9. Cross-Nordic Perspectives on rewetting

The following chapter will present a cross-Nordic comparison, looking at differences and similarities across all countries, divided into four overarching categories, Objectives for rewetting, Policy administration, Economic support mechanisms and Evaluation and monitoring approaches.

Rewetting initiatives in the Nordic countries share overarching goals of climate mitigation, biodiversity conservation, and water management, yet the emphasis and implementation reflect distinct national priorities and historical contexts. While all countries acknowledge the importance of wetland restoration, their approaches vary based on historical land use and specific environmental challenges.

Historically, all Nordic countries have drained wetlands predominantly for agricultural and forestry purposes. In Denmark and Iceland, the primary focus has been creating space for conventional farming, with Iceland also using ditches and drains at times to mark territory. In Sweden and Finland, extensive wetland drainage has occurred specifically to support forestry, alongside a significant peat industry in both countries. In Finland, peat extraction plays a crucial role, with harvested peat used for heating and energy production. In Norway, wetland drainage has traditionally aimed at supporting agricultural and forestry expansion, enhancing land productivity for crop cultivation and livestock farming. Furthermore, Norwegian wetlands were dammed to create reservoirs during the development of major hydroelectric power plants.

In Denmark, rewetting is central to the climate plan, focusing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. An objective that is very outspoken for the Danish rewetting efforts is also mitigating nutrient pollution from agriculture, mainly, nitrogen and phosphorous to protect aquatic ecosystems.

Like Denmark, Iceland has made rewetting a core strategy for achieving its national and global CO₂e reduction targets. Biodiversity and ecosystem health are regarded more as positive side effects from climate measures achieved through rewetting.

Finland's Helmi Habitat Programme, alongside the METSO initiative, underscores the country's holistic approach to rewetting. These programmes aim to enhance biodiversity, prevent ecosystem degradation, and improve water quality, with rewetting as a key tool. Finland has for a long time restored wetlands for several purposes including better conditions for biodiversity and natural hydrology alongside greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Norway's objectives in rewetting wetlands are threefold: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance climate adaptation, and improve ecological conditions. By restoring wetlands, Norway seeks to curb emissions from degraded peatlands while fostering ecosystems that are better equipped to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

In Sweden, rewetting initiatives are divided into "återvätning" for climate purposes and wetland restoration for biodiversity and hydrological improvements. Swedish policies heavily prioritize climate mitigation, particularly targeting drained peatlands for their significant greenhouse gas reduction potential. However, the Swedish EPA emphasizes the importance of balancing climate and biodiversity goals to avoid neglecting wetlands that support unique ecosystems, including nutrient-poor soils in northern regions. This underscores the need for diverse strategies to maximize benefits for both climate and biodiversity.

The Nordic countries demonstrate varied approaches to area-based rewetting targets. Finland has set clear goals for two programmes, aiming to restore 60,000 and 30,000 hectares of drained peatlands respectively between 2021 and 2030, though some programmes lack specific area-based targets. Denmark plans to rewet 140,000 hectares of agricultural land by 2030 under the Green Tripartite Agreement. Iceland targets the restoration of 5.300 hectares by 2026 and 15,600 hectares by 2031. In contrast, Norway and Sweden have yet to establish specific area-based targets or provide clear estimates of the emission reductions anticipated from their rewetting initiatives.

Climate change mitigation is a shared objective between the countries, but its role in national strategies has become more prominent and slightly changed during the last decade. Iceland has since 2016 integrated rewetting into a national climate action plan, critical for meeting international commitments. Norway aligns its restoration efforts with Paris Agreement obligations, focusing on slowing wetland degradation and enhancing climate adaptation. Sweden has also shifted focus just within the last five years, also targeting rewetting efforts to contribute to climate objectives and climate mitigation advantages, such as resilience against climate impacts like flooding, droughts, and wildfires.

Increasing biodiversity and ecosystem health is also an important goal for the Nordic countries, though to varying extents. Norway complements its climate goals with aims to restore and conserve biodiversity through rewetting. Finland, with its long history of wetland restoration, emphasizes the importance of rewetting to improve water quality and biodiversity, especially in forestry regions. Sweden’s action plan similarly links rewetting to biodiversity, although in a more vague manner without clear targets.

