Ecological restoration is an investment for the future
Ecological restoration can advance the recovery of Finnish nature. The targets and measures for restoring different ecosystems are agreed upon in the national restoration plan. To succeed, the plan requires effective policy instruments as well as assessments that span across ecosystems. When carefully implemented, restoration strengthens not only the ecosystems, but also the regional economy and human wellbeing.
In the restoration plan, nature should be recognised as a whole, interconnected system. For example, achieving the restoration targets for the Baltic Sea, requires measures in forests and agricultural ecosystems. Such synergies can be identified when different ecosystems are analysed together.
A long-term plan must be drawn up to improve the state of nature.
The plan should take into account the objectives of the Nature Restoration Regulation for 2030, 2040 and 2050. Regular updates to the restoration plan should be supported by longterm monitoring and ex-post evaluations. Experiments can be built for comparing the effects of various practical measures and policy instruments. Monitoring and regular assessment will ensure successful implementation.
Restoration needs to be governed with effective policy instruments.
Updating existing policy instruments and introducing new ones will ensure the implementation of restoration measures across ecosystems and time frames. The restoration plan should identify and list the required legislative changes and additional funding needs. Restoration should be seen as an investment in the wellbeing of both nature and humans, which also creates jobs and enhances regional vitality.
A strategic plan leads to an effective restoration path
To achieve the objectives of the Nature Restoration Regulation, ambitious new measures and policy instruments as well as an increased scale of restoration are needed. It will take time before the effects of restoration become visible in nature, but in regional economies the effects can be seen immediately. The restoration plan will include the necessary operating models, responsible parties, operators and sufficient funding to implement the measures.
The state of nature has deteriorated
80% of the peatland area in southern Finland has been drained.1
100% of Finland’s boreal regions’ Western taiga, herb-rich forests, esker forests and bog woodland have been assessed to be in bad condition. 2
100% of the Baltic Sea’s habitat types found in Finland and listed in the Habitats Directive are in bad condition. 2
The area-based targets and measures included in the current action plans are insufficient.
E.g. the overall target for peatland conservation in the Helmi habitat programme is 60,000 hectares.3 The total area of peatlands in bad condition is significantly higher than this: For example, the surface area of aapa mires in bad condition alone is estimated to be 1.3 million hectares. 2
2030 2025
More policy instruments are in use, and they are more effective than before
Practical measures and policy instruments: Strengthening the implementation of current ones and introducing new ones
Practical measures are in routine use
Considering delays in the introduction of policy instruments and how the ecological effects become visible
An effective restoration plan
Improvement in the state of nature is beginning to be seen in various indicators and in people’s everyday lives
An insufficient restoration plan sticks to current practical measures and policy instruments
Measures will be updated to ensure that the targets are met
Restoration aims to reach a sufficiently good state of nature
Biodiversity loss continues at a high rate in Finland. 2 Restoration of degraded ecosystems aims at achieving a sufficiently good ecological state. This does not mean changing ecosystems back to what they used to be in the past. Instead, it is crucial to improve functions of ecosystems and ensure the viability of species and habitats in the future.
The EU Nature Restoration Regulation4 contains a number of objectives for improving the state of degraded ecosystems. For example, targets have been set for improving the condition of the habitat types under the Habitats Directive for 2030, 2040 and 2050. In addition, sufficient national target levels shall be determined for certain biodiversity indicators to be monitored. The Regulation gives Member States flexibility in selecting and prioritising measures to their national restoration plans.
The need for the restoration of different ecosystems is unevenly distributed in Finland, and the necessary restoration methods vary regionally. Achieving the targets requires that the measures both cover a sufficient surface area and are of sufficient ecological quality. 2, 5 To ensure the quality of habitats, it is important to prioritise the restoration and conservation of the most valuable sites. The sites can be identified, for example, by utilising regional and municipal Biodiversity Programmes (LUMO).
Long-term restoration work is reflected in the wellbeing of nature and humans
If started too late, restoration measures are difficult and expensive
Restoration requires practical measures and policy instruments
In the EU Nature Restoration Regulation and in this publication, restoration is understood in the broad sense. Practical measures refer to those concrete measures to improve the ecological state that are carried out locally in different ecosystems. They can be active or passive. For instance, active restoration can include grazing or community efforts to remove invasive species. Restoration can also include passive measures aimed at reducing harm done to nature by human activity, such as avoiding logging in valuable nature sites. By means of policy instruments, public administration influences the activities of citizens and the private sector. They are necessary for ensuring the implementation of several practical measures.
