The amount and health of land, including soil quality, for ecological and human use.

Icon

Deploy Agrivoltaics

Sector
Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Production
Image
Peatland
Coming Soon
On

Key Takeaways

  • Deploying agrivoltaics on just 1% of global agricultural land could offset 21 PWh/yr of electricity demand, equivalent to total global electricity consumption in 2019.
  • Agrivoltaics systems generate clean, renewable electricity without displacing agricultural activities, potentially increasing overall land use efficiency up to 200%.
  • By shading crops and livestock, solar panels installed as part of an agrivoltaics system moderate soil temperatures and reduce evapotranspiration, improving agricultural water-use efficiency by 150–300% compared with conventional farming.
  • Agrivoltaics can diversify income sources for farmers and expand rural employment opportunities.
  • Agrivoltaic systems have the greatest adoption potential in arid, dry, and land-constrained regions – particularly Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and South and Central America – where solar resources are abundant and the crop-protection benefits of shading are most pronounced.
Summary

Agrivoltaics is the dual use of land for simultaneous solar photovoltaic (PV) power generation and agricultural production. It reduces GHG emissions by shifting electricity production from fossil fuels to renewables. Agrivoltaic systems can be categorized by system type, PV configuration, module tilt, and agricultural activity. These systems operate at both utility and distributed scales. We consider all combinations of system type, PV structure, module tilt, and agricultural activity in this solution.

Heat stress
Income & work,Food security,Energy availability,Health
Nature protection,Animal well-being,Land resources,Water resources,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
​​Agrivoltaics makes it possible to grow food and generate clean solar power on the same land. It can improve land-use efficiency, stabilize crop yields in suitable climates, and add new revenue for farmers.
Overview

Electricity generation accounts for an estimated 23% of GHG emissions on a 100-year basis (Clarke et al., 2022), with fossil fuel–based sources supplying more than 60% of electricity generated in 2023 (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2024b). Since solar PV is a clean and renewable resource, agrivoltaics produces electricity without contributing to GHG emissions or air pollution during operation. Unlike conventional utility-scale solar PV, which often competes with agriculture for space, agrivoltaics combines solar PV electricity generation and agricultural production without requiring additional land use change or sacrificing arable land (Trommsdorff et al., 2025).

The primary climate benefit is the reduction of CO₂ emissions and smaller amounts of methane and nitrous oxide from displacing fossil fuel–based electricity from the grid. This solution quantifies only emissions avoided through electricity generation and does not include emissions from agricultural activities beneath or between the solar panels.

Agrivoltaic systems come in several configurations to coexist with different agricultural activities, including crop production, animal husbandry or grazing, ecosystem services, aquaculture, and pollinator habitat (Macknick et al., 2022). As shown in Figure 1, these systems range from standard ground-mounted arrangements – with crops growing between rows or livestock grazing underneath – to more specialized alternative designs such as elevated panels, vertical bifacial mounts, stilt-mounted trackers, and solar-integrated greenhouses. Overhead configurations elevate panels 2–6 meters above ground to allow standard farm operations while providing shade and weather protection for crops or livestock. Interspace (or interrow) configurations leave wide alleys between ground-mounted PV arrays for vegetation. Rooftop and structure-mounted configurations place panels on greenhouses, barns, or other farm infrastructure, using rigid or flexible panels (Campana et al., 2025; Macknick et al., 2022; Solar Power Europe, 2024a; Trommsdorff et al., 2021).

Each configuration involves different trade-offs between energy output, crop performance, land compatibility, and cost (Campana et al., 2025; Horowitz et al., 2020; Trommsdorff et al., 2025). Well-designed systems often achieve higher overall productivity with a land equivalent ratio exceeding 1 (Trommsdorff et al., 2025). Successful implementation typically requires partnerships among farmers, agricultural cooperatives, solar developers, and utilities, supported by government policies such as subsidies, tax credits, or zoning support (Trommsdorff et al., 2025). 

Figure 1. Agrivoltaic configurations range from standard ground-mounted arrangements (top row) to more specialized alternative designs (bottom row), including elevated overhead systems, vertical mounts, stilt-mounted trackers, and solar-integrated greenhouses. These systems can support agricultural activities—including crop production, grazing, ecosystem services, and habitats—on the same land. 

Diagram demonstrating Agrivoltaic configurations

Copyright: Macknick, J., et al. (2022). The 5 Cs of agrivoltaic success factors in the United States: Lessons from the InSPIRE research study (No. NREL/TP-6A20-83566). National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO (United States).

Solution in Action

References

Abel, D., Holloway, T., Harkey, M., Rrushaj, A., Brinkman, G., Duran, P., Janssen, M., & Denholm, P. (2018). Potential air quality benefits from increased solar photovoltaic electricity generation in the Eastern United States. Atmospheric Environment, 175, 65–74. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.11.049

Adeh, E. H., Good, S. P., Calaf, M., & Higgins, C. W. (2019). Solar PV power potential is greatest over croplands. Scientific Reports, 9, Article 11442. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47803-3

Agostini, A., Colauzzi, M., & Amaducci, S. (2021). Innovative agrivoltaic systems to produce sustainable energy: An economic and environmental assessment. Applied Energy, 281, 116102. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116102

Agrivoltaics Map (National Laboratory of the Rockies). (n.d.). [Dataset]. InSPIRE. Retrieved April 13, 2026, from Link to source: https://openei.org/wiki/InSPIRE/Agrivoltaics_Map

Ahmad, M., Zeeshan, M., & Khan, J. A. (2023). Life cycle multi-objective (geospatial, techno-economic, and environmental) feasibility and potential assessment of utility scale photovoltaic power plants. Energy Conversion and Management, 291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117260

Amaducci, S., Yin, X., & Colauzzi, M. (2018). Agrivoltaic systems to optimise land use for electric energy production. Applied Energy, 220, 545–561. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.081

Andrew, A. C., Higgins, C. W., Smallman, M. A., Graham, M., & Ates, S. (2021). Herbage yield, lamb growth and foraging behavior in agrivoltaic production system. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, Volume 5-2021. Link to source: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2021.659175

Asa’a, S., Reher, T., Rongé, J., Diels, J., Poortmans, J., Radhakrishnan, H. S., van der Heide, A., Van de Poel, B., & Daenen, M. (2024). A multidisciplinary view on agrivoltaics: Future of energy and agriculture. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 200, 114515. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114515

Badza, K., Soro, Y. M., & Sawadogo, M. (2023). Life cycle assessment of a 33.7 MW solar photovoltaic power plant in the context of a developing country. Sustainable Environment Research, 33(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/S42834-023-00201-X

Baik, E., Chawla, K. P., Jenkins, J. D., Kolster, C., Patankar, N. S., Olson, A., Benson, S. M., & Long, J. C. S. (2021). What is different about different net-zero carbon electricity systems? Energy and Climate Change, 2, Article 100046. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egycc.2021.100046 

Barron-Gafford, G. A., Pavao-Zuckerman, M. A., Minor, R. L., Sutter, L. F., Barnett-Moreno, I., Blackett, D. T., Thompson, M., Dimond, K., Gerlak, A. K., Nabhan, G. P., & Macknick, J. E. (2019). Agrivoltaics provide mutual benefits across the food–energy–water nexus in drylands. Nature Sustainability, 2(9), 848–855. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0364-5