In sum, while Nordic countries share commitments to rewetting for climate, ecological, and socio-economic benefits, their priorities and strategies reflect distinct national circumstances. In both Denmark and Finland, an important objective for the restoration of wetlands is to improve water quality and biodiversity, Iceland’s and Sweden´s carbon-centric strategy and Norway’s ecosystem focus, illustrate quite diverse pathways to sustainable wetland management in the region.

The approaches in the Nordic countries demonstrate that while rewetting is beneficial for many purposes, a singular focus on climate objectives may risk overlooking the broader ecological value of wetlands. Countries like Finland highlight the importance of maintaining a balance, ensuring that both biodiversity and climate goals are met. This integrated perspective is crucial for long-term environmental and climate resilience across the region.

In all Nordic countries, the responsibility for rewetting and restoration projects is shared between various ministries and agencies. Sweden stands out as the only country where the responsibility to execute policy initiatives has been delegated directly to national agencies like the EPA, excluding ministries from the responsibility.

In Denmark, the primary focus is on farmers and agricultural land, which is predominantly privately owned. Direct engagement with landowners is the key approach. The responsibility for rewetting projects is divided among the Danish Nature Agency, the Agricultural Agency, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Municipalities also play a key role in planning and implementing rewetting projects. However, the evolving political landscape in Denmark and negotiations during 2024 regarding rewetting have included the agricultural sector and the Danish Society for Nature Conservation, who will play a significant role in the implementation of rewetting projects in the near future.

In Finland, rewetting efforts primarily target forestry land, with agricultural land playing a lesser role. The focus is on drained forestry peatlands, largely comprised by state-owned protected areas. To date, the main efforts have been in protected areas due to the availability of protected state land. However, meeting the goals set for 2035, 2040, and 2050 will necessitate rewetting of privately owned land, which will require enhanced communication efforts and greater financial incentives, as stated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Metsähallitus. Thus far, direct communication with landowners has proven more effective than waiting for applications for voluntary rewetting measures. Responsibility for these efforts primarily lies with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, while the Ministry of Environment and the state-owned enterprise Metsähallitus also play significant roles. Metsähallitus oversees forestry and protected land, administers rewetting projects, and manages government funding programs. However, responsibility for rewetting efforts is scattered among ministries and research institutes who all are involved to some extent in rewetting programs and research projects. The programs and research periods last for different length of time and a coordination role between the different rewetting efforts seems to be lacking.

In Iceland, rewetting is predominantly carried out on agricultural land, with a smaller proportion of forestry land being included. Private landowners are the main stakeholders, though municipal land is also relevant to some extent. Responsibility is shared among the Ministry of Environment, Climate and Energy, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Land and Forest Iceland. Like other Nordic countries, Iceland has had success with directly engaging landowners to implement rewetting measures rather than relying on applications for voluntary rewetting schemes. However, there is general resistance to rewetting among landowners, particularly regarding its effectiveness in reducing emissions. The skepticism is considered to somewhat hinder progress for voluntary agreements. Unlike its Nordic counterparts, Iceland places significant emphasis on carbon offsetting as a mean to promote rewetting. The country is currently developing a carbon credit standard for rewetting to enhance offsetting efforts and ensure more reliable calculations.

In Norway, rewetting efforts initially focused on protected areas until the early 2020s. Since 2021, the scope has expanded to include restoration projects on other public lands and since 2024, private lands. Funding schemes for private landowners and municipalities for nature restoration have been in place since 2024. Responsibility for these projects is shared between the Norwegian Environment Agency and the Ministry of Climate and Environment. The implementation of state projects is carried out by Norwegian Nature Inspectorate under the Norwegian Environment Agency and by the County Governors. Additionally, the state-owned forestry enterprise, Norwegian Statskog, has entered into a ten-year agreement with the state to carry out restoration activities on state-owned land.

