Course:CONS200/2025WT2/Privatizing conservation The impacts of philanthropic conservation on Eastern Europe.

Białowieża Forest

As the last of Europe’s virgin forests dwindles to a fraction of what it used to be, philanthropic initiatives have risen up and are driving the privatization of conservation in Eastern Europe. These projects aim to promote habitat restoration and protection as well as promoting eco-tourism and economic development in surrounding communities. Projects such as Rewilding Europe, and foundations such as The European Nature Trust and Foundation Conservation Carpathia are just a couple of groups that gather funds for major projects in land acquisition, and wildland rehabilitation.

In recent years environmental philanthropy has been shown to be among the fastest-growing philanthropic sectors, with small donations contributing “the overwhelming majority” over the ultrarich in philanthropic giving. This surge in philanthropic spending will have ripple effects throughout the funding ‘ecosystem’ and shift power from the traditional state-led conservation efforts to private and NGO-led models. This has raised concerns among critics in regard to governance, land access, as well as considerations for surrounding communities. While on one hand, private and NGO models have significant benefits and advantages over government-led initiatives that will be discussed more later, however, critics argue and emphasize the risk of land dispossession and the exclusionary conservation practices that undermine rural communities reliant on traditional land uses and lifestyles.

Projects such as Rewilding Europe create frameworks to encourage and facilitate private investment. This project hopes to move away from classic carbon credits (often largely tied to planting initiatives or one-time purchases) and towards nature-based carbon credits which aim to get companies to invest in long-term initiatives that facilitate the restoration of European landscapes in line with Rewilding Principles.

What is rewilding

Rewilding is a plastic term, meaning there is no strict definition. Generally it is a cumulation of activities and processes to return an area to a wild state in order to maintain biodiversity whilst reducing anthropogenic impact. Deciding what a wild state looks like is done by establishing baselines for comparison, mainly the Pleistocene and Holocene. Returning an environment to its wild state necessitates the restoration of ecological processes, which for many this mean the introduction of previously present  species, or those thought to be analogous in niche, which often regulate these processes.

Background of privatization of conservation in Europe

The trend of privatizing conservation efforts in Europe has surfaced due to a decrease in government funding and a growing awareness of the urgent need to address the loss in biodiversity. However conservation is not a new trend in Europe, historically many Royal, Aristocrats or others in power christened hunting grounds for the preservation of certain species for hunting purposes. For example, Polish King Sigmund 1 made the Białowieża Forest a reserve for hunting bison indirectly creating some of the most biodiverse areas found in Europe today. Post war Europe was an environment where governments took conservation in their own hands, countries like France, the UK and Germany all put in place national parks. Whilst in communist Europe land was nationalized and allowed for the establishment of  Zapovedniki (nature reserves for preservation but mostly research). Now, many Eastern European nations have seen a rise in privately funded conservation projects, especially after the economic shifts that followed the end of the Soviet Union. Many former state-owned lands were either privatized or abandoned, providing opportunities for private and philanthropic organizations to step in. In the 90s with growing concern for the environment the predecessor to the EU created the Natura 2000 network with an emphasized goal of public-private partnership, highlighting the appetite  for private actors in conservation and marking a transition towards private conservation. The transition from centralized government-controlled conservation to market-driven approaches has reshaped land management, with rewilding and biodiversity-focused investments becoming prominent. However, this shift raises questions regarding equity, access to natural resources, and long-term sustainability. As governments face budgetary constraints and shifting policy priorities, private organizations and philanthropic donors have stepped in to fill conservation funding gaps. This has led to the development of innovative conservation financing mechanisms, such as conservation easements, biodiversity offsets, and private nature reserves.

Why private conservation?

Over the past few years, private conservation has become an unavoidable force behind world biodiversity conservation, particularly where government intervention is underfunded or politically constrained. As environmental crises deepen and public funds dwindle, private funding in the form of philanthropic foundations, NGOs, and individual donors has stepped in to fund gap conservation programs in dire need. Private institutions are more agile than state institutions, able to quickly mobilize capital, adapt to local realities, and experiment with new tools like carbon credits through the purchase of nature and land.

