Government plan to turn peatlands into forests draws expert criticism

The government is preparing a new support scheme for converting former peat extraction areas into forests, but experts and environmental organisations say the land should primarily be restored to wetlands and peatlands, Yle reports.

The proposed support is justified mainly on climate grounds and by the aim of increasing forest growth. Critics fear that afforestation could instead harm the climate, biodiversity and water bodies.

Restoration by rewetting would raise the water table close to the ground surface, for example by blocking drainage ditches. The option was highlighted during the consultation process by environmental organisations, the Finnish Environment Institute, the Geological Survey of Finland, the Finnish Climate Change Panel, the Natural Resources Institute Finland, some regional vitality centres and the Ministry of the Environment.

The temporary afforestation support is expected to be submitted to Parliament during the autumn. It would also cover the afforestation of thick-peat agricultural land.

The proposed support would amount to 2,400 euros per hectare, while private individuals cannot currently receive funding for restoring former peat production areas. Restoration can receive 300 to 500 euros per hectare in European Union funding, but that support is not available to private individuals.

Liisa Maanavilja, a senior researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland, said afforestation could be a justified subsequent use for former peat extraction areas in many cases. The problem would arise if afforestation replaced rewetting, she said.

Restoring former peat extraction areas to wetlands and peatlands would be important for biodiversity, Maanavilja said. She also noted that restoration of neighbouring areas could become more difficult if one landowner chose to plant trees, as peat production areas are usually divided among several owners.

According to Maanavilja, both afforestation and rewetting are currently considered good options for the climate on former peat extraction areas. Over a period of several hundred years, however, rewetting is the better option.

The proposed support would make afforestation more financially attractive than rewetting, Maanavilja said. Landowners would also later be able to earn income from timber. Recipients would commit to managing the land as a forest for 10 years, after which restoration support could be sought for the same area. Private individuals could also receive funding to restore a planted peatland through the Helmi programme.

Afforestation can also cause emissions into water bodies. The risk is particularly pronounced in acidic sulphite soils, such as those in the Siikajoki region. Sulphite clay entering waterways can cause significant acidification.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry says the purpose of the support is to strengthen carbon sinks and increase forested area. Erno Järvinen, head of the ministry’s forest bioeconomy unit, said the proposed support was one of several measures needed to strengthen carbon sinks.

Järvinen does not believe the scheme would lead landowners to afforest significant areas that would be better suited to rewetting. He described that possibility as largely theoretical and said thick-peat areas are often very difficult to afforest.