Résumé
The measure was implemented in 2013 in Matsalu National Park (Natura 2000, Ramsar), at a former coastal meadow beside the large Salmi complex. Old, non-functioning field ditches were closed and scraped to restore wetland hydrology and breeding/feeding habitat for waders and amphibians. Grazing continued as before, with better access to drinking water for cattle.
Since then, the site has been managed as part of the wider Keemu–Salmi coastal meadow system (~360 ha) within a park that maintains ~3,000 ha of coastal meadows, among the largest in Europe. National guidance and the 2021–2027 Action Plan for semi-natural grasslands reinforce long-term maintenance (grazing/mowing, shrub control) and allow restoration actions such as closing drainage to keep meadows wet.
For fauna, Salmi–Keemu is a priority area for the natterjack toad; the species plan recommends sustaining sufficient grazing to keep short-sward habitat and preserving shallow, temporary pools created by micro-relief. In response to very high nest predation on coastal meadows, a pilot predator-control programme (2021–2024) was introduced at Keemu and Salmi to improve wader breeding outcomes.
Overall, the 2013 hydrological works are now embedded in park- and nation-wide management that keeps the meadows open and wet while targeting key bird and amphibian conservation needs.
The project was a rather small-scale restoration effort, which was originally intended to be expanded, but for various reasons this did not take place. No monitoring activities have been carried out to assess the effectiveness of the restoration.
Photo gallery
Vue d'ensemble
Recreate breeding/feeding habitat for waders and amphibians (and other protected species)
Keep existing bovine grazing unchanged while improving access to drinking water for cattle as a co-benefit.
Pilot/validate a restoration method (inspired by UK practice) for potential replication on other Estonian coastal meadows affected by old drainage.
Ditches treated: 12 small ditches, totaling ~3.9 km of ditch network closed/scraped.
| Authority type | Authority name | Authority role | Comments | Authority responsibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| National water authority | Estonian Fund for Nature | Initiation of the measure | Initiator, project manager, moderator between different stakeholders | Responsible |
| Forest owners | State Forestry | Other | Land owner | Supporting |
| National water authority | Agriculture board | Other | State institution responsible for agricultural aspects | Responsible |
| Private property owners | private land owners and renters | Other | Land owners | Supporting |
| NGO | Swedish WWF (World Wildlife Fund) | Financing | — | Supporting |
| National water authority | Environmental Board | Other | State institution responsible for environmental aspects | Responsible |
Site Information
Design and Implementation
However, it was quite difficult to find common ground with
Environmental Board, Agricultural Board and State Forestry - Estonian Fund for Nature had two years of meetings with them before they could manage to complete the project.
Financing
Policy and Governance
| Directive | Relevant pressure |
|---|---|
| WFD identified pressure | 4.5 Other hydromorphological alterations |
| Other EU | EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, restoring degraded ecosystems |
| Directive | Relevant impact |
|---|---|
| WFD identified pressure | Altered habitats due to morphological changes |
| Requirement directive | Specification |
|---|---|
| Other EU | EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 |
| WFD-achieving objectives for Protected areas | Protection of habitats or species where the maintenance or improvement of the status of water is an important factor in their protection |
In the Estonian Environmental Strategy 2030 under the topic preservation of the diversity of landscapes and biodiversity there is and objective to ensure the existence of habitats and biotic communities necessary for the preservation of viable populations of species.
| Activity stage | Comments |
|---|---|
| Design phase | There were stakeholder meetings which included also land owners but no larger public involvment was carried out. |
Impacts and Monitoring
Monitoring System
Maintenance
Impact Assessment Methodology
Socio-economic Impacts
Predator control required coordination with local hunters; in the pilot, hunter associations received a modest €1,000/season stipend, useful for planning long-term budgeting/replicability.
The site remains embedded in a park-wide managed meadow network (~3,000 ha), which concentrates grazing and visitor interest (Keemu tower area), strengthening legitimacy and continuity of management.
Biophysical impacts: Hydrology
Biophysical impacts: Biodiversity
Restoring wetland by closing old ditches that drained the area made it unfavorable for some protected species.
Coastal-meadow ponds at Salmi/Keemu are actively used by amphibians (egg masses recorded) and by feeding waders; camera work in 2015–2016 identified main nest predators as fox and corvids, with jackal and raccoon dog occasional.
Annual wader monitoring under LIFE Integrated “Loodusrikas Eesti” links hatching success tracking to restoration and predator control; in 2024/25, 44 foxes and 43 raccoon dogs were removed across sites to reduce predation pressure.
Biophysical impacts: Water & Soil Quality
Lessons Learned
Hydrology restoration alone was necessary but not sufficient; predation is a key limiting factor for wader productivity on coastal meadows, so pair ditch-blocking + grazing with targeted predator management (timing, dens). Keep short sward and ephemeral pools for natterjack toad and waders. Embed projects within park/national plans for continuity and permissions.
| Driver type | Driver role | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Organisation committed to it | Main driver | The method for restoring the wetland was chosen for testing by Estonian Fund for Nature and it was done in frame of a project funded by WWF. |
| Success factor type | Success factor role | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Existing staff and consultant knowledge | Main factor | Engaged project team (Estonian Fund for Nature) |
| Financing possibilities | Main factor | As it was project based activity then there were financial sources to carry out the activities. |