Targets can be achieved when actions are taken immediately
The restoration plan builds the ecosystems of the future. The 2050 targets can be achieved when sufficient measures are initiated and commitments to them made early enough. However, there are some uncertainties in how well restoration succeeds in different ecosystems. In some cases, it may take decades before the ecological state of a habitat recovers. Climate change poses additional challenges to restoration. Research has shown that restoration can support climate targets,6 but on the other hand, it may also partly conflict with them.7 It is important to monitor the impacts of restoration measures on both nature8 as well as people and the economy. Habitat monitoring and developing nature information systems support the efforts.
Sources: Sallinen et al. 2019. Kukkala et al. 2025. Gummerus-Rautiainen et al. 2021. © Finnish Environment Institute. 2025.
Restoration should be planned beyond ecosystem boundaries
The purpose of the national restoration plan is to identify the best restoration measures for each ecosystem. In addition to ecosystemspecific measures, practical measures and policy instruments crossing ecosystem boundaries must also be identified. Here, we present recommendations for the most effective measures in different ecosystems. The listing is not exhaustive. Many of the listed measures are already being implemented, but we should increase their scale. The implementation of these measures should be ensured by means of policy instruments, of which we present examples.
Comprehensive planning avoids situations where improvements in one place lead to deterioration in another.
Forests and wetlands
Saving old trees as well as increasing the deadwood volume and the share of deciduous trees in forest management improves the state of forest nature.
Returning water to peatlands modified by draining in surrounding areas restores peatland ecosystems and reduces the loading on water bodies.
Restoring drained peatlands by blocking ditches revives the biodiversity of peatlands and inland waters. It gradually restores the peatlands’ ability to clean the waters flowing through it.
Legislation should be introduced to ensure that enough retention trees and wide enough forested buffer zones along inland waters are left in logging.
All drainage, and similar soil preparation measures, of peatland forests should be made subject to a permit.
Subsidies for peatland restoration should be implemented to encourage restoration solutions that improve the state of peatlands and inland waters.
Conservation of the most valuable forest and peatland habitats on state-owned and private land should be strengthened by, for example, ensuring sufficient funding for the METSO programme.
Agriculture
Uncultivated areas, such as field edges, fallows and semi-natural pastures, provide habitats for meadow plants, pollinators and birds, among others.
Buffer zones along inland waters, wide ditch banks and long-term fallows effectively reduce nutrient emissions from fields to water bodies.
Agri-environment subsidies should be developed to be more results-based.
Support provided for the management and restoration of valuable semi-natural pastures and meadows should be increased.
A field edge obligation (1 m), grazing obligation and more specific limits for fertilisation should be introduced.
Support is needed for the widening of field edges and the management of long-term fallows.
Urban areas
Preserving and increasing the amount of green spaces and trees in urban areas will support biodiversity and provide protection from heat, help manage stormwaters and add more recreational opportunities.
Sufficient, good ecological quality green spaces and tree canopy cover should be ensured as a part of master and detailed planning, as well as other land use and management measures. Municipalities need support protecting and restoring their valuable habitats.
Inland waters and the Baltic Sea
The most effective practical restoration measures for inland waters and the Baltic Sea are carried out in the catchment area, but aquatic species also need more protected areas.
Restoration measures for water bodies, such as dismantling dams in streams create preconditions for the recovery of migratory fish populations and other freshwater nature.
Unbuilt shorelines and reduced dredging will improve the state of aquatic habitats.
Subsidies, restrictions and legislative amendments should be used to encourage solutions that improve the status of water bodies.
The eutrophication trend will turn Species will recover The state of the Baltic Sea will improve
We need to make use of proven methods and new ideas
A regularly updated strategy that identifies links with other strategies and the different sectors in society promotes the implementation of the Nature Restoration Regulation. Restoration should be regarded in the ongoing reforming of practices used in agriculture and forestry, construction and land use. The cost-effective implementation of the restoration plan can be supported by updating the current action plans. For example, the voluntary forest protection programme (METSO) and the Helmi habitats programme should be expanded and targeted so that they take account of the objectives of the Nature Restoration Regulation. Proven operating models and ongoing cooperations, such as the Water Management and Restoration Network, should also be continued and strengthened. The objectives of the Nature Restoration Regulation will not be met with the current practical measures and policy instruments. Instead, the scale of the measures and instruments must be increased. New solutions must also be sought for restoration on private lands.