Beck, M., Bopp, G., Goetzberger, A., Obergfell, T., Reise, C., & Schindele, S. (2012). Combining PV and food crops to agrophotovoltaic – optimization of orientation and harvest [PDF]. 27th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition; 4096-4100, 5 pages, 6000 kb. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4229/27THEUPVSEC2012-5AV.2.25

Bhatta, G., Lohani, S. P., Kc, M., Bhandari, R., Palit, D., & Anderson, T. (2025). Harnessing solar PV potential for decarbonization in Nepal: A GIS based assessment of ground-mounted, rooftop, and agrivoltaic solar systems for Nepal. Energy for Sustainable Development, 85, 101618. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2024.101618

Biswas, A., Qiu, M., Braun, D., Dominici, F., & Mork, D. (2025). Quantifying effects of solar power adoption on CO2 emissions reduction. Science Advances, 11, Article eadq5660. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adq5660

Brown, T. & Reichenberg, L. (2021). Decreasing market value of variable renewables can be avoided by policy action. Energy Economics, 100, Article 105354. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105354 

Buonocore, J. J., Hughes, E. J., Michanowicz, D. R., Heo, J., Allen, J. G., & Williams, A. (2019). Climate and health benefits of increasing renewable energy deployment in the United States*. Environmental Research Letters, 14(11), 114010. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab49bc

Busch, C., & Wydra, K. (2023). Life cycle assessment of an agrivoltaic system with conventional potato production. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 15(4), 043501. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0156779

Campana, P. E., Macknick, J., Croci, M., Elkadeem, M. R., Gorjian, S., Pascaris, A., Cuppari, R. I., Amaducci, S., Liu, W., Trommsdorff, M., Sturchio, M. A., Muller, O., Agostini, A., Chatzipanagi, A., Scognamiglio, A., & Zhang, J. (2025). Scientific frontiers of agrivoltaic cropping systems. Nature Reviews Clean Technology, 1(11), 801–821. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44359-025-00110-9

Carvalho Fonsêca, V. D. F., De Andrade Culhari, E., Moura, G. A. B., Nascimento, S. T., Milan, H. M., Neto, M. C., & Maia, A. S. C. (2023). Shade of solar panels relieves heat load of sheep. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 265, 105998. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2023.105998

Chirinda, N., Leonard, S. A., Bierbaum, R., & Whaley, C. (2024). Agrivoltaics. STAP. Link to source: http://www.stapgef.org/resources/advisory-documents/agrivoltaics

Christ, M., & Wagner, M. (2025). Integrating solar energy into German vineyards: A geospatial framework for identifying agrivoltaic potential. Agronomy, 15(9), 2174. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092174

Clarke, L., Wei, Y.-M., De La Vega Navarro, A., Garg, A., Hahmann, A. N., Khennas, S., Azevedo, I. M. L., Löschel, A., Singh, A. K., Steg, L., Strbac, G., & Wada, K. (2022). Energy systems. In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, & J. Malley (Eds.), Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 613–746). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.008

Cuppari, R. I., Branscomb, A., Graham, M., Negash, F., Smith, A. K., Proctor, K., Rupp, D., Tilahun Ayalew, A., Getaneh Tilaye, G., Higgins, C. W., & Najm, M. A. (2024). Agrivoltaics: Synergies and trade-offs in achieving the sustainable development goals at the global and local scale. Applied Energy, 362, 122970. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.122970

Daniels, T. L. (2023). The development of utility-scale solar projects on US agricultural land: Opportunities and obstacles. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 5(2), 205–213. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-023-00139-9

de Falco, M., Sarrica, M., Scognamiglio, A., & Fasanelli, R. (2025). What does agrivoltaics mean? A study on social representations shared by experts and the press in Italy. Energy Research & Social Science, 119, 103918. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103918

Dinesh, H., & Pearce, J. M. (2016). The potential of agrivoltaic systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 54, 299–308. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.02

DNV. (2024). Energy transition outlook 2024. Link to source: https://brandcentral.dnv.com/original/gallery/10651/files/original/5c2470ac-597c-43f9-87dd-4e6b238d7845.pdf

Dupraz, C., Marrou, H., Talbot, G., Dufour, L., Nogier, A., & Ferard, Y. (2011). Combining solar photovoltaic panels and food crops for optimising land use: Towards new agrivoltaic schemes. Renewable Energy, Renewable Energy: Generation & Application, 36(10), 2725–2732. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.03.005

Ember. (n.d.). Global electricity trends. In Global Electricity Review 2024. Link to source: https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-review-2024/global-electricity-trends/

Ember. (2024, August 29). Empowering farmers in Central Europe: The case for agri-PV. Link to source: https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/empowering-farmers-in-central-europe-the-case-for-agri-pv

Fan, T., Trommsdorff, M., Gölz, S., & He, J. (2022, June 17). Agrivoltaics in China: A Study of the Current State of Agrivoltaics Development, Governmental Support Schemes, and Stakeholder Groups’ Perspectives and Acceptance based on Expert Interviews. 3rd Agrivoltaics Conference & Exhibition 2022. Agrivoltaics Conference 2022. Link to source: https://publica.fraunhofer.de/entities/publication/afa41072-9cc3-4ee1-97c9-f2027d6c7a2b

FAO. (2023). Land statistics and indicators 2000–2021 (Brief No. 71). Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/5c8b2707-1bcf-4c29-90e2-3487e583f71e/content#:~:text=Page%203,over%20the%20past%20two%20decades.

Firoozi, A. A., Firoozi, A. A., & Maghami, M. R. (2025). Harnessing photovoltaic innovation: Advancements, challenges, and strategic pathways for sustainable global development. Energy Conversion and Management: X, 27, 101058. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECMX.2025.101058 

Ferreira Junior, R. A., Torres, I. C., De Souza, L. F. L., Dos Santos, M. A., Cavalcante, M. A. A., Tiba, C., & De Souza, J. L. (2025). Agrophotovoltaic systems in sugarcane crop − A Brazilian case study. Energy Conversion and Management, 344, 120307. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2025.120307

Fraunhofer Institute of Solar Energy ISE. (2024, July). Study: Levelized cost of electricity - Renewable energy technologies [PDF]. Link to source: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/publications/studies/cost-of-electricity.html

Gadhiya, G. A., & Chakraborty, S. (2025). Agrivoltaics in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands: Assessing the geo-spatial potential for sustainable development. Energy for Sustainable Development, 88, 101807. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2025.101807

Gagnon, P., & O’Shaughnessy, E. (2024). Consequential analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions impacts of actions that influence the electric grid: The theory and practice of using marginal emissions rates (Report No. TP-6A40-91580). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2172/24816

Gallagher, C. L., & Holloway, T. (2020). Integrating air quality and public health benefits in U.S. decarbonization strategies. Frontiers in Public Health, Volume 8-2020. Link to source: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.563358

Horowitz, K., Ramasamy, V., Macknick, J., & Margolis, R. (2020). Capital costs for dual-use photovoltaic installations: 2020 benchmark for ground-mounted PV systems with pollinator-friendly vegetation, grazing, and crops (Report No. TP-6A20-77811). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2172/1756713

Hwang, K.-W., & Lee, C.-Y. (2024). Estimating the deterministic and stochastic levelized cost of the energy of fence-type agrivoltaics. Energies, 17(8), 1932. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en17081932

International Energy Agency. (2024a). World Energy Outlook 2024. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2024

International Energy Agency. (2024b). World energy balances—Data product. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/world-energy-balance

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2025). Renewable power generation costs in 2024. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2025/Jul/IRENA_TEC_RPGC_in_2024_2025.pdf 

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2026). Renewable power generation costs in 2025. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2026/Jul/IRENA_TEC_RPGC_in_2025_2026.pdf

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core Writing Team, H. Lee, & J. Romero, Eds.). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647. 

