Rewriting the story of our coastlines

Globally, only about 15% of coastal areas remain intact, with the rest suffering from degradation, biodiversity loss, and increased vulnerability to flooding, erosion and pollution. This threatens not only wildlife and natural habitats but also the wellbeing, safety and livelihoods of millions who depend on healthy coasts for food, recreation and protection from storms. 

The REWRITE project is responding to this urgent challenge by promoting coastal rewilding, which aims to restore natural processes along our coastlines — making them healthier and more resilient. By integrating science with social and cultural knowledge, they’re seeking to rewrite the story of our coasts — and achieve a future where nature and people thrive together.

We spoke to Project Coordinator Pr Vona Méléder, from Nantes Université, to find out more. 

Coastal rewilding is a new approach that emerged from terrestrial rewilding. Rewilding coastal ecosystems means restoring natural processes – resuming tidal flows, sediment movement and trophic interactions – while recognising the interconnected nature of geological, ecological and social processes. 

A more detailed, scientific definition comes from REWRITE partners Werner Krauss and Vincent Andreu-Boussut, who define it as “the reorganisation of geo-morphological dynamics, ecological processes and forms of governance to set coastal and estuarine systems on a trajectory toward self-sustaining biodiversity, carbon storage and climate resilience, with minimal ongoing management.”  

Coastal rewilding challenges rigid nature-culture divides, embracing the Anthropocene to reconfigure the relationship between humans and the environment. By integrating natural science knowledge with the humanities and social sciences, rewilding emerges as a form of rewriting past, current and future scenarios — and how we imagine our coastlines. By this definition, the REWRITE project is, literally, an active process of negotiating what to restore, what to let go and what new possibilities we can create.

Coastal rewilding offers a real opportunity to implement the rewilding approach to our European coastal areas, which are under a lot of pressure, including from degradation due to climate change and pollution, as well as biodiversity loss. 

With a rewilding approach, we let nature do the job, capturing CO2 from the atmosphere to mitigate climate change, supporting biodiversity – from birds and fishes to micro-organisms – to cope with the biodiversity crisis, protecting the coast line and inhabitants from flooding due to sea level rise and more frequent extreme events, as well as other ecosystem services.

Currently, more than 40% of the European population lives near the coast. What’s more, most of them are very attached to these areas, which offer recreational activities and contribute to their wellbeing. So any initiative involving ecosystem restoration benefits both nature and people, as long as we achieve the promotion of nature without excluding humans. 

Even better, it’s low-cost (natural processes are free), allowing us to restore ecosystems with a very high co-benefit vs cost ratio for nature and humans. And this value isn’t only monetary but also aesthetic, cultural, ecological and fairness.

Since 2015, with the UN Paris Agreement, and then 2019’s EU Green Deal, there is room for initiatives involving ecosystem restoration. We’re also currently in the UN Decade on Restoration, so it’s a good time. 

The biggest opportunity right now, though, is the European Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR), which has as its most concrete objective the restoration of 20% of degraded ecosystems by 2030, and 100% by 2050.

As coastal rewilders, we have to demonstrate to policy- and decision-makers that rewilding is one of the best options for restoration. In REWRITE, we are working with stakeholders (inhabitants, industries, local managers, etc.) to co-develop coastal rewilding scenarios to cope with the current Climate-Biodiversity-Society crisis.

The level of knowledge varies significantly along the European coastline. But broadly speaking, after a year and a half of investigation within REWRITE, our understanding of biodiversity is relatively good when it comes to visible species, particularly birds, fish and plants. We have a clear picture of which species have disappeared, when and why. 

However, when it comes to invisible biodiversity, it’s a completely different story. All the microorganisms living in coastal sediments remain largely unknown. Yet they are essential to the proper functioning of these ecosystems. It’s now crucial to understand this hidden biodiversity, its role and how it’s being affected by climate change, pollutants and fragmentation. This invisible biodiversity may well hold the key to effective coastal rewilding.

For carbon dioxide (CO2), knowledge across Europe is very uneven. Along the Atlantic coasts, our objective is to assess the capacity of coastal ecosystems not only to absorb CO2 but, more importantly, to trap it over the long term — what we call “blue carbon.” We’re working on creating a map of blue carbon capacity at the European scale that will help decision-makers manage coastal ecosystems to enhance CO2 sequestration.

There is also a significant lack of understanding regarding the interconnections between ecosystem services, including cultural services. That’s something we aim to explore by integrating both existing (but scattered) data and new data gathered through ongoing field campaigns.

