JUST WHEN I was getting comfortable with the term “rewilding”, here comes another — “denaturalization”.
Both feel new in our conversation, but they are not new words. Other countries have long since embraced them.
Why, then, do these ideas still feel so distant from our own awareness?
Perhaps because behind these words lie concepts so deep and transformative, we’re only now starting to grasp them.
Most of us understand reforestation — planting trees where forests once stood — and its opposite, deforestation. But how many truly understand afforestation?
Afforestation is not restoring what was lost; rather, it’s planting trees where no forest existed before. That distinction may seem subtle, but it matters. It shapes how we restore land, how we value ecosystems, and how we mitigate climate change.
Returning to wetlands: what does denaturalization mean in that context, and what can we do about it?
My first thought is we need to map where wetlands used to be — those lost long ago — and identify where they could be restored. This is not only a technical task, but a political and legal one.
In theory, many fishponds on public lands are merely concessions; if the public interest demands it, their rights might be revoked. But for former alienable and disposable (A&D) lands already titled to private owners — can the state still reclaim them? Perhaps through eminent domain, especially when public safety (flood risk) is at stake.
Yes, restoring wetlands would cost money. But what’s the price of inaction? The loss of human life, property, and ecological resilience? And if the state steps in, fair compensation is part of the bargain.
There is strong momentum abroad. In Europe, for instance, the European Union Nature Restoration Law — recently adopted — requires member states to restore at least 20 percent of their land and sea by 2030, and all degraded ecosystems by 2050.
Specifically for peatlands and wetlands: the law mandates that 50 percent of drained moors be restored by 2050, with one-third of them rewetted
Why is this so important?
Well, moors make up only about three percent of Europe’s land, but they store twice as much carbon per hectare as forests. That’s not a minor detail — it is the kind of leverage nature offers in the climate fight.
And the benefits?
We have real-world proof. A recent RMIT University study found that in just one year, restored floodplain wetlands cut carbon emissions by 39 percent — and did so without triggering a methane surge common to peatland restoration. (To be continued)/PN