Jung, D., Gareis, G. H., Staiger, A., & Salmon, A. (2022). Effects of soiling on agrivoltaic systems: Results of a case study in Chile. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2635(1), 020001. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0107943

Keiner, D., Walter, L., Bogdanov, D., Peters, I. M., & Breyer, C. (2025). Assessing the impact of bifacial solar photovoltaics on future power systems based on capacity-density-optimised power plant yield modelling. Solar Energy, 295, 113543. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2025.113543

Laub, M., Pataczek, L., Feuerbacher, A., Zikeli, S., & Högy, P. (2022). Contrasting yield responses at varying levels of shade suggest different suitability of crops for dual land-use systems: A meta-analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 42(3), 51. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00783-7

Lytle, W., Meyer, T. K., Tanikella, N. G., Burnham, L., Engel, J., Schelly, C., & Pearce, J. M. (2021). Conceptual design and rationale for a new agrivoltaics concept: Pasture-raised rabbits and solar farming. Journal of Cleaner Production, 282, 124476. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124476

Mamun, M. A. A., Dargusch, P., Wadley, D., Zulkarnain, N. A., & Aziz, A. A. (2022). A review of research on agrivoltaic systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 161, 112351. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112351

Macknick, J., Hartmann, H., Barron-Gafford, G., Beatty, B., Burton, R., Seok-Choi, C., Davis, M., Davis, R., Figueroa, J., Garrett, A., Hain, L., Herbert, S., Janski, J., Kinzer, A., Knapp, A., Lehan, M., Losey, J., Marley, J., MacDonald, J., … Walston, L. (2022). The 5 Cs of agrivoltaic success factors in the United States: Lessons from the InSPIRE research study (Report No. TP-6A20-83566). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2172/1882930

Mahim, T. M., Rahman, M. M., & Huda, A. S. N. (2026). Review of the challenges and prospects in agrivoltaics. Advanced Energy and Sustainability Research, 7(1), e202500227. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/aesr.202500227

Maia, A. S. C., Culhari, E. D. A., Fonsêca, V. D. F. C., Milan, H. F. M., & Gebremedhin, K. G. (2020). Photovoltaic panels as shading resources for livestock. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, 120551. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120551

Malu, P. R., Sharma, U. S., & Pearce, J. M. (2017). Agrivoltaic potential on grape farms in India. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 23, 104–110. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2017.08.004

Masson, G., l’Epine, M. de, & Kaizuka, I. (2024). Trends in PV applications 2024. IEA PVPS. Link to source: https://iea-pvps.org/trends_reports/trends-in-pv-applications-2024/

McCall, J., Staie, B., Carron, W., & Jamison, J. (2024). Initial feasibility assessment of agrivoltaics in Jackson County, IL (Report No. TP-6A20-88816). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2172/2335896

Mehedi, T. H., Gemechu, E., & Kumar, A. (2022). Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy footprints of utility-scale solar energy systems. Applied Energy, 314, 118918. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2022.118918

Millstein, D., Wiser, R., Bolinger, M., & Barbose, G. (2017). The climate and air-quality benefits of wind and solar power in the United States. Nature Energy, 2(9), Article 17134. Report #: ARTN 17134. Link to source: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.134

Millstein, D., O’Shaughnessy, E., & Wiser, R. (2024). Climate and air quality benefits of wind and solar generation in the United States from 2019 to 2022. Cell Reports Sustainability, 1(6), 100105. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsus.2024.100105

Montedonico, M., Pando, D., Santillán, V. A., Guevara, M. Á., Salazar, K. P., Mezzomo, W., Butrón, N., Solís, N., & Díaz, A. (2026). Perspectivas De La Energía Agrivoltaica En América Latina. Link to source: https://ideathinktank.org.mx/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/DocumentoTecnico_PerspectivasDeLaAgrovoltaicaEnAmericaLatina.pdf

 Morash, J. D., & Pavao-Zuckerman, M. (2026). Regional dynamics of agrivoltaics adoption: Stakeholder perceptions and barriers in Maryland, USA. Energy Policy, 210, 115066. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2025.115066

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2021). Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation: Update. Link to source: https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf

National Laboratory of the Rockies. (2024, November 21). Lighting the Way for Agrivoltaics: How NREL Empowers Communities To Capture the Benefits of Solar Energy, Agriculture, and Ecosystems | NLR. Link to source: https://www.nlr.gov/news/feature/2024/lighting-the-way-for-agrivoltaics

Pandey, G., Lyden, S., Franklin, E., Millar, B., & Harrison, M. T. (2025). A systematic review of agrivoltaics: Productivity, profitability, and environmental co-benefits. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 56, 13–36. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2025.03.006

Pascaris, A. S., Schelly, C., Burnham, L., & Pearce, J. M. (2021). Integrating solar energy with agriculture: Industry perspectives on the market, community, and socio-political dimensions of agrivoltaics. Energy Research & Social Science, 75, 102023. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102023

Patel, U., Gadhiya, G., & Chauhan, P. (2023). Case Study on Power Generation from Agrivoltaic System in India. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change, 13, 1447–1454. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.9734/IJECC/2023/v13i92375

Pehl, M., Arvesen, A., Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Hertwich, E. G., & Luderer, G. (2017). Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling. Nature Energy 2017 2:12, 2(12), 939–945. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0032-9

Pincelli, I. P., Hinkley, J., & Brent, A. (2024). Carbon, materials and energy footprint of a utility-scale solar plant in Aotearoa New Zealand. Solar Energy, 273, 112535. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOLENER.2024.112535

Scarano, A., Curci, L. M., Semeraro, T., Calisi, A., Lenucci, M. S., Santino, A., Basset, A., & De Caroli, M. (2025). Agrivoltaics as a sustainable strategy to enhance food security under water scarcity. Horticulturae, 11(4), 401. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11040401 

Seay-Fleming, C., Swanson, T., Gerlak, A. K., Pavao-Zuckerman, M. A., Andrews, H., Moore, K., & Barron-Gafford, G. A. (2025). Cultivating engagement: Public participation in agrivoltaics planning and design. Energy Research & Social Science, 127, 104273. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2025.104273

Smith, B. L., Sekar, A., Mirletz, H., Heath, G., & Margolis, R. (2024). An updated life cycle assessment of utility-scale solar photovoltaic systems installed in the United States. Link to source: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/87372.pdf

Smith, M. (2024). Dual-use solar photovoltaics: Emerging applications and issues for congress (No. R48197). Congressional Research Service. Link to source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48197

Sojib Ahmed, M., Rezwan Khan, M., Haque, A., & Ryyan Khan, M. (2022). Agrivoltaics analysis in a techno-economic framework: Understanding why agrivoltaics on rice will always be profitable. Applied Energy, 323, 119560. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119560

Solar Power Europe. (2024a). Agrisolar handbook. Link to source: https://www.solarpowereurope.org/insights/thematic-reports/agrisolar-handbook-1

Solar Power Europe. (2024b). New agrisolar digital map presents over 200 projects across Europe—SolarPower Europe. Link to source: https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-agrisolar-digital-map-presents-over-200-projects-across-europe

