The following section will explore uncertainties in policymaking and the evaluation process of rewetting policies. The topics have emerged from the cross-country analysis, supported by empirical data gathered through interviews with relevant authorities and organisations, scientific papers, grey literature and input from sounding board statements.
Efficiency of rewetting measures
Rewetting efforts are widely recognized for their numerous benefits, including improved biodiversity, enhanced carbon sequestration, and increased climate resilience and used by governments as nature-based solutions to a range of societal problems. However, this report has shown that significant challenges remain in adequately and transparently quantifying these benefits from environmental, social, and economic perspectives. These challenges, among others, stem from the lack of standardized monitoring and long-term studies needed to fully capture the effects of rewetting. This lack of clarity can hinder efforts to communicate its value and integrate it effectively into policy frameworks. Moreover, the financial costs associated with rewetting –such as expenses for land acquisition, restoration activities, and monitoring – are complex and difficult to quantify. The costs however often dominate policy debates, as they directly impact budgets and resource allocation. Meanwhile, there is wide understanding, also among government, of rewetting as one of the most cost-efficient measures for climate mitigation.
Cultural ecosystem services, such as the aesthetic value of restored landscapes and their potential for recreation and tourism, play a critical role in public and stakeholder support for rewetting projects. These services can be monetized through environmental economic value estimation methods, offering tangible economic benefits through increased tourism, local business opportunities, and improved community well-being. Yet, wetland’s less visible ecosystem services, such as water purification, flood mitigation, and carbon storage, are crucial to ecological sustainability and societal resilience but are rarely reflected in conventional cost-benefit analyses. Failing to account for these benefits risks undervaluing wetland restoration, potentially leading to underinvestment. This uncertainty illustrates the broader challenges of valuing complex ecosystems like wetlands, which provide services that are often taken for granted. Thus, a more integrated approach to measuring and valuing wetland benefits is essential for informed management and policy decisions.
Short-term vs. long-term climate impact
Restoring wetland functions may take several decades for ecosystems to fully recover. Rewetting peatlands presents a significant trade-off between short-term climate-warming effects and long-term benefits in reducing GHG emissions. The initial phase of rewetting often results in increased methane emissions, creating a temporary warming effect. Studies from Finland suggest this warming phase can last up to 30 years before the cooling effect of reduced CO₂ emissions takes hold. This time lag complicates efforts to measure and predict rewetting’s overall contribution to national emission targets, making it a long-term strategy rather than a quick fix. This is, however, not taken into consideration in national climate objectives yet, where it is only an immediate emissions reduction effect that is accounted for.
The heavy reliance on rewetting in Nordic countries as a primary measure to achieve short-term climate goals highlights a critical gap in current policy goals. Methane emissions from rewetted peatlands can significantly undermine the anticipated climate benefits in the initial decades. This issue is problematic because the immediate reductions in CO₂ emissions, which are typically highlighted in emission accounting frameworks, give a misleading impression of progress toward climate targets. By focusing on rewetting as a major strategy for short-term reductions, countries risk overlooking the delayed climate benefits and the significant warming phase that may persist for decades. This reliance on rewetting as a “quick win” creates a false sense of progress in climate reporting, potentially delaying the implementation of other strategies that deliver more immediate climate benefits, such as reducing fossil fuel consumption or improving energy efficiency.
Delaying rewetting only worsens the long-term effect of CO₂ emissions from drained peatlands. While methane emissions are a valid concern, they do not outweigh the significant climate benefits of rewetting. Policymakers must carefully consider which ecological factors to prioritise, as we know rewetting benefits extend beyond greenhouse gas mitigation. In conclusion, effective wetland management requires balancing ecosystem services and recognizing trade-offs between environmental goals, while still addressing the urgent need for climate action.
Afforestation vs wetland restoration
The trade-offs between afforestation and wetland restoration for climate objectives also require careful consideration. In Iceland, for instance, pristine public wetlands have been converted into forests by municipalities aiming to increase CO₂ capture. While afforestation may offer short-term carbon benefits, it often overlooks the long-term ecological functions of wetlands, such as biodiversity support, flood mitigation, and carbon storage. This example illustrates the importance of context-specific decision-making and ensuring that restoration efforts align with both immediate climate targets and broader ecological goals.
Rewetting on privately owned agricultural and forestry land has economic trade-offs with production profit, as can be seen from rewetting efforts conducted so far in the Nordics. To a large extent, state owned land has been prioritized, and there is still little knowledge on what compensation level is enough to incentivize landowners to rewet their land. This is mirrored from the very little total area of privately owned land that has been rewetted so far across all countries, as it is still a fairly new practice and too slow to live up to political ambitions. Neither is there little knowledge on the long term effects on the land when rewetted, in terms of production purposes and whether the land still to some extent can be used for production.
Using rewetting for carbon credits
The use of carbon offsets and credits in rewetting initiatives has sparked considerable debate, particularly regarding the ethical and practical implications of monetizing nature. Rewetting peatlands is widely recognized as an effective method for carbon sequestration and integrating it into carbon credit schemes could potentially contribute to restoration projects. This is currently being explored in Iceland where the state is supporting the development of a carbon credit methodology for wetland restoration. The methodology will set criteria for restoration projects to qualify for the issuance of carbon credits, enabling landowners to access private financial compensation for rewetting. This will be interesting to follow, especially as Iceland builds on existing knowledge from using carbon credits for afforestation projects. There are however critics who highlight that commodifying rewetting could enable corporations to offset emissions without significantly reducing emissions from their own operations, effectively creating a "license to pollute". This raises concerns about equity and the risk of exploiting ecosystems for financial gain. Additionally, a narrow focus on carbon credits may prioritize profit-driven goals over broader ecological and social benefits, such as biodiversity restoration, improved water regulation, and community resilience.
Carbon offset for rewetting is not widely discussed in the other Nordic countries. In terms of incentivizing and standardizing rewetting, the new voluntary EU-level certification framework for permanent carbon removals, carbon farming and carbon storage in products can play a larger role moving forward.