In Sweden, privately owned forest land and municipal land are the main focus of rewetting initiatives, while agricultural land is excluded from political objectives. It is only since the 2020s that rewetting has become a political priority. Direct engagement with landowners remains the main communication strategy, though awareness of policy measures among landowners is still limited. More resources and targeted outreach are needed to address this gap. To support these efforts, Sweden has developed a “peat-map” to identify fertile peat soils and prioritize rewetting initiatives. Only a small proportion of rewetting occurs on state-owned protected land. Responsibility for rewetting rests with the Environmental Protection Agency, which allocates government funding to the other involved authorities. The latter, in turn, distributes funds to regions and municipalities for local rewetting projects. The centralized responsibility for all rewetting initiatives that rests on the Swedish EPA, creates a clear structure and clearly defined responsibility from the government´s side.

Economic support mechanisms differ significantly among the Nordic countries, reflecting variations in policy priorities, land ownership patterns, and political frameworks. This variation makes it difficult to compare the funding allocated for rewetting across countries. Some countries have annual budgets or multi-year programs, while others rely on project-based compensation and cost reimbursement per hectare rewetted, making it challenging to identify a dedicated total budget for comparison across the Nordics. The funding driving rewetting across the Nordics is generally a mix of government budgets and EU funds.

In Denmark, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries manages compensation and cost reimbursements for rewetting projects. Four-fifths of the funding comes from the EU, with the remainder provided by the government, except for lowland projects, which are entirely government-funded. In autumn 2024, the government established a Green Land-Use Fund financed by the Danish state. Landowners can choose to sell their land to the state at an agreed price, retain ownership and receive compensation for the loss of value due to rewetting, or accept a one-off payment. Compensation for rewetting covers the planning and execution of the projects, including all necessary materials and technical expertise.

In Finland, forest landowners can enter into fixed-term compensation agreements for ten years. The state may also purchase land from landowners for permanent protection. Alongside reimbursement to the landowner for lost economic income, government funding is also allocated for restoration, construction and maintenance costs. For farmers, cost coverage is limited to expenses related to planning and implementing rewetting practices, as well as maintaining the rewetted land. A large share of Finland's rewetting takes place on state-owned forestry land, where drainage has not improved tree growth. These peatlands have been the primary focus of rewetting efforts, which explains the relatively limited use of compensation agreements to date.

In Iceland, neither private individuals nor businesses are eligible for reimbursement. It is unclear from the state budget how much funding is allocated to rewetting projects, as there is no dedicated or earmarked government funding. Restoration activities are partly supported by a private wetland fund, which works alongside public authorities. Additionally, carbon offsetting opportunities are available to private landowners and businesses involved in restoration projects. The state is actively supporting the development of a carbon credit methodology, which is currently underway.

In Norway, rewetting has predominantly been carried out on protected state-owned land. However, the Wetland Restoration Plan for 2021–2025 also includes initiatives for other public lands and potentially private lands. With a grant for nature restoration available from 2024, Norway is also starting to provide incentives for rewetting on private land. The grant involves agreements between private landowners and the Norwegian Government, where landowners are obliged to uphold the restored wetland for 40 years. The funding for these efforts is expected to increase in the coming years.

Sweden funds rewetting activities through three distinct government programs. One program distributes funds to regions and municipalities for rewetting on public land, another focuses exclusively on protected state-owned land, and the third targets privately owned forestry land. For private land, a dedicated yearly budget covers costs related to planning, construction, and maintenance, as well as compensation for economic losses when land is taken out of production. While Sweden has a clear yearly budget for rewetting, the absence of defined short- and long-term targets is a notable gap.

All countries have funding schemes in place to promote rewetting on private owned land, through which landowners can get reimbursement for the expenses of planning and restoring wetlands. However, Denmark, Finland and Sweden also have funding schemes that offer compensation for the rewetted land and/or from lost income that is a consequence from rewetting, such as less productive soils for forestry. The levels for land compensation in these countries are presented in Table 16.

Table 16: Overview of compensation schemes that reimburse land and/or lost income from land to private landowners. The funding schemes available in Iceland and Norway do not entail compensation for land or lost income from rewetting (2024).

This report focuses on evaluations and monitoring of current policies and funding programs in the five Nordic countries. In some cases, broader research on the effects of rewetting, such as its impact on greenhouse gas emissions or nearby ecosystems and land, is conducted when prioritised by the government to improve understanding of rewetting practices.