Sorensen, A., Nogeire, T., & Hunter, M. (2022). Potential placement of utility-scale solar installations on agricultural lands in the U.S. to 2040. American Farmland Trust. Link to source: https://farmlandinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/03/AFT_FUT2040-solar-white-paper.pdf

Suri, D., de Chalendar, J. & Azevedo, I.M.L. (2025). Assessing the real implications for CO2 as generation from renewables increases. Nature Communications, 16, Article 7124. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59800-4

Swanson, T., Seay-Fleming, C., Gerlak, A. K., & Barron-Gafford, G. A. (2025). “Enough is enough, we like our farms”: The role of landscape ideology in shaping perceptions of solar energy and agrivoltaics in the rural American Southwest. Journal of Rural Studies, 114, 103572. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2025.103572

Trommsdorff, M., Kang, J., Reise, C., Schindele, S., Bopp, G., Ehmann, A., Weselek, A., Högy, P., & Obergfell, T. (2021). Combining food and energy production: Design of an agrivoltaic system applied in arable and vegetable farming in Germany. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 140, 110694. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110694

Trommsdorff, M., Campana, P. E., Macknick, J., Fernández Solas, A., Gorjian, S., & Tsanakas, I. (2025). Dual Land Use for Agriculture and Solar Power Production: Overview and Performance of Agrivoltaic Systems. International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.69766/XAEU5008

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNCTAD. (2023, October 4). Italy—Adopts €2.61 billion schemes to support agrivoltaic energy production and agro-industrial development | Investment Policy Monitor | UNCTAD Investment Policy Hub. Link to source: https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-policy-monitor/measures/4543/italy-adopts-2-61-billion-schemes-to-support-agrivoltaic-energy-production-and-agro-industrial-development

U.S. Department of Energy. (n.d.). Solar photovoltaic system cost benchmarks. Energy.Gov. Retrieved March 11, 2026, from  Link to source: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-photovoltaic-system-cost-benchmarks

Walsh, K. B., Stedman, R., & Kay, D. (2026). Imagining agrivoltaics: Farmer expectations for co-locating solar energy and agricultural production in Western New York. Energy Research & Social Science, 137, 104789. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2026.104789

Walston, L. J., Mishra, S. K., Hartmann, H. M., Hlohowskyj, I., McCall, J., & Macknick, J. (2018). Examining the potential for agricultural benefits from pollinator habitat at solar facilities in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 52(13), 7566–7576. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00020

Williams, H. J., Wang, Y., Yuan, B., Wang, H., & Zhang, K. M. (2025). Rethinking agrivoltaic incentive programs: A science-based approach to encourage practical design solutions. Applied Energy, 377, 124272. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.124272

Williams, H. J., Wang, Y., & Zhang, K. M. (2024, June). Advantages and disadvantages of vertical solar racking for agrivoltaic systems. World Agrivoltaics Conference. Link to source: https://www.osti.gov/biblio/25305

Yeligeti, M., Hu, W., Scholz, Y., Stegen, R., & von Krbek, K. (2023). Cropland and rooftops: The global undertapped potential for solar photovoltaics. Environmental Research Letters, 18(5), 054027. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/accc47

Zhang, X., & Ma, X. (2026). Vectorized agrivoltaics dataset in China from 2010 to 2022. Scientific Data, 13(1), 116. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-06305-w

Zubi, G., Parag, Y., & Wald, S. (2024). Implications of large-scale PV integration on grid operation, costs, and emissions: Challenges and proposed solutions. Energies 2025, Vol. 18, Page 130, 18(1), 130. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/EN18010130 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Al-Amin Bugaje, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

We estimate that agrivoltaics reduces GHG emissions by 720 t CO₂‑eq /MW/yr (730 t CO₂‑eq /MW/yr, 20-year basis) (Table 1). This assumes that newly installed agrivoltaics displace an equivalent MWh of the 2023 global electricity grid mix (estimated at 530 kg CO₂‑eq /MWh (540 kg CO₂‑eq /MWh, 20-year basis; IEA, 2024b; see Methodology: Appendix A for calculation details). We used a median capacity factor of 15% based on country-level estimates (Ember, 2024; Ferreira Junior et al., 2025; McCall et al., 2024; Patel et al., 2023; Williams et al., 2024) to convert annual emissions reductions from per MWh to per MW installed capacity. 

Actual avoided emissions will depend on local grid conditions and the specific power sources displaced (see Methodology: Appendix A). Studies in the U.S. show that from 2007–2015, solar deployment avoided approximately 0.5 t CO₂ /MWh (613 t CO₂ /MW/yr; Millstein et al., 2017) emissions, and a 15% increase in deployment avoided 8.54 Mt CO₂ /yr (Biswas et al., 2025). 

Although solar PV emits negligible GHGs during operations, emissions arise during manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance, and decommissioning. However, these embodied emissions are paid back in approximately 1–2 yr (Badza et al., 2023; M. Ahmad et al., 2023; Mehedi et al., 2022; Pincelli et al., 2024; Smith et al., 2024). While total life-cycle emissions remain far below those of fossil fuels (National Renewable Energy Laboratory [NREL], 2021; Smith et al., 2024), decarbonizing industrial supply chains is essential to maximize climate impact (Pehl et al., 2017). In our analysis, we focused solely on emissions avoided during electricity generation. Carbon payback time, embodied life-cycle emissions, and on-farm agricultural emissions from ruminant grazing were excluded from the effectiveness and climate impact estimates. 

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions. 

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /MW/yr, 100-yr basis

Estimate 720
Left Text Column Width
Cost

We estimated a mean levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for agrivoltaics of US$69/MWh based on industry reports and journal articles (Bhatta et al., 2025; Fraunhofer ISE, 2024; Gadhiya & Chakraborty, 2025; Hwang & Lee, 2024; Sojib Ahmed et al., 2022; U.S. Department of Energy [U.S. DOE], n.d.; see Methodology: Appendix A for details). LCOE values represent the average cost of producing one MWh of electricity over the operational lifetime of a power plant, allowing investors to compare their expected revenue to a standard set of costs. This cost metric has been used by international agencies for cost comparison across generation technologies, incorporating installed capital costs, operation and maintenance, project lifespan, and energy output. The agrivoltaics LCOE describes costs to utility-scale generators and does not include agricultural output.

The LCOE for agrivoltaics is generally higher than that for utility-scale solar PV (Trommsdorff et al., 2025), due to higher capital expenditure requirements for overhead configurations and specialized partially see-through PV modules. However, agrivoltaics has a lower LCOE than distributed solar PV. For instance, a study conducted by the U.S. DOE (n.d.) showed that the LCOE of distributed solar PV was US$142/MWh (0.006 MWdc system) compared to agrivoltaics’ US$75/MWh (3 MWdc system). In the same study, a 100 MWdc utility-scale solar PV had an LCOE of US$47/MWh. These costs do not consider any subsidies or revenue. 

In practice, revenues and costs will vary based on the ownership model structure. In developer-owned models, farmers receive fixed lease payments of US$250–2,500 per acre, while the solar provider bears the up-front cost (Daniels, 2022; Trommsdorff et al., 2025). In farmer-owned models, the farmers incur the initial investment burden and generate revenue by selling power to the grid or reducing their on-farm energy bills (Pandey et al., 2025).