Large-scale private conservation has the ability to set long-term goals beyond election cycles, but with the capability to leave room for grassroots action and green expansion. These conservation programs can have a narrower focus than government led conservation, meaning more targeted and efficient efforts.  Across Eastern Europe, various primary institutions such as Rewilding Europe, Conservation Carpathia Foundation, and The European Nature Trust have spearheaded these projects. Both operate within a distinct paradigm of balancing ecological restoration with local relevance, demonstrating at once the promise and risks of the privatization of conservation, especially in comparison to more traditional, state-led models.

Public vs Private Conservation - Brief Comparison

While both private and public conservation play important roles in conserving biodiversity, they differ across governance, accountability, and socio-ecological influence. It has been estimated the trade-offs with a model and predicted that public conservation will yield greater spatial extent and regulatory uniformity, whereas private conservation can yield more concentrated ecological benefits where sufficiently funded and strategically located. However, the returns of private conservation will depend on voluntary cooperation and may result in unequal distribution of benefits.

It has also been proposed that private land conservation may lead to social exclusion or conflict unless there is actual interaction with local stakeholders. As opposed to public models in democratic institutions and policy governance, private action may reflect donor agendas rather than participatory environmental governance. These findings suggest that while private conservation has the potential to offer new technologies and flexibility, it should be stringently compared with public methods in an effort to promote legitimacy, fairness, and sustainability over the long term.

Private conservation programs

Rewilding Europe

Although many conservation projects have been initiated across Eastern Europe, Rewilding Europe is among the most advanced and prominent examples of large-scale ecosystem restoration paradigms. Scattered across nations such as Romania, Spain, and Croatia, the project aims at re-establishing nature processes and reviving keystone species in degraded ecosystems, while helping to support local nature-based economies such as ecotourism and extensive grazing.

A herd of bison found in Romania's Carpatian Mountain range following a successful relocation effort

One of Europe's flagship sites is found in Romania's Carpathian Mountains, where Rewilding Europe has reintroduced European bison, which had been missing for over 200 years. The move has established one of Europe's largest free-roaming bison herds, and the animals now also perform a significant ecological function in sculpting open woodlands and maintaining them biodiverse. For long-term resilience, the organization is also working with local stakeholders to enhance connectivity in the forest and establish ecological corridors to allow species migration and adaptation to climate change.

The project will function on the basis of a clear set of rewilding principles, placing high value on minimum human intervention, restoration of natural ecological processes, and landscape-level connectivity. It also promotes a nature-based economy that fosters the integration of local livelihoods into conservation objectives through wildlife tourism, sustainable exploitation of natural resources, and outdoor recreation. To be financially sustainable, Rewilding Europe employs innovative funding approaches, including nature-based carbon credits, to fund long-term ecological restoration.

Its greatest strength lies in its vision and ability to mobilize long-term philanthropic investment by private donors and foreign governments. It has, however, been accused of interfering with traditional land-use practices at times and, in certain cases, excluding Indigenous or local communities. In response, Rewilding Europe increasingly adopted participatory planning and co-management strategies to reconcile conservation objectives with local economic and cultural interests. Challenging as it is, such integration of ecological restoration with local collaboration is a move in the right direction for successful and equitable conservation in the area.

The European Nature Trust (TENT)

The European Nature Trust (TENT) is a non-profit organization restoring and protecting natural habitats across Europe. TENT operates in Scotland, Spain, Italy, and Romania and reconnects people and nature in partnership, media, and education. Rather than directly buying land, TENT invests in local NGOs and rewilding projects, funds documentary filmmaking, and delivers experiential nature experience to students, stakeholders, and donors.

TENT is convinced that conservation is as efficient in changing the mindset of the population and gaining cultural backing for nature as it is efficient when it comes to preserving landscapes themselves. Through sustainable land use planning and biodiversity restoration schemes in Spain and Romania, the organization supports community-based conservation. This is a subtle but conscious strategy in keeping with TENT's institution-building and local knowledge orientation at the grassroots level. The strongest asset of TENT is that it has the capability to mobilize mass publics and set the conservation agenda through emotive education and communication.