There has been limited monitoring and evaluation of policy measures and their effects on climate and the environment across all countries. As illustrated in Table 17 the reporting of area rewetted varies between countries.  

Table 17: National monitoring and evaluations of area rewetted.

The effect on CO₂ emission reductions is also, to some extent, evaluated in the Nordic countries, but there are many uncertainties related to the calculations. Reporting on emission reductions from rewetting in national climate accounting is still only done to a limited extent. This is mainly due to many uncertainties in estimations when comparing emissions before and after restoration. Accurate reporting requires data from the actual sites restored, where a standardised methodology is missing. Studies attempting to measure the effects of rewetting provide limited evidence, as they typically use data from small areas to generalise for the entire country, leading to significant uncertainties.

IPCC provides guidance for calculating emissions from rewetted land, but this methodology has been assessed unreliable due to the limited number of studies included in the calculations. Norway currently lacks a method to estimate emission reductions and aims to develop a calculation method and collaborate with other countries to improve their reporting on greenhouse gas reductions from wetland restoration. In Iceland, it has been raised that monitoring of rewetting initiatives could be outsourced to the landowner against remuneration to improve the monitoring process. Sweden has so far not reported on emission reductions from wetland restoration to the yearly greenhouse gas inventory to IPCC, mainly due to the above-mentioned issue of unreliable calculations. However, Sweden plans on reporting on emissions starting from reporting year 2024, based on new updated estimations conducted by researchers for the Swedish EPA.

In Finland, water quality has been a key reason for conducting monitoring. Finland has many lakes, coastal areas and water bodies, which have been severely affected by the drainage of peatlands. By rewetting the drained land, the improved water quality has been profound, which has been positive for the fish stock, bird life and biodiversity. The hydrological effect from rewetting is an important aspect in the multifunctional perspective of rewetting, which is important to include in overall assessments.   

Comprehensive evaluations of ongoing policy measures across all countries have not yet been conducted, as programmes in the individual countries are relatively new. All countries have planned policy evaluations during the coming years. Sweden has conducted or initiated several sub-evaluations of current funding schemes. These evaluations primarily focus on understanding forest owners' perceptions of the new reimbursement model and the motivations behind rewetting among forest owners. Another significant ongoing Swedish evaluation examines the legal framework, identifying existing legal barriers to rewetting on privately owned land. These types of evaluations could be useful for the other countries to learn from, since other perspectives are in focus that can enhance knowledge about effectiveness of the funding schemes, especially the compensation schemes to landowners.

No cost-benefit analysis has yet been conducted on wetland restoration in a Nordic context. However, various government reports and evaluations suggest that such analysis would support ongoing rewetting priorities. Evidence indicates that the long-term impact on ecosystem services and greenhouse gas emissions is positive and likely to be economically justified. Norway has, for example, made a socio-economic analysis of their current Wetland Restoration plan running until 2025. The analysis includes around 80 mire projects with estimated costs and benefits from ecosystem services. The analysis provides an interesting case and learning on how ecosystem services can be evaluated in monetary terms. However, the analysis concludes that there is insufficient information to draw definitive conclusions about the economic benefits of wetland restoration.

In a recently published article by Laudon et al. 2023,

Laudon et al. (2024)

11,000 scientific articles about wetland restoration were screened, and only 40 were relevant to Swedish conditions. The authors conclude that there are more insights regarding the great importance of wetlands rather than the actual effects when rewetting. The article also concludes that restoration projects often lack funding for follow-up and monitoring of their effects, which is why such activities are rarely carried out. Different authorities have varying priorities, with some focusing on drinking water, others on climate impacts, biodiversity, or eutrophication. This highlights the need for a national commitment to collective investments in monitoring efforts to address all these interests comprehensively.

The article compares with the situation in Finland, where significantly more research articles on wetland restoration were identified. This is likely due to Finland's history of drainage, which caused severe environmental damage and degraded water quality. Consequently, Finland appears to have made greater progress in monitoring and evaluations compared to neighbouring countries, Sweden being mentioned specifically.

Laudon et al. (2024)