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

Agrivoltaics does not have an empirically derived learning rate. The technology has only scaled meaningfully since the early 2010s, and its configurations vary too widely for a clean cost reduction curve to be fitted to the data. However, agrivoltaics is built from several existing technologies with well-understood learning dynamics. 

We estimated the current global learning rate for module costs at about 34% (DNV, 2024; Masson, 2024). This high rate is heavily influenced by the accelerated growth of solar PV from 2012–2022; however, this number comes down over a longer period of time. Projections suggest it will slow to around 17% by 2050 as cost components stabilize and the largest gains from scaling are realized (DNV, 2024). Because agrivoltaic systems draw their modules from the same global supply chain as any other solar PV project, we expect that they inherit this curve directly.

What distinguishes agrivoltaics economically from utility-scale solar PV is the cost premium of its elevated or specialized mounting structures, more complex permitting, dual-use legal frameworks, and crop-specific engineering (Trommsdorff et al., 2025). These components follow slower learning curves than electronics, constrained by manufacturing scale-up and standardization of elevated racking/tracking systems. However, hardware innovations such as vertical bifacial or open-source designs, module reuse from decommissioned plants, and policy incentives (feed-in tariffs, grants, regulatory clarity) have potential to accelerate deployment and cross-sector learning (Pandey et al., 2025). 

Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Deploy Agrivoltaics is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. As installed capacity of agrivoltaics increases over time, emissions from electricity generation are expected to decrease assuming solar PV displaces fossil fuel sources.

Caveats

Implementing agrivoltaics requires careful site and crop selection to avoid unintended consequences. In temperate climates, excessive shading can reduce yields of shade-intolerant crops such as wheat, corn, and tomatoes (Pandey et al., 2025). Significant yield declines may displace food production to other land, triggering land conversion and emissions that offset climate gains (Agostini et al., 2021; Wagner et al., 2023). The greatest benefits occur when agrivoltaics is deployed on marginal or low-productivity farmland, where dual-use systems can improve efficiency up to 200% without compromising high yield agriculture (Pandey et al., 2025). 

Farming activities also increase panel soiling from dust, pollen, or harvest residue, necessitating frequent maintenance to prevent energy losses, especially in arid or high-wind regions (Campana et al., 2025; Chirinda et al., 2024; Jung et al., 2022).

We acknowledge the partial overlap of agrivoltaics with utility-scale and distributed solar PV estimates; to avoid double-counting capacity, we treat it as a complementary pathway that expands solar adoption while mitigating land-use competition (Sorensen et al., 2022; Smith, 2024). Policy frameworks that differentiate dual-use systems through incentives, performance standards, or land-use regulations will determine the extent of overlap (Pandey et al., 2025). While proximity to the grid is essential, deployment is limited by transmission capacity and interconnection queue delays (Campana et al., 2025). Large utility-scale projects often face multi-year queues to connect to regional grids, with transmission costs sometimes approaching 50–100% of total project costs (Daniels, 2023; Macknick et al., 2022)

Our assessment assumed that each additional MWh from agrivoltaics displaces an equivalent MWh of the existing grid mix. In reality, avoided emissions vary by regional grid dynamics, marginal generation sources, and the timing and location of production. New solar generation can sometimes displace other renewables rather than fossil-based sources, especially in grids with high existing renewable, nuclear, or geothermal capacity (Baik et al., 2021; Suri et al., 2025). Because agrivoltaics is constrained to agriculturally suitable land – which is unevenly distributed globally – the degree to which these dynamics affect emissions reductions will vary by region. 

Current Adoption

As of 2023, the global installed capacity for agrivoltaics reached approximately 140,000 MW (Table 2). China leads global adoption, accounting for roughly 91% of this estimated total. The U.S. represents 8.4%, while Europe accounts for the remainder (Masson et al., 2024; Solar Power Europe, 2024b; Zhang & Ma, 2026). 

Table 2. Current adoption level (2023).

Unit: MW installed capacity

Estimate 140,000
Left Text Column Width

We estimated this global capacity by aggregating data from industry reports, journal papers, and public datasets across these three regions. However, tracking remains challenging because agrivoltaics deployment estimates partially overlap with utility-scale and distributed solar PV totals. Existing databases often count dual-use projects within broader solar capacity figures, particularly when configurations resemble conventional solar PV systems (Daniels, 2023; Smith, 2024; Sorensen et al., 2022; Trommsdorff et al., 2025). The precise degree of overlap cannot yet be quantified, but developers increasingly adopt dual-use designs to minimize land-use conflict (Campana et al., 2025; Masson et al., 2024; Trommsdorff et al., 2025). While agrivoltaics adoption is present in other regions (e.g., Japan, South Korea, and India), consistent and credible datasets to estimate accurate current adoption and growth trends are limited. Consequently, this estimate likely underestimates current global adoption. 

Adoption Trend

Figure 2: Estimated global adoption of agrivoltaics, 2010–2023 (Zhang & Ma, 2026; Agrivoltaics Map, n.d.)

Enable Download
On

We estimated the median global adoption trend for agrivoltaics at 9,800 MW/yr of additional installed capacity (Table 3) by summing regional adoption values for each year from 2010–2023 and taking the year-to-year difference. Because this analysis relied primarily on data from China and the U.S., the results reflect a geographic distribution skewed toward these leading markets. 

Table 3. Adoption trend (2010–2023).

Unit: MW installed capacity/yr

25th percentile 2300
Mean 9400
Median (50th percentile) 9800
75th percentile 15000
Left Text Column Width

Estimated global agrivoltaics capacity grew roughly 200-fold from 580 MW in 2010 to approximately 140,000 MW in 2023 (Figure 2). While agrivoltaics adoption is still in its early stages – with global installed capacity roughly five times lower than distributed solar PV and seven times lower than utility-scale solar PV – growth is expected to accelerate. Supportive policies in pioneer regions such as Europe, China, Japan, and Korea have driven recent expansion. These policies address both the need for clean energy and the rising climate stresses on farmlands, including heat and drought (Trommsdorff et al., 2025). 

Market momentum has also strengthened over the past decade. From 2010–2015, global agrivoltaics added an average of about 4,100 MW/yr. Post 2015, that rate jumped to around 14,000 MW/yr, fueled by targeted incentives. For instance, agrivoltaics capacity in the United States. more than doubled from 2020–2024 (National Laboratory of the Rockies [NLR], 2024). In Italy, the government launched a competitive bidding process in 2023 to award contracts and funding for 500 MW of agrivoltaics projects (Masson et al., 2024); the country aims to reach 1,000 MW of capacity by 2026 (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTAD], 2023). We expect that continued cost declines of elevated structures and bifacial modules and improved profitability (Pandey et al., 2025; Keiner et al., 2025) will drive future adoption.

Adoption Ceiling

We estimated the median technical potential for agrivoltaics to arrive at an adoption ceiling of 250 million MW of installed capacity (Table 4). We determined the adoption ceiling for agrivoltaics by considering the global technical potential of solar PV and the availability of cropland or grazing land suited to shading (Yeligeti et al., 2023).

Table 4. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: MW installed capacity

25th percentile 230,000,000
Mean 250,000,000
Median (50th percentile) 250,000,000
75th percentile 270,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Cropland accounts for only one-third of total agricultural land (Food and Agricultural Organization [FAO], 2023) and global estimates for agrivoltaics across cropland vary depending on assumptions about crop suitability, panel density, and grid access. A global suitability assessment of 18 major crops found approximately 4.64 million km² (464 million ha) of cropland suitable for agrivoltaics in an optimistic scenario, corresponding to a maximum installable capacity of around 217 million MW (Yeligeti et al., 2023). This technological ceiling aligns closely with the analysis of Campana et al. (2025), which projects annual electricity output of 385 PWh (≈ 284 million MW/yr). These optimistic figures assume favorable policy environments, technological advancement in panel design, financing, grid proximity and availability, and adoption of shade-tolerant crop varieties.