But, finally, the central question is: what is the role of humans in all of this? How are we experiencing these changes, and what do we want for the future? Could we learn from the past?

Through our workshops, which we call “Multi-Actor Laboratories” (MALs), we’re aiming to gather a panel of place-specific answers, shaping varieties of scenarios of rewilding, with a plural valuation associated with each one. 

It might still be too early to draw any major conclusions, but one interesting observation so far is the great heterogeneity across the sites in terms of ecological functioning, knowledge and stakeholder perceptions and engagement. 

Rather than being a limitation, this diversity is actually one of the project’s strengths. It allows us to envision both human and natural systems evolving under a wide range of past trajectories and future scenarios.

I’m confident that we will be able to propose a panel of scenarios for coastal rewilding adapted to each local social and ecological constraints. Also, the surface we want (have to) rewild to have an impact at the regional and European scale. 

The barriers are more likely to be funding, support from policy and decision-makers and the engagement of local people. How will we be able to apply these scenarios, even if they are “low cost,” if there is no available budget and no ambition to apply them? That’s why I think that the best place to regulate and support these actions is at the European level, which can be more impactful than isolated local initiatives. 

With adapted funding and the engagement of local people, we will be able to address the biggest challenge: upscaling. How to create synergies between local initiatives to achieve impact at the European level. This is the strength of REWRITE’s network of 10 demonstrator sites, including 8 in Europe, working together.

As I mentioned, the NRR offers a really big opportunity, with clear objectives. Now, we have to figure out how coastal rewilding fits within it. 

We have to learn from the past. We’re working on defining best practices using a huge review of work already done in Europe and beyond on coastal restoration, including rewilding, and with différent levels of stakeholder engagement (from zero to very high). 

This analysis will allow us to identify the ecological, technical and social barriers and levers for successful rewilding. For example, one identified best practice is the use of social innovation in the early stage of the rewilding process. This confirms the tool we plan to deploy in as many of our European demonstrator sites as possible during scenario co-design. I’m referring to our MALs that put local people at the heart of the process.

Conflicts and trade-offs should be identified early in the process. Our MALs will be implemented at two scales: European and local. The participation of key stakeholders is crucial at each level to ensure that nobody and no potential barriers are overlooked. 

To achieve this, we’ve identified eight categories of stakeholders, characterised by their level of influence and interest in rewilding (from zero to very high). We’ll establish a feedback loop between the MALs — both from European to local levels and among local ones. By the end of the process, we aim to have a panel of scenarios that minimise conflict and are based on agreed-upon trade-offs.

The technological tools we use are designed to directly address key scientific challenges. For instance, environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis allows us to monitor biodiversity, including the often-overlooked "invisible" species such as microbes or small invertebrates. It enables us to compare rewilded sites with those under strong anthropogenic pressure, assessing whether rewilding efforts are effectively increasing biodiversity.

Beyond simple monitoring, eDNA helps us understand how ecosystems function by identifying dominant ecological functions in different contexts, whether in degraded or restored environments. Remote sensing and modelling then allow us to project these findings in space and time, offering a broader perspective on how ecosystems might evolve under different scenarios.

That’s where 3D visualisation becomes essential. It allows us to translate complex ecological data into visual, immersive representations. Stakeholders can "see" and, therefore, better grasp what a biodiverse and resilient ecosystem might look like — even one including invisible biodiversity and key ecosystem functions.

This combination of advanced monitoring and accessible communication tools is central to improving both the assessment and the management of coastal ecosystems. It’s a challenge, but one we’re committed to tackling.

To ensure long-term success, rewilding needs to be monitored continuously using clear, science-based protocols, like those developed in REWRITE. But it’s not just about tracking ecological change. Monitoring should adopt a plural valuation approach, recognising multiple types of values – ecological, social, cultural – not just monetary ones. 

Involving local communities and authorities is also essential, so the process remains inclusive and adaptive over time. And, finally, sharing results in clear, visual ways helps maintain engagement and ensure rewilding stays a shared, evolving effort.

Disclaimer
Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the granting authority. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.

The information and documentation in this section are published with permission from their respective sources. While the MAIA Project strives to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the content, we make no guarantees or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the validity, reliability, or accuracy of the information. The original sources are solely responsible for the content they provide. We disclaim any liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information and for any actions taken in reliance on the information contained on this website.