forces—most notably, colonialism and industrialization. National parks, reserves, and estates have often displaced indigenous and rural populations, framing them as threats to nature despite their role as long-term caretakers. Conservation ‘fortresses’ imposed in the 19th and 20th centuries cemented exclusionary patterns that still echo today.
At the same time, increasing abandonment of unprofitable farmland in Europe and parts of the Americas has sparked conversations about land’s purpose: Should it revert to wild nature? Should former owners or communities reclaim stewardship? Who decides?
Global Inequality in Land Ownership
- The vast majority of rural land in some regions is owned by a handful of private individuals, corporations, or state entities
- Indigenous and traditional stewardship rights remain unrecognized in many countries
- This imbalance blocks inclusive, large-scale restoration
The Double-Edged Sword of Conservation
- Traditional ‘wilderness’ models promoted nature devoid of people—yet many landscapes were shaped by centuries of sustainable management
- Conservation can, if poorly implemented, expel local inhabitants or bar customary activities critical to culture and biodiversity
- Resisting this pattern needs both rethinking land use and redressing old injustices
Potential and Challenges: Rewilding as Catalyst for Justice and Ecology
If designed carefully, rewilding can be a catalyst for land justice and restoration. But only if it acknowledges exclusionary histories, centers marginalized voices, and ensures benefits are shared. Below, we explore the immense potential and real challenges of this approach.
The Promise of Rewilding
- Scalability: Letting nature take the lead is cost-effective and less dependent on intensive management than tree planting or mechanized farming.
- Reviving Ecosystems: Restored landscapes provide habitat, clean water, carbon storage, and increased resilience.
- Supporting Communities: Ecotourism, local enterprise, and cultural renewal can arise from thriving ecosystems—particularly when local people have greater control.
- Climate Action: Native woodlands, grasslands, peatlands, and other rewilded environments sequester carbon and mitigate the effects of climate change.
Socioeconomic and Policy Barriers
- Land tenure insecurity discourages long-term investment in restoration
- Top-down programs may bypass local knowledge, imposing unsuitable or unwanted changes
- Profitable rewilding (carbon offsets, ecotourism) may attract investors who repeat displacements or concentrate new wealth
- Financial support often favors large landholders or politically connected entities
Redefining Success: Inclusive Models for Rewilding and Land Reform
Increasingly, conservationists and activists worldwide are calling for a new paradigm integrating nature recovery and justice. The most promising rewilding efforts:
- Arise from community-led decision-making
- Build formal recognition of indigenous and local stewardship
- Support traditional and modern livelihoods compatible with healthy ecosystems
- Ensure revenue and benefits flow to those who live on and care for the land
- Balance ecological goals (carbon sequestration, species return) with cultural and social resilience
Case Studies: What Works?
- Yellowstone Rewilding: Wolf reintroduction restored trophic cascades and revitalized both nature and ecotourism. Crucially, future models build in local stakeholder input to avoid exclusion.
- Iberá Wetlands, Argentina: Restoring missing species revitalized ecosystems and local economies—showing that community benefit and ecological healing can go hand-in-hand.
- UK Land Stewardship Pilots: New schemes focus subsidies on ecosystem services, including payments for rewilding, and examine land access and control.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q: Why can rewilding fail if land reform isn’t addressed?
A: Without addressing historic land inequalities, rewilding projects may reiterate patterns of exclusion—restricting access, displacing people, or concentrating new benefits in the hands of a few. Lasting ecological health is most likely when local and indigenous communities are empowered stewards with genuine land access.
Q: How does rewilding contribute to climate and biodiversity goals?
A: Rewilded landscapes sequester carbon, restore native species, rebuild food webs, and increase the diversity and resilience of ecosystems—key to both biodiversity targets and mitigating climate change.
Q: Can rewilding support local economies?
A: Yes. Success stories from the UK, North America, and South America show rewilded sites drive ecotourism, increase job opportunities, create new enterprises, and support sustainable agriculture—all boosting local economies.
Q: What is the difference between rewilding and traditional conservation?
A: Traditional conservation often focused on strictly preserving ‘wild’ nature apart from people. Rewilding aims for recovery and dynamic processes—often with people integral to both the process and benefits. It moves from mere protection toward restoration and resilience.
Q: What is needed to ensure both rewilding and land reform succeed?
A: Solutions must center community-led governance, equitable benefit sharing, recognition of indigenous/traditional rights, and adaptive management. Policies should balance ecological targets with cultural and social well-being, and resources need to flow to local stewards—not just absentee owners or outside investors.
Table: Comparing Features – Traditional Conservation vs. Rewilding with Land Reform
| Aspect | Traditional Conservation | Rewilding with Land Reform |
|---|---|---|
| Ownership Model | Centrally held, often excluding locals | Community/indigenous-led, participatory |
| Ecological Approach | Static ‘preserved’ landscapes | Dynamic, process-driven, self-regulating systems |
| Social Inclusion | Frequently exclusionary | Emphasizes justice and equity in decision-making |
| Economic Benefit | Mainly to external parties or state | Shared with local and marginalized communities |
| Long-Term Sustainability | Dependent on constant intervention | Self-sustaining if social, economic, and ecological factors are in harmony |
Conclusion: Rewilding and Land Reform—A Joined Future
Restoring the health of the planet and redressing historic social harms are not separate tasks. Rewilding and land reform, pursued together, offer the greatest promise for revitalized landscapes, thriving communities, and resilient futures. The way forward centers not just the return of nature, but the return of stewardship to diverse hands—ensuring the benefits and responsibilities of a wild, healthy planet are shared by all.
References
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11332231/
- https://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/why-rewild/benefits-of-rewilding/why-we-need-rewilding
- https://planetwild.com/blog/how-rewilding-benefits-nature
- https://rewildingeurope.com/what-is-rewilding/
- https://kids.earth.org/life-on-land/the-benefits-of-rewilding-explained-to-kids/
- https://www.renewablematter.eu/en/rewilding-meaning-benefits-active-ecological-restoration
- https://sentientmedia.org/rewilding-animal-ag/
Similar Articles
Read full bio of medha deb