Despite the abundant 1.6 billion ha of global arable land (Chirinda et al., 2024), the adoption ceiling is unlikely to be reached due to other constraints (Yeligeti et al., 2023). Considerations for technoeconomic, political, and social effects, including land use changes, economic value of land, and shading effect, determine the actual upper limit for adoption. 

Achievable Adoption

In the low achievable scenario, agrivoltaics is projected to grow more than 20-fold, from 140,000 MW in 2023 to 2.5 million MW in 2050 (Table 5). This scenario accounts for real-world constraints, including fragmented land tenure, uneven grid access, regulatory barriers, and high up-front costs.

Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: MW installed capacity

Current adoption 140,000
Achievable – low 2,500,000
Achievable – high 5,600,000
Adoption ceiling 250,000,000
Left Text Column Width

In the high achievable scenario, agrivoltaics is projected to grow more than 40-fold, from 140,000 MW in 2023 to 5.6 million MW in 2050 (Table 5). This scenario assumes the continuation of supportive government policies, with adoption primarily constrained by transmission availability. 

We estimated the achievable adoption ranges from scenarios reflecting technical limits (Campana et al., 2025; Yeligeti et al., 2023). These scenarios combine crop suitability and geospatial analysis to estimate annual potential electricity supply from agrivoltaics, constrained by electricity infrastructure. We then applied a mean scaling factor of 9.2% from previous work (Beck et al., 2012; Christ & Wagner, 2025; Trommsdorff et al., 2024) to convert these potential estimates to realizable scenarios. This scaling aligns with historical patterns and complementary international assessments.

Our low and high achievable scenarios fall within the observed market trends, reflecting a still nascent industry with significant but unevenly distributed growth potential.

Beyond the technical and financial considerations, achievable adoption is shaped and often superseded by non-quantitative social forces, where cultural norms, agricultural heritage, and local traditions fundamentally shape stakeholder acceptance (Asa’a et al., 2024; Walsh et al., 2026). Rural residents can perceive solar infrastructure as an industrial intrusion that is incompatible with the pastoral identity and landscape ideology of their communities (de Falco et al., 2025; Mahim et al., 2026; Morash & Pavao-Zuckerman, 2026; Swanson et al., 2025;). If agrivoltaics is framed merely as a technological fix without regard for these cultural values, it can lead to a social gap where broad societal approval for renewables fails to translate into local project success (Pascaris et al., 2021; Walsh et al., 2026).

The achievable adoption range of 2.5–5.6 million MW represents approximately 1–2.3% of the adoption ceiling of 250 million MW. The current adoption is roughly 0.06% of that ceiling. 

The current estimated climate impact of agrivoltaics is approximately 0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr of reduced emissions (Table 6), based on 140,000 MW of global installed capacity and effectiveness of 720 t CO₂‑eq /MW/yr.

Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.1
Achievable – low 1.80
Achievable – high 4.10
Adoption ceiling 180
Left Text Column Width

Under the low achievable adoption scenario (2.5 million MW), annual emissions reductions could grow to about 1.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.  

In the high achievable scenario (5.6 million MW), reductions could reach approximately 4.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.  

We based the adoption ceiling solely on the technical potential of agrivoltaics, while neglecting social and economic constraints and realistic scenarios of future power demand. The electricity sector in 2023 emitted 15.6 Gt CO₂ ‑eq (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2024b); therefore, even if agrivoltaics could meet all current electricity demand, emissions reductions could not surpass this value without increased demand. Consequently, agrivoltaic systems are unlikely to reach 250 million MW of installed capacity in the next 100 years. But if current grid emissions were to remain constant while capacity increases, GHG emission reductions would be approximately 180 Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr. This maximum is unrealistic as a forward-looking climate impact because it treats grid carbon intensity as permanently fixed at 2023 levels and ignores future decarbonization and corresponding decreases in marginal avoided emissions. Real-world climate impacts will depend on not only grid decarbonization and policy support, but also on system design choices and regional agricultural contexts.

By using only 1% of global agricultural land, agrivoltaics could offset 21 PWh/yr of electricity demand, equivalent to global electricity consumption in 2019 (Adeh et al., 2019). Even as demand grows, reaching ~29 PWh in 2023 (Ember, n.d.), the opportunity remains massive. 

Additional Benefits

Heat Stress

Daytime air temperatures surrounding agrivoltaics are lower than traditional utility PV systems that are usually installed over gravel (Pandey et al., 2025). This cooling effect is mostly attributed to evapotranspiration from the crops underneath PV panels (Barron-Gafford et al., 2019). 

Income and Work

Agrivoltaics can diversify income sources for farmers (Campana et al., 2025) by allowing them to export excess power to the grid to generate revenue (Dinesh & Pearce, 2016; Trommsdorff et al., 2025). PV revenue often outweighs revenue from agriculture (Malu et al., 2017; Lytle et al., 2021). Because agrivoltaics are more expensive to install than traditional PV systems, they are often installed at larger scales on larger farms (Campana et al., 2025). In these cases, the income and revenue benefits may be shared between the farmer and a third-party investor. 

New roles in installation, maintenance, and agrivoltaics management also create rural employment opportunities, particularly in regions where energy poverty and food insecurity overlap (Chirinda et al., 2024).

Food Security

Because agrivoltaics lower daytime temperatures, they can increase yields of crops that are sensitive to high temperatures, such as fruits and seed-bearing vegetables (Scarano et al., 2025). This is especially pertinent to drought-prone areas, where agrivoltaics have been shown to increase crop yields in water-stressed systems. For example, a study of crop yields in semi-arid southwestern United States found that yields of peppers and cherry tomatoes were double in agrivoltaic systems relative to those under traditional agriculture (Barron-Gafford, 2019). In addition to shade, agrivoltaic systems can protect crops from weather events such as hail and wind (Pandey et al., 2025). Agrivoltaic fields can also be used for livestock grazing, such as cattle and sheep, maintaining meat and dairy production on solar land while panel shading relieves animal heat stress and improves forage digestibility (Andrew et al., 2021).

Energy Availability

The efficiency of PV panels starts to decrease as cell temperatures rise above 25 °C (Chirinda et al., 2024). The cooler temperatures surrounding agrivoltaic systems can increase electricity production per panel (Adeh et al., 2019). In many environments, vegetation below the PV panels provides a cooling effect that boosts annual electricity output by 1–3% (Barron-Gafford et al., 2019).

Health

Solar PV reduces the emission of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and PM2.5 from fossil-fuel energy generation (Abel et al., 2018; Millstein et al., 2024; Millstein et al., 2017; Wiser et al., 2016). This offers health benefits, including reduced premature mortality. The magnitude and distribution of these benefits depend on the local electricity grid mix, the fuels used to generate electricity, and atmospheric conditions that determine how far pollutants travel (Buonocore et al., 2019). Regions with a higher proportion of coal-powered electricity generation will often see more health benefits (Buonocore et al., 2019). Pollutants can travel long distances after they are emitted, so air pollution benefits can be widespread (Millstein et al., 2024).

