RECONCILE – Reconciliação da co-ocorrência de Áreas Agrícolas de Elevado Valor Natural e de Rewilding para promoção da biodiversidade, serviços dos ecossistemas e prevenção do risco do fogo em paisagens agrícolas

RECONCILE Challenge RECONCILE aims to reconcile conflicting management approaches (maintenance of High Nature Value farmlands - HNVf versus the promotion of Rewilding) to maximize biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES) and fire risk prevention in agricultural landscapes. RECONCILE ambition and novelty beyond the state-of-the-art RECONCILE goes beyond the state-of-the-art by building on inter- and transdisciplinary research and leveraging on stakeholder engagement, to develop and implement an innovative integrated management approach, reconciling areas of HNVf and Rewilding at the landscape level. The applied nature of RECONCILE includes the development of a tailored Spatial Planning Tool to optimize BES and fire risk prevention, under co-designed scenarios of change, to support the design of policies, landscape planning and management. RECONCILE specific objectives (SO), questions (Q) and hypothesis (H) SO1. Mapping and characterizing, from a social-ecological point of view, agricultural landscapes in which BES and fire risk prevention can benefit from integrated management including HNVf and Rewilding. Q1: Where are located opportunities (landscapes) for HNVf, Rewilding co-occurrence at the EU level? What are the key criteria to define such locations? H1: We hypothesize that opportunities for integrated landscape management in the EU may be found in marginal agricultural areas, such as remote regions with higher topographic complexity, characterized by a higher risk of agricultural abandonment and fire occurrence. SO2. Co-designing plausible scenarios, through stakeholders’ engagement and integration of preferences, for the co-existence of HNVf and Rewilding at the landscape level. Q2: Are stakeholders willing to uptake HNVf schemes and/or Rewilding initiatives? What scenarios are envisioned and what factors drive the choice between HNVf and Rewilding from landowners’ perspective? H2: We hypothesize that stakeholders' scenarios are context-dependent and related to sectorial drivers and barriers to socio-economic viability, with Rewilding perceived as contributing to biodiversity at the cost of increasing wildfire and decreasing socio-economic viability. SO3. Assessing impacts and trade-offs of co-designed scenarios on biodiversity, ecosystem services and fire risk prevention at the landscape level. Q3: Can HNVf and Rewilding be complementary at the landscape level in terms of support to biodiversity, ecosystem scenarios and fire risk prevention? How do different combinations of areas under HNVf and Rewilding impact social-ecological outcomes? H3: We hypothesize that at the landscape level, HNVf and Rewilding can co-exist to maximize biodiversity and delivery of ecosystem services, while reducing wildfire hazard, with outcomes from contrasting combinations of both strategies being context dependent. SO4. Developing a tailored Spatial Prioritization Planning Tool for maximizing biodiversity, ecosystem services and fire prevention at the landscape level. Q4: Can Spatial Prioritization Planning tools be used to maximize biodiversity, ecosystem services and fire prevention at the landscape level? If so, how can HNVf and Rewilding be reconciled to achieve multiple objectives? H4: We hypothesize that spatial planning tools can optimize biodiversity, ecosystem services and fire prevention in landscapes where HNVf and Rewilding co-exist in space and time, by allowing the optimization of allocation of both management strategies.