Why this matters
Drained wetlands release an estimated 11 million tonnes of CO₂e annually in Sweden - around 20% of national emissions, more than the country’s entire passenger car traffic. Yet before 2022, wetland restoration was a niche issue almost unknown to the general public. Restore Wetlands is one of the most closely studied examples of a small civil disobedience campaign turning a technical environmental issue into a mainstream political priority.
What we found
Despite widespread public disapproval of their tactics, Restore Wetlands achieved significant results across multiple measures. Media mentions of ‘wetlands’ doubled in 2022 and tripled in 2023 relative to pre-campaign baseline levels. Parliamentary mentions of wetlands roughly doubled during the campaign years. The government allocated SEK 765 million (over £55 million) through 2030 for wetland restoration, though some of this represented reallocation of existing funds rather than new money. Interviews with MPs across the political spectrum - including those from right-leaning parties - acknowledged the campaign’s role in elevating the issue, with one conservative MP stating: “I felt very negative towards the strategy… But I will say that they are not wrong. And it has also led up to us and our government deciding to put forward money towards restoration of wetlands.” Crucially, 75% of the public supported wetland restoration even while 70% opposed the tactics, and voting analysis found no evidence of the feared backlash effect of increased support for anti-climate parties.
What it means for the movement
The campaign illustrates several strategic lessons. Message can be separated from method: audiences proved more capable than expected of distinguishing between disapproval of disruptive tactics and support for the underlying cause. Specificity drives success: a single, concrete, named demand embedded in the organisation’s own title gave journalists an automatic hook and made the ask immediately legible to the public and politicians alike. Agenda-setting can precede policy change: the campaign’s primary victory was forcing a previously invisible issue into mainstream political discourse, creating conditions for longer-term policy wins. And complementary approaches matter: disruptive protest worked best when it ran alongside institutional advocacy and NGO engagement that could convert heightened attention into concrete action.
Read the full report
The findings above are a summary. The full report, including methodology and supporting evidence, is available on socialchangelab.org.
Read the report