By prioritizing communication and awareness at the core of its strategy, TENT is ideally suited to be leading the way in building long-term political and cultural constituencies for environmental stewardship. Its flexible system also allows it to work in close partnership with locally valued partners who have ecological knowledge as well as social credibility. But as TENT does not actually get projects or root management itself, any value that its efforts are capable of generating is also dependent on the success of its partners. Because the Rewilding Institute implies, while TENT's model is good at reforming the manner in which individuals think and talk regarding conservation, it lacks that very immediate appeal which other models have and can be open to cruder policy and land-based action coordination if there is to be any long-term ecological benefit.

The Foundation Conservation Carpathia (FCC)

Foundation Conservation Carpathia (FCC) is a non-governmental organization that was established in 2009 with the objective of conserving and restoring Romania's Făgăraș Mountains as part of the larger Carpathian mountain system. It was formed as a result of widespread illegal deforestation in the region and aims to create a world-class wilderness preserve by acquiring degraded forestland, restoring environmental health, and eventually having it designated as a national park.

FCC planted more than 27,500 hectares of meadow and forestland and sowed more than 4 million native trees in the reforestation zones. The rewilding also involves the reintroduction of the keystone species such as the European bison, beaver, and lynx and conservation of the already established keystone population of red deer, wolves, and bears. The institution embraces an integrated conservation strategy through the use of ecological restoration to integrate with sustainable development and local people's participation. Eco-tourism, organic farming, and environmental education offer employment for the locals, combining conservation rewards with sustainable economic gain for the residents.

One of FCC’s most innovative strategies is integrating local livelihoods into conservation, which is being presented to have the capacity to avoid conflict and secure long-term ownership. "What makes FCC stand out from the rest," continues Alianta, "is that they want to involve the local people as stakeholders in their conservation strategy". Its landscape-scale planning and ecological corridors program is an international model and places Romania on the leading edge of Europe. But all's not well. Its long-term financing must be guaranteed so that large-scale land acquisition and restoration work can keep going. Elsewhere, it has been one of conflicting objectives between conservation and local uses and there has to be continuous debate and participatory process.

Overall, FCC is a novel conservation approach that connects rewilding, nature conservation, and community involvement, and would be an example to follow for any future rewilding initiative in Europe.

The creation of these programs aim to operate to create ecotourism opportunities, enhance biodiversity, and mitigate climate change's impacts. However, their reliance on private funds and external factors often leads to debates regarding accountability and local community involvement.

Narratives and conflicts for Private conservation

The role of local communities in private conservation

Local involvement is more widely accepted as one of the ingredients of successful conservation—whether in state-managed or privately managed initiatives. Through their meta-analysis of 55 case studies, Andrade and Rhodes (2012) concluded that conservation policies were better implemented in protected areas where the local communities had been given sufficient representation in decision-making. It can only stand to reason that in the absence of locals' direct involvement, even well-funded projects will not be capable of achieving ecological goals in the long run.

In Eastern Europe, projects like Rewilding Europe and Foundation Conservation Carpathia typically try to elicit community support through nature-based economies like ecotourism. Critics argue that those projects fall short of actually accepting the sharing of governance power or recognition of local knowledge systems. Where land is being purchased and access is restricted without involving local communities, conflict is unavoidable—particularly with such local communities that historically relied on the land for subsistence use or cultural reasons. Bringing the local communities onboard not only as beneficiaries but also as co-managers of conservation is thus at the heart of building trust, reducing conflict, and enhancing the legitimacy and sustainability of private models of conservation.

