While Estonia has a long history of draining and damaging wetlands, peatland restoration has only been practiced for about two decades. So it's understandable that questions arise and that the topic needs clarification. Some half-truths and myths are already circulating — for instance, in the opinion piece by Kadri-Aija Viik, vice-chair of the Saarde municipal council, forestry expert, member of the Waterlands peatland restoration project steering group and board member of the Private Forest Association, published on ERR's portal.

From the perspective of natural science and ecosystem restoration, I'd like to explain what peatland restoration entails and what it brings with it.

First, it's important to consider the language being used. Restoring the hydrological regime in the Kikepera Nature Reserve and Soomaa National Park does not mean flooding or inundation, destruction of nature or signing a death sentence for thriving forests. It's about restoring ecosystems associated with peatlands, including mire forests, which are rich in biodiversity and characteristic of the Estonian landscape.

Let's start at the beginning: why are mire forests and hydrological restoration necessary in Kikepera? In the Kikepera Nature Reserve, the ecological condition is good in just over a third of the area. The rest is in poor or moderate condition due to drainage or forestry impacts. That means that in a protected area meant to safeguard nature, two-thirds of the natural habitats and associated species are in poor health. This situation is not favorable from a conservation standpoint.

The total restoration area within the Kikepera Nature Reserve, located in Saarde Municipality, spans 2,850 hectares. Restoration efforts are based on over fifteen years of experience, as Estonia has set a national goal to restore and rehabilitate 55,000 hectares of wetlands, including mire forests. Half of that target has already been achieved.

Thus, the restoration plan covers about 1.1 percent of Estonia's land area. Meanwhile, forests on peat soils affected by drainage span roughly 280,000 hectares, and as seen, the state does not plan to restore most of them. Unfortunately, the effects of drainage there will not abate and are likely to intensify in a warming and changing climate.

At the height of Soviet-era drainage operations, 1 percent of Estonia's territory was drained annually. With the help of foreign machinery, nearly two-thirds of Estonia's natural bogs were destroyed. A hundred years ago, peatlands covered 22 percent of the country; now, only 7 to 8 percent remain.

Fully restoring peatlands that have been completely destroyed is no longer realistic, nor is there any intention to create new peatlands. No one seeks to return to a bygone state. What has been recognized, however, is that peatlands are important and valuable to Estonia. They are habitats for many native species that cannot survive elsewhere, they store fresh water and they contain carbon that helps mitigate the effects of climate change.

All restoration work in Kikepera is taking place on state land, primarily within the strictly protected zones of the nature reserve, where economic activities are not permitted. Despite this, the project has been planned with maximum consideration for the wishes of local residents.

During numerous public meetings, residents expressed several concerns: maintaining the condition of access roads, abandoning work in certain degraded mire forests and preserving some ditches to maintain access to important local areas. As the State Forest Management Center (RMK) manages the area's infrastructure, ditches along forest roads necessary for maintenance will remain. Primary drainage channels critical for the land improvement system will also be preserved. Additionally, some ditches were left open at the request of locals to ensure access to areas important to them.

All plans for restoring nature in the Kikepera area have been presented repeatedly and at various stages to the Saarde municipal government and other local stakeholders (a total of 11 different events have been held so far). Yet at these meetings, in opinion pieces and in headlines, critics of the plan speak of "flooding" forests by the thousands of hectares and turning land into bog.

Changes in water levels have been analyzed and recalculated several times by scientists at the University of Tartu and by project planners, to clearly delineate areas where tree mortality could reasonably be expected. This mortality would be due to changes in water movement across the landscape, now reverting to the natural terrain that drainage had previously blocked or severed. These areas may develop into open wetlands or the forest composition may shift — spruce, for example, may be replaced by birch. From a conservation standpoint, such changes are not negative.

To address local concerns, University of Tartu researchers analyzed how many trees have actually died in previously restored areas. The results show that only about 3 percent of forest stands have died in restored areas with living forests. In the Kikepera and Soomaa restoration areas, the figure is slightly higher — 6.2 percent, or 180 hectares of forest with closed ditches. This does not harm the recovering ecosystems or the conservation value of the protected area.

The dead wood that results from restoration is crucial habitat for about a quarter of all forest-dwelling species, and up to 40 percent of threatened species are linked to decaying wood. For example, dead trees are vital for woodpeckers (especially the three-toed woodpecker, white-backed woodpecker and lesser spotted woodpecker) and tree cavities serve as habitats for insects (including bumblebees) and bats.

The common claim that dead trees release carbon directly into the atmosphere is misleading. Some carbon is gradually released in line with natural decay, while some becomes embedded in the peat and is preserved long-term.

In natural forests, the volume of dead wood can reach up to 200 cubic meters per hectare, but in actively managed Estonian forests, it is typically less than 20. Let me stress again: claims about thousands of hectares of forests being destroyed or awaiting destruction are simply not true.

Peatland restoration planning began in Estonia nearly 20 years ago, while our neighbor Sweden already has almost 40 years of experience. In Estonia, the restoration efforts are coordinated by the RMK, the Environmental Board and the Land and Spatial Development Board. All work in the Kikepera Nature Reserve is being planned and executed in cooperation between the RMK, University of Tartu and the Estonian Fund for Nature (ELF), with support from the Ministry of Climate.

Has nature conservation caused the kind of serious harm to nature that critics claim? The aim of restoration work is to create conditions that improve or restore the condition of remaining, degraded or destroyed peatlands and mire forests. Research to date confirms that ecological conditions have improved.

For people in Saarde, the western capercaillie is a key species. Since 1980, the population of male birds has dropped by more than 50 percent. Yet somehow the notion has taken root that because Kikepera and Soomaa are core areas for the capercaillie, there's no need to focus on protecting its habitat there. Meanwhile, scientific studies and fieldwork offer a clear conclusion: drainage and intensive logging negatively affect the capercaillie. So does the construction of Rail Baltica, making restoration efforts in Kikepera especially important.

Due to continued drainage in Estonia, large swaths of the capercaillie's habitat are becoming unsuitable. For Estonian capercaillies, mire forests are crucial. Thanks to restoration efforts in their habitats in Kikepera, more male capercaillies have appeared. This proves that targeted restoration measures to offset drainage and logging have a clear, positive effect. The idea of logging in the nature reserve is not relevant.

To raise awareness about mire forests and their value, we need well-targeted social initiatives that go beyond the engagement process of individual projects. The benefits must extend to the community in the long term — for example, through consistent environmental education and support for local governments in harmonizing planning and ecological restoration.

In local communities, restoring mire forests and improving quality of life can be mutually beneficial. This would help correct negative past experiences and offer locals opportunities to explore new restoration-related solutions (e.g., paludiculture, tourism, community initiatives).

The vigorous public discussion on ERR and other media outlets certainly contributes to this effort. I remain committed to sharing more about the work being done — on-site, in meetings and in the media. Thank you to everyone who read this through to the end!

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!