References
Restoration brings wellbeing to nature and humans
Money spent on restoration will not be lost. By investing in Finnish natural capital, we receive ecosystem services.9 Restoring ecosystems brings us many benefits, including clean waters, more recreational fishing opportunities and pleasant urban environments. Restoration is an investment in the comprehensive security of Finland, as measures to improve the state of nature strengthens the ability of both nature and society to recover from various disturbances. For example, the material damage caused by flooding will be smaller, forests will be more resilient to disturbances, and the trees of urban green spaces will offer city dwellers cooling during the hot season.10
Carefully and justly implemented restoration measures and policy instruments are cost-efficient and have a positive effect on nature, the regional economy, the recreational use of nature and human health. Restoration projects carried out by the state, municipalities, companies, organisations and landowners bring people together and support local business activities. Thus, they have a positive impact on the regional economy.11 Peatland restoration already employs machine contractors and restoration experts locally.12 Restoration also opens new avenues for entrepreneurship, for example in rural and nature tourism.
1 Sallinen, A., Tuominen, S., Kumpula, T. & Tahvanainen, T. 2019. Undrained peatland areas disturbed by surrounding drainage: a large scale GIS analysis in Finland with a special focus on aapa mires. Mires and Peat 24: Article 38, 1–22.
2 Kukkala, A., Arvela, M., Annala, M. et al. 2025. Conservation status assessment of the habitat types under the Habitats Directive 2019-2024 and the objectives of the Nature Restoration Regulation (in Finnish). Reports of the Finnish Environment Institute, 32/2025.
3 Gummerus-Rautiainen, P. et al. 2021. Helmi Habitats Programme 2021–2030. Government Resolution (in Finnish). Publications of the Finnish Government 2021:83.
4 Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869 (Text with EEA relevance) Regulation - EU - 2024/1991 - EN - EUR-Lex
5 Hanski, I. 2011. Habitat loss, the dynamics of biodiversity, and a perspective on conservation. Ambio 40(3): 248–255.
6 Forsius, M., Heikkinen, R., Junttila, V. et al. 2024. Luonto- ja ilmastotavoitteet metsissä – miten niihin päästään?: IBC-Carbon-hankkeen tutkimustulosten yhteenveto ja tutkimuspohjaisia suosituksia (in Finnish). Finnish Environment Institute.
7 Tuittila, E.-S. & Laine, A.M. 2025. Metsäojitetun ja ennallistetun suon ilmastovaikutukset. In Aapala, K., Similä, M. & Kuhmonen, A. (ed.). 2025. Mire Restoration Guide. Soiden ennallistamisopas. Metsähallituksen luonnonsuojelujulkaisuja (in Finnish). Series A 260, 422 pp. Metsähallitus, Parks & Wildlife Finland.
8 Elo, M., Kareksela, S., Ovaskainen, O. et al. 2024. Restoration of forestry-drained boreal peatland ecosystems can effectively stop and reverse ecosystem degradation Communications Earth & Environment 5: 680.
9 Dasgupta, P. 2021. The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review (Great Britain Treasury).
10 Schwaab, J., Meier, R., Mussetti, G. et al. 2021. The role of urban trees in reducing land surface temperatures in European cities. Nature Communications 12: 6753.
11 Thomas, C.C., Huber, C., Skrabis, K.E. et al. 2024. A Framework for Estimating Economic Impacts of Ecological Restoration. Environmental Management 74: 1239-1259.
12 Aapala, K., Similä, M. & Kuhmonen, A. (ed.). 2025. Mire Restoration Guide. Soiden ennallistamisopas. Metsähallituksen luonnonsuojelujulkaisuja (in Finnish). Series A 260, 422 pp. Metsähallitus, Parks & Wildlife Finland.
Syke Policy Brief | 14.10.2025
Ecological restoration is an investment for the future
Authors:
Aija Kukkala, Sampo Pihlainen, Mats Godenhielm, Samuli Korpinen, Aino Juslén, Riikka Paloniemi, Antti Sallinen, Marjaana Toivonen, Kati Vierikko
Editor: Hanna Talikka
Layout and graphics: Satu Turtiainen
Cover: unsplash.com
Drawings: stock.adobe.com
Publisher: Finnish Environment Institute (Syke)
ISBN 978-952-11-5794-3 (print)
ISBN 978-952-11-5793-6 (online)