Locals replanting in the Făgăraș Mountains

Conservation in Eastern Europe can be viewed through multiple narratives. On one hand, rewilding supporters advocate for an approach with minimal human-intervention allowing for nature to recover. On the other hand, local communities and traditional land users express concerns over land access restrictions, economic displacement, and changes in land use patterns. The expansion of private conservation initiatives has also sparked debates about the commodification of nature and whether biodiversity as well as private led conservation should be managed as a public good or a market-driven asset. According to Gooden and 't Sas-Rolfes the conflicts of private conservation and their critical perspectives can be categorized into three main groups created by cataloguing all the ways in which private land conservation(PLC) not just in Europe but all over the world  is negatively critiqued in academic literature by local communities. Group 1 is Implementation effectiveness: this group's articles evaluate PLC’s by comparing it to state-managed areas rather than alternative land uses. Monitoring and adaptability as well as (PLC)financial sustainability are just a few of the challenges that affect this group. Skills and capacity as well as are critiqued challenges and often underfunded as well as fails to account for long term ecological changes and often relies on short term revenue from ecotourism which can degrade the environment. Group 2 is classified as the Value Conflict group in Private land conservation. Articles in the group draw on political ideology and critical geography. The critiques in this illustrate broader tensions around power, equity, and land use within society. It appears that the conflicts about private conservation in this group stems from cultural conflict, inequity, as well as neocolonialism. PLC often clash with the cultural values of locals and indigenous people. In terms of Neocolonialism conservation projects may reinforce power imbalances causing communities to face restricted access and loss of cultural ties. The last group is group three which is categorized as Economic Inefficiency, having its critiques rooted in libertarianism as well as neoclassical economics. This group appears similar to group 2 but differs in the fact that its concepts and critiques relate to broader societal issues. Key concerns for this group are moral hazard as well as Hubris of the Present. The critiques that fall under moral hazard being public subsidies and tax breaks for private conservation  may cause landowners to create projects with no end in sight causing damage to the area. Key critiques that fall under Hubris of the Present being that critics question how fair it really is to create permanent conservation decisions which could impact the people of the future in a negative way.

The Eastern European perspective, a pilot program

Eastern Europe has a  history of land abandonment and rural depopulation due to the fall of the USSR  and has developed rapidly since, which made it especially suitable for rewilding projects and should serve as inspiration for developing countries. Globally there has been a similar marked shift from state-led to private/NGO-led conservation due to funding shortages and decentralization, thus Asian, African, and Latin American countries are looking for non-state conservation models such as those that were tried out in Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe thus acts as a real world testing ground for private conservation models  (rewilding, philanthropy-driven, community-linked). Examples such as Rewilding Europe demonstrate that conservation can be carried out outside the traditional Western NGO paradigm, community-initiated and philanthropy-supported, with the potential for ecosystem recovery, however these also have certain risks associated, unequal distribution of benefit and absence of local involvement. Effectively Eastern Europe acts as a model, from which we can learn about conservation planning in the future in the world, indicating that there should be a balancing of innovation and legitimacy as well as ecological concerns and social justice. However it is important to remember that conservation models are highly dependent on and adapted to local political, social and ecological context and thus can not be directly ported without localization.

Conclusion

The Eastern European experience of conservation philanthropy offers invaluable lessons about developing conservation in any part of the world. Operations like Rewilding Europe, The European Nature Trust (TENT), and the Foundation Conservation Carpathia (FCC) suggest incredible ecological restoration as well as sustainable benefits to regional communities are within reach beyond usual state-funded systems, especially in case projects obtaining long-term financing support and imaginative approaches. These examples show us a glimpse of what can be accomplished when conservation is visionary and dynamic.

In the meantime, they carry large questions with them. Who determines what conservation is and for whom is it done? If local acceptance or respect for traditional land use is not present, then even the most altruistic effort stands to create conflict and alienate popular support. Research upon research confirms that conservation fares best when indigenous individuals are engaged as more than just participants but as full members in decision-making.

As the same models begin to take hold elsewhere in the world from Asia to Latin America, the lessons of Eastern Europe are learned and caution is exercised. They teach us that social responsibility and environmental objectives must walk together. Conservation in the future, if it is to be genuinely sustainable, must learn to hear local voices, to share power, and be sensitive to the cultural and ecological context of a region.

References

This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200.