Finnish experts debate peatland restoration impacts

Finnish researchers are weighing the benefits and drawbacks of restoring drained peatlands, a significant portion of the country's forest area.

“

The claim that an additional 2–3 million hectares would be unprofitable due to the need for renovation drainage and fertilization is unfounded.

While Risto Sulkava argues in an opinion piece that most drained peatlands should be restored, citing unprofitable forestry on 10-20% of these areas, experts Paavo Ojanen, Sakari Sarkkola, and Annamari Lauren counter that his claims about the need for extensive restoration are unfounded. They state that drainage is still effective on most sites, and while nutrient deficiencies can limit growth, ash fertilization is often economically viable.

“

Restoration strengthens peatland biodiversity and can also reduce the risk of forest fires.

The researchers acknowledge that restoration can enhance biodiversity and potentially lower wildfire risks. However, they caution that it can also have negative consequences. Restoration may contribute to climate warming for decades or even centuries, and while long-term water quality benefits are expected, nutrient and organic matter runoff could increase initially.

“

Restoration often has a warming effect on the climate for decades or even centuries.

Furthermore, they highlight that one-fifth of Finland's timber stock grows on these drained peatlands, contributing significantly to the nation's wood supply, employment, and tax revenue. While timber can be harvested before restoration, subsequent forestry is typically impossible. The experts propose that peatland restoration and timber production are not mutually exclusive goals, suggesting that careful site selection can reconcile environmental and economic objectives.

“

One-fifth of Finland's timber stock grows on drained peatlands.