What was the impact of the Swedish Restore Wetlands campaign?

Between 2022 and 2024, a previously unknown campaign group in Sweden made wetlands a national issue. Återställ Våtmarker (Restore Wetlands), inspired by the tactics of Insulate Britain, ran a high-profile campaign of highway blockades and public event disruptions. Two years later, they declared victory, citing a significant government funding pledge and widespread public support for wetland restoration.

We recently completed an evaluation of the campaign, using media analysis, public opinion polling, parliamentary data, voting intention trends, and 21 interviews with politicians, experts and stakeholders. The full report is here and we summarise our findings below. This work is part of our broader research effort to go beyond headlines and first impressions, and to examine how civil disobedience campaigns shape social and political change in the longer term.

A marginal issue made mainstream

Before the campaign began, wetland degradation was not widely recognised as a climate issue in Sweden. Yet the country’s drained peatlands emit around 11 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent each year – more than emissions from passenger car traffic. Restore Wetlands chose the issue because it was specific, under-discussed, and relatively uncontroversial. It also had clear and measurable policy relevance.

Their strategy centred on repeated high-profile disruption: motorway blockades, live TV interventions, slow walks through Stockholm, museum protests, and direct action at peat mining sites. While these tactics are typically unpopular with the public, they are known to generate media attention. The group’s aim was to use that attention to force wetlands onto the public and political agenda.

The approach worked. Mentions of “wetlands” in Swedish media doubled in 2022 compared to 2021, and tripled in 2023. Our statistical modelling showed an 84% increase in daily media mentions during protest periods. Sentiment analysis found most articles were neutral in tone, suggesting the tactics acted as a hook for more substantive reporting about wetlands.

Figure: Media mentions of the term ‘våtmarker’ (wetlands) plotted against dates of campaign actions. Red dotted lines show one off actions (such as disruption of a live event). Red bands show ‘action waves’, involving weeks of daily protests. Blue lines show the number of media mentions. Our analysis suggests that media mentions increased by ~84% when protests happened.

Support for the issue, but not the methods

Polling conducted eight months into the campaign found that 61% of Swedish adults recognised the Restore Wetlands name. However, 70% felt the campaign’s tactics were unjustified. At the same time, 75% said that they supported wetland restoration. This suggests that the public distinguished between the campaign’s methods and its message. This pattern, though questioned by critics of disruption who say unpopular tactics taint the issue, is seen in other studies of civil disobedience.

Increased political salience

Mentions of wetlands in the Swedish parliament also doubled during the campaign period. Analysis of Riksdag (Swedish Parliament) records showed increased verbal references to both “wetlands” and “Restore Wetlands” between 2022 and 2024, with levels returning to baseline afterwards.

Figure: Mentions of ‘Vatmarker’ / 'Wetlands' (red) and ‘Aterstall AND Vatmarker’ / 'Restore AND Wetlands' (blue) from March 2018 to March 2025. The Restore Wetlands campaign began in March 2022.

MPs interviewed for the project criticised the campaign’s methods but acknowledged its impact on political discourse. “The main effect is that people know what wetlands are,” said one. Another MP, from a right-leaning party, said:

“I felt very negative towards the strategy, how they decided to go about this. The disruption in society targeting roads and there was one case when they threw soup at a painting in a museum – very negative. But I will say that they are not wrong. And it has also led to us and our government deciding to put forward money towards restoration of wetlands.”

Electoral effects were small, but real

Using polling data and an unexpected event analysis, we found that Restore Wetlands’ actions were associated with an overall 0.79 percentage point boost for Swedish pro-climate parties, equating to around 51,000 votes. Not transformative, but potentially significant, particularly in a proportional representation electoral system. For example, the estimated gain of 0.45 ppts for the Swedish Centerpartiet represents a nearly 7% shift relative to their vote share in 2022/23. The fact there was no corresponding rise in support for anti-climate parties is also evidence that the campaign did not, as many fear such campaigns might, increase polarisation and backfire effects.

Figure: Impact of Restore Wetlands protests on voting intention per party. Dots represent the posterior median estimates for the effect of protests on voting intention.

Spillover effects on the wider sector

We spoke to scientists, NGO staff and industry stakeholders about how the campaign affected their work. Many said that it had brought unprecedented attention to the issue. It “got the issue on the agenda in ways others couldn’t,” as one put it.

Some organisations were able to build on this momentum. A coalition of environmental groups published a joint letter to the government calling for more investment and the country’s largest environmental NGO selected “Wetlands” as their book of the year. Others highlighted risks – including oversimplification of complex ecological issues, and tensions with rural landowners. But most agreed the campaign had shifted public salience in a way that made their work easier, more visible and more politically relevant.

Direct policy impact remains contested

In the 2024 budget, the Swedish government pledged SEK 765 million (around £55m) for wetland restoration by 2030. Some of this funding appears to be reallocated from other environmental programmes. Several MPs and experts interviewed felt wetlands had been comparatively protected during a period of broader cuts – in part due to the pressure created by the campaign.

Others were more sceptical. “Actually it has not really been new money,” one MP told us. “They reduced the money and changed the names of things and we still see that a big chunk is wetlands.” Even so, the fact that wetlands were shielded while other areas faced cuts may still represent a form of policy influence.

Overall, a strategic win

Restore Wetlands achieved its aim of putting an important, neglected climate issue on the map. Public awareness rose sharply, alongside increased media coverage. Politicians paid attention, and the issue gained rhetorical and budgetary priority. That these shifts didn’t result in dramatic policy change is not surprising – the campaign operated during a centre-right government with limited appetite for new climate measures.

Restore Wetlands shows that a small, tightly focused campaign—willing to deploy controversial tactics—can still move the needle, even when public opinion opposes its methods.

We hope you find the report useful and, if you would like to hear more about this work, get in touch.

Image at the top provided by Återställ Våtmarker.