These health benefits often translate into cost savings associated with reductions in hospital admissions, improved respiratory and cardiovascular conditions, and work and school days that might have otherwise been missed due to illness (Millstein et al., 2017; Wiser et al., 2016).

Nature Protection

Agrivoltaic systems that integrate pollinator-friendly habitats can increase pollination and may even increase crop yields in surrounding farmland (Macknick 2022; Walston et al., 2018).

Animal Well-being

Shade from the panels can relieve heat stress for livestock when temperatures are high (Maia et al., 2020; Carvalho Fonsêca et al., 2023) 

Land Resources

Agrivoltaics can help avoid land use conflicts because the PV panels are placed on land already used for agriculture (Swanson et a., 2025). 

Water Resources

Agrivoltaics may reduce water use up to 50% compared to traditional agricultural systems (Scarano et al., 2025). Reduced solar radiation from shading can reduce soil evaporation rates and enhance water savings for crops (Amaducci et al., 2018). Additionally, water used to clean panels and suppress dust can be reused for irrigation (Patel et al., 2019 ).

Air Quality

For air quality benefits, please refer to the “health” section. 

Risks

Large-scale rollout of agrivoltaics carries several risks. Rapid deployment without adequate storage, grid flexibility, or transmission can elevate curtailment rates. This undermines financial returns and emissions reductions, creating financial risks from high solar deployment and integration (Firoozi et al., 2025; Zubi et al., 2024). Higher up-front capital requirements also expose farmers and developers to revenue risk if crop yields decrease or electricity prices fluctuate (Campana et al., 2025). These financial risks can be mitigated with policy levers, including carbon taxes, though different levers are needed at different adoption levels (Brown & Reichenberg, 2021). 

Lack of regulatory clarity regarding dual-use land may stall adoption (Campana et al., 2025). This lack of legal status often leads to reclassification of agricultural land to energy or industrial use, creating ambiguity over property-tax rates and potentially triggering farmland occupation taxes (Chirinda et al., 2024). Furthermore, reclassification can result in the loss of agricultural subsidies, such as the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) payments, and jeopardize eligibility for crop insurance programs (Smith, 2024; Trommsdorff et al., 2025). Without a clear regulatory framework to differentiate agrivoltaics from standard ground-mounted solar, conflicting goals between energy and agricultural ministries can cause substantial administrative delays and financial uncertainty (Chirinda et al., 2024). 

Agricultural and environmental risks include soil compaction from construction and machinery traffic, reducing infiltration, root growth, and long-term soil fertility. This effect is amplified where heavy equipment must navigate under elevated panels (Campana et al., 2025; Chirinda et al., 2024). Poorly managed end-of-life PV components also risk chemical pollution (Chirinda et al., 2024). 

Finally, social and distributive justice risks can impede adoption. Visual landscape impacts and inequitable benefit-sharing between energy developers and tenant farmers can spark opposition and erode community support. The potential displacement of tenant farmers is a major socioeconomic risk (Campana et al., 2025; Chirinda et al., 2024). Because solar developers offer lease rates that significantly outbid traditional agricultural rents, landowners are increasingly incentivized to prioritize energy production over farming (Morash & Pavao-Zuckerman, 2026 Sorensen et al., 2022; Swanson et al., 2025). Furthermore, high solar leases can drive up overall land prices, making it difficult for new or disadvantaged farmers to access land (Morash & Pavao-Zuckerman, 2026). Without inclusive participatory processes and clear land use agreements, agrivoltaics expansion risks eroding social cohesion and economic viability of the farming communities it is intended to sustain (Campana et al., 2025; Trommsdorff et al., 2025). Ensuring that projects reflect local values, such as community stewardship over simple ownership, is crucial to mitigating the risk of eroding social cohesion of agricultural communities (Seay-Fleming et al., 2025; Trommsdorff et al., 2025).

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

The microclimate effects of agrivoltaics can reduce the volume of water required to achieve equivalent crop yields, amplifying the impact of farm-level irrigation efficiency improvements. Electricity generated by solar PV can power irrigation pumps.

By reducing evapotranspiration and moderating temperate and water stress on crops, agrivoltaic systems can reduce agricultural water demand. In water-stressed and arid regions, this interaction can improve food system resilience.

Increased availability of renewable energy from agrivoltaics helps reduce emissions from the electricity grid as a whole. Reduced emissions from the electricity grid lead to lower downstream emissions for solutions that rely on electricity use. Deploying agrivoltaics also supports increased integration of wind power technologies by diversifying the renewable energy mix and reducing exposure to wind variability.

Electrification of transportation systems will be more beneficial in reducing global emissions if the underlying grid includes a higher proportion of non-emitting power sources. Electric transportation systems can also reduce curtailment of solar energy through controlled-time charging and other load-shifting technologies.

Competing

Since wind and solar can generate electricity at the same times of day, deploying agrivoltaics could create competition for grid connections, lower daytime electricity revenues, and suppress adoption of additional wind power.

Use of agricultural land for dedicated bioenergy crop production represents a competing land use, albeit agrivoltaics may offer higher combined energy and food productivity per hectare.

Widespread agrivoltaic deployment on high irradiance agricultural land could reduce the land base available for utility-scale concentrated solar in regions where both are technically viable, albeit the two solutions target different land type and scales.

Consensus
Dashboard

Solution Basics

MW installed capacity

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
720
units
Current 140,000 02.5×10⁶5.6×10⁶
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.1 1.84.1
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Trade-offs

Agrivoltaics may involve an inherent trade-off between agricultural productivity and energy conversion efficiency. Well-sited and properly designed systems typically cause no significant declines in agricultural productivity and can even stabilize or increase biomass production in certain conditions (Pandey et al., 2025). Poorly designed systems, however, can underperform both stand-alone agriculture and stand-alone PV on key sustainability metrics (Campana et al., 2025; Trommsdorff et al., 2025).

Elevated panels require extra steel and aluminum, increasing embodied emissions by roughly 20% compared with utility-scale solar PV (Busch & Wydra, 2023). These embodied emissions are modest, up to 100 times lower than the operational savings from displacing fossil fuel–based electricity (Pandey et al., 2025). 

The net climate benefit is greatest in carbon-intensive grids. It diminishes, however, where grid decarbonization is already rapid or where yield losses on prime farmland shift food production to other land, triggering indirect land use change emissions (Agostini et al., 2021; Campana et al., 2025). Water-use efficiency and microclimate cooling can partially offset yield penalties in hot, dry climates, but gains may be small or negative in temperate or wet climates (Campana et al., 2025; Pandey et al., 2025). Overall benefits depend on careful siting, crop selection, and policies that offset higher installation costs while avoiding land-use competition.

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Agrivoltaics
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Set ambitious long-term renewable energy goals in national climate plans and multilateral agreements; incorporate agrivoltaics into national climate, energy, and agriculture plans. 
  • Create clear and easy-to-understand regulations that support agrivoltaics deployment and attract investment; use flexible definitions to encourage innovation; ground policies in scientific evidence, incorporating the latest data on the impacts to grid stability, microgrids development, soil carbon, biodiversity, and water management; avoid rigid annual yield requirements; allow flexibility in subsidy programs and regulations to give farmers using agrivoltaics greater choice in crop selection.
  • Create clear guidelines for installing and operating agrivoltaics to optimize land productivity while minimizing soil compaction and other environmental impacts.
  • Coordinate agrivoltaic policies horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts); align social and environmental safeguards with agrivoltaic policies.
  • Provide financial incentives to developers and farmers, such as subsidies (especially to reduce up-front cost), feed-in tariffs, tax credits, grants, green bonds, waived grid connection fees, and forgivable or concessional loans; gradually reduce subsidies as markets mature; offer farmers increased incentives for farmer-owned systems; prioritize smallholder and low- to middle-income farmers.
  • Streamline permitting procedures for agrivoltaic projects; standardize documents such as templates for power purchase agreements (PPAs).
  • Develop long-term, flexible partnership frameworks with industry, including adaptable or aggregated PPAs, aligned with national decarbonization targets and timelines.
  • Implement or strengthen renewable portfolio standards, clean energy standards, or other similar policy mechanisms with carve-outs for agrivoltaics.
  • Implement carbon taxes and redirect fossil-fuel subsidy savings into agrivoltaics and renewables.
  • Invest in grid-enhancing technologies, flexibility, storage, and transmission infrastructure to manage variable generation.
  • Work with industry to diversify solar panel supply chains; design incentives and policies to stimulate local or regional production, and advance R&D for solar and related equipment, such as batteries.
  • Strengthen labor and human rights laws and standards around solar PV supply chains; invest in enforcement mechanisms – particularly for the extraction and use of critical minerals and panel manufacturing.
  • Strengthen land tenure rights; clarify rules allowing agrivoltaics on agricultural land; differentiate agrivoltaics from conventional ground-mounted solar panels; create supportive policies to deploy agrivoltaic systems for restoring abandoned or contaminated land.
  • Require environmental and health impact assessments before installation and during operation.
  • Co-design agrivoltaic projects with relevant stakeholders; ensure the stakeholder engagement process starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community on location, design, and finance; ensure finalized projects address relevant sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
  • Ensure regulations support diverse development and ownership models (e.g., build-own-operate, public-private partnerships, energy communities, and cooperatives).
  • Establish strong quality control requirements for all stages of deployment, including resource extraction, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and end-of-life service for solar panels used in agrivoltaics; create certification programs for each stage of the process.
  • Require or encourage manufacturers to provide minimum warranties; establish independent grievance mechanisms to resolve customer disputes and help foster trust in the industry.
  • Work with the private sector on workforce training programs, professional certifications, and capacity development for all project phases.
  • Partner with insurance agencies to develop tailored products for farmers adopting agrivoltaics.
  • Implement strong end-of-life regulations for solar panels, including extended producer responsibility (EPR) for manufacturers; support markets for reuse, refurbishment, and recycling.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.
  • Expand extension services with agrivoltaics-specific guidance, demonstration projects, and peer learning; work with energy agencies to raise awareness; create accessible one-stop-shop educational programs (online and in-person) on regulations, benefits, and best practices, tailored to local contexts. 

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Farmer / Solar Provider: Take advantage of government incentives such as subsidies, grants, tax credits, or waived-connection fees; as the market matures, gradually reduce reliance on these incentives to create long-term market stability.
  • Solar Provider: Conduct careful planning and thorough consultation with farmers to determine the best installation practices; minimize disruption to farming operations and customize configurations to each farmer’s needs and planting schedules.
  • Farmer / Solar Provider: AMinimize soil compaction during installation and servicing with techniques such as scheduling installations during farming off seasons or using specialized equipment.
  • Solar Provider: Use a variety of panel systems, including vertical, single-axis, and dual-axis tracking systems in addition to fixed-tilt systems; improve optimization strategies for single-axis and dual-axis systems and integrate sun-tracking with agricultural strategies, crop selectivity, and soil and weather monitoring systems.
  • Solar Provider: Offer tools or services to help farmers navigate solar arrays more easily, such as geospatial navigation systems, remote sensors, and vision-assisted navigation systems.
  • Solar Provider: Avoid the use of concrete and permanent structures when installing PV systems on farmland.
  • Solar Provider: Offer a variety of business arrangements for farmers, such as pay-as-you-go build-own-operate models, revenue-sharing agreements, and flat lease payments.
  • Solar Provider: Provide options and guidance to improve visual attractiveness of agrivoltaic systems, such as hedges, strategic spacing, and panel coloring.
  • Solar Provider: Standardize agrivoltaic system designs for different geographies and agriculture applications.
  • Farmer / Solar Provider: Consult on maintenance and cleaning protocols, accounting for food safety, the need to reduce soil compaction, and other relevant environmental or health regulations.
  • Solar Provider: Use geospatial and satellite data to assess landscape, market dynamics, and potential customer base.
  • Solar Provider: Design agrivoltaic minigrid systems for compatibility with the main grid to enable future connection. 
  • Solar Provider: Reduce customer acquisition costs using machine learning models to identify potential customers and eligible sites.
  • Solar Provider / Regulator: Collaborate with the public sector to diversify solar panel supply chains; leverage incentives and policies that stimulate local or regional production and advance R&D.
  • Solar Provider: Ensure supply chains comply with international labor and human rights laws and standards, particularly for the extraction of critical minerals and panel manufacturing.
  • Solar Provider: Work to decarbonize the full life cycle, including supply chains, production, installation, recycling, and disposal.
  • Solar Provider / Regulator: Partner with the public sector and private organizations to develop workforce training programs; ensure capacity development for all stages of deployment, including installation best practices and end-of-life services.
  • Farmer / Solar Provider: Stay abreast of and engage with changing policies, regulations, zoning laws, tax incentives, and related developments to help remove commercial barriers.
  • Farmer / Solar Provider: Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.
  • [Farmer / Solar Provider] Help expand extension services and create educational opportunities, including demonstration projects and peer-to-peer learning, in agrivoltaics; work with energy agencies to raise awareness.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Set ambitious long-term renewable energy goals; incorporate agrivoltaics, where feasible, into corporate net-zero strategies.
  • Support long-term, stable contracts (e.g., PPAs) that de-risk investment in agrivoltaic technologies and incentivize local supply chain development.
  • Invest in companies that produce, deploy, or provide end-of-life servicing for solar panels used for agrivoltaic systems; seek to diversify and localize supply chains.
  • Invest in R&D and related technology, such as batteries, navigation systems for farmers, and software to manage agrivoltaic systems.
  • Support workforce development programs, offer employee scholarships, and/or sponsor training for careers in agrivoltaics; help ensure capacity development for all stages of deployment, including installation and end-of-life services.
  • Offer pro bono business advice or general support for community and cooperative agrivoltaic projects.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Advocate for ambitious long-term renewable energy goals in national climate plans and multilateral agreements; help incorporate agrivoltaics into national climate, energy, and agriculture plans. 
  • Operate or support agrivoltaic demonstration projects, equipment testing, certification, market information disclosures, and onsite supervision.
  • Conduct open-access research to improve the performance of solar PVs in agrivoltaic systems; research optimal crops and panel arrangements, forecasting, and related technologies; help standardize models across geographies and agricultural applications. 
  • Advocate for clear and easy-to-understand regulations that enable agrivoltaics deployment and investment; promote flexible definitions to allow for innovation; provide scientific evidence on the impacts to grid stability, microgrids, soil carbon, biodiversity, and water management; recommend avoiding rigid annual yield requirements and allowing farmers flexibility in crop selection in subsidy and insurance programs.
  • Contribute to clear guidelines for installing and operating agrivoltaics to optimize land productivity while minimizing soil compaction and other environmental impacts.
  • