Europe’s wetlands are devastated. Research indicates that over the last century, more than 80 per cent of them have been drained to make way for agriculture and industry.
By draining these wetlands, Europe has lost a major way to mitigate climate change. These wetlands filter and store water, keep local temperatures cool, and are among the best ways to naturally store carbon.
The EU’s 2024 Nature Restoration Law requires all EU member countries to restore at least 30% of their wetlands that aren’t in ‘good condition’ by 2030.
A new white paper suggests multiple policy reforms at the EU and national level to make this wetland restoration more effective, economically viable, and socially fair to locals.
The paper titled ‘Prioritising Wetland Conservation and Restoration in Europe’ gathers evidence from the EU-funded wetland projects REWET, WET HORIZONS, ALFAwetlands, Restore4Cs, ForPeat, Interreg Wetland4Change, and Palus Demos.
“These projects all worked separately from each other, though arrived at consistent conclusions; they showed that we need to act urgently to restore wetlands and they identified the policy priorities needed to do so”, said Hannah Porada, an editor of the white paper and expert in environmental justice at the Dutch National Committee of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN NL).
Although wetland ecosystems offer major benefits to the environment and society, they continue to be degraded throughout Europe through drainage, land reclamation, and climate change.
Such degradation undermines EU environmental objectives by causing biodiversity loss, raising greenhouse gas emissions and flood risks, and turning a natural carbon sink into a source of greenhouse gas emissions.
Policy Mismatch
Policies from the EU and national governments provide a way to conserve and restore wetlands, but for many reasons putting them into action is challenging.
Scattered policies across different levels of government are one challenge. For example, agricultural support systems under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and land-use incentives in some EU member countries often incentivise drainage and intensive use of wetlands. These clash with restoration and climate objectives.
“We have all of these policies that are trying to do different things that are often working against each other,” says Mark Reed, a Professor in Rural Entrepreneurship from Scotland’s Rural College and a co-author of the white paper. “One of the key things we need to do is to create some coherence between these policies.”
Some degraded, drained, or transitional wetlands can also be excluded from the formal definitions of wetlands, making them ineligible for protection or ecosystem service markets.
The report includes three case studies in Spain, Germany and Finland to show how coordinated governance across sectors and scales can deliver successful wetland restoration. Countries should coordinate across government sectors to link agriculture, climate, biodiversity and water authorities to simplify and accelerate restoration processes.
As the EU’s new CAP scheme continues to be negotiated by EU member countries, the white paper also recommends popularising CAP eco-schemes and phasing out CAP incentives that indirectly support drainage, specifically area-based direct payments.
Financing Gaps
Constrained public budgets also pose a challenge for scaling. Expanding wetland restoration often bumps up against constrained public budgets. Restoration requires substantial upfront investment and long-term support for maintenance and monitoring.
To address this, private finance is increasingly seen as a complementary source, though its role remains debated in academic and political circles.
While the EU is integrating more market-based incentives into its environmental policies, the white paper recommends creating an EU-wide integrity criteria for wetland carbon and biodiversity markets under the EU’s Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Regulation. This includes clear permanence requirements and transparency standards.
Since poorly designed markets can create risks for nature and local communities where governance, verification, transparency and safeguards are weak, the white paper recommends blended finance mechanisms that combine EU and national public funding with private capital. This helps to de-risk restoration projects with high-upfront-cost and long-payback for private investors.
Local Support for Local Landscapes
Social barriers also limit engagement from wetland owners. The white paper says that competing interests need to be reconciled to win support from landowners and the public.
“We also need to remember that these are landscapes that people live in, that people work in, that have all of this cultural heritage and history,” says Reed. “We need to make sure that nobody’s left behind as we try and transform these landscapes.”
Usually, wetland restoration does not fully consider who takes part in restoration design, who bears the risks, and how the benefits are shared. This can undermine its reputation and could lead to local resistance.
A direct way to counteract this is to make sure local communities take part in restoration planning early, regularly, and inclusively. Among the white paper recommendations in this area is that local authorities introduce engagement standards like the UK’s British Standards Institute code.
Porada says that although there are many important funding schemes, policies need to better consider the social aspect of wetland restoration.
“A central point in this recommendation is that landscapes are not empty spaces,” she says. “There are a lot of people in them, people living and working in these landscapes; landowners, farmers, local implementers, communities, cultural organisations, nature organisations, and so on.”
“Locals have the best idea of how to make wetland restoration work for them. But we need to also remember that protecting and restoring local wetlands is an act of social justice.”
Monitoring and Participation
Even if these changes take place, many landowners, farmers, and local authorities don’t have the know-how to implement restoration effectively, such as hydrological restoration design, business models, and financing instruments. Locals may also need training to make the restoration efforts truly effective. Governments also need accurate ways to account for the greenhouse gas emissions saved during restoration.
The white paper suggests the EU prioritise funding and regulatory support for restoring wetlands that provide the highest combined climate mitigation and adaptation benefits. Nationally, governments could promote more flexible ways to restore wetlands that respect decisions from farmers, such as restoring to semi-natural habitats or transitioning to wet agricultural systems, including paludiculture.
“I think we stand at a major crossroads,” says Reed. “Given how critical nature is to climate mitigation and the survival of our way of life, my hope is that we will find a way to come together to protect these habitats, build them back and enable them to protect us.”
Author: Fintan Burke | European Science Communication Institute (ESCI)
