Restoring Ecosystems: Should We Aim for 10, 100, or 1,000 Years Ago?

When we restore ecosystems, the key question is: what baseline should we use? Should we be restoring ecosystems to what the land looked like 10 years ago, 100 years ago, or even 1,000 years ago? Each approach presents unique challenges and potential rewards.

What Does Restoration Really Mean?

Choosing a baseline for restoration is critical. Ecological baselines are reference points used to determine what we aim to restore. This reference point, however, is not always clear. Often, the timeframe chosen reflects personal or societal preferences, leading to shifting baseline syndrome. The baseline used can influence the long-term success of the restoration project.

Restoring Ecosystems to 10 Years Ago

Focusing on restoring ecosystems to their state from 10 or 20 years ago is a practical approach. Recent data is available, and changes are easier to measure. However, many ecosystems have already suffered significant damage. Restoring to this recent state may not be enough to reverse the decline in biodiversity or strengthen ecosystem resilience.

Restoring ecosystems should guide our efforts not just toward short-term wins but longer-lasting restoration goals.

Restoring Ecosystems to 100 Years Ago

Aiming to bring ecosystems back to their pre-industrial state—around 100 years ago—can offer deeper restoration benefits. This period is often used as a baseline before large-scale industrial impacts. This could mean better biodiversity and less habitat fragmentation.

However, even 100 years ago, ecosystems were impacted by human activities. Agriculture and colonization had already transformed many landscapes. Although this timeframe might represent healthier ecosystems than today, restoring ecosystems to this era may still not achieve the biodiversity levels needed for resilience.

Restoring Ecosystems to 1,000 Years Ago

Restoring ecosystems to 1,000 years ago is a highly ambitious goal. This timeframe refers to an era largely untouched by industrial activity or widespread human settlements. In theory, this would mean restoring natural processes and species interactions.

While appealing, this deep history presents challenges. The climate, species, and landscapes have changed dramatically, making this level of restoration nearly impossible in modern times. Moreover, this approach could disrupt modern communities living in these regions. Restoring ecosystems to their ancient form may not align with today’s societal needs.

Finding the Right Balance

The ideal approach to restoration may lie somewhere between these timeframes. Restoring ecosystems for resilience rather than strict historical accuracy could provide a more sustainable solution. Resilience-based restoration focuses on creating ecosystems that can adapt and thrive despite current challenges like climate change and habitat loss. This balanced approach might be the best path forward.

At the European Wilderness Society, we take this adaptive approach in all of our projects. From the idea stage to execution, we ensure that our projects blend historical reference points with modern-day needs. Projects like Let’s Get Wild 2 and Interreg Central Europe BEECH POWER focus on wilderness education and managing European forests sustainably. Meanwhile, projects such as BMLRT Schmetterlingsreich (A Kingdom for Butterflies) and LIFEstockProtect aim to protect biodiversity while promoting human-wildlife coexistence.

Conclusion: Restoring Ecosystems for the Future

When restoring ecosystems, the focus should be on creating a future that allows both nature and humans to thrive. Choosing the right baseline—whether it’s 10, 100, or 1,000 years ago—depends on the goals and context of the restoration project. However, the focus should always be on creating resilient ecosystems that can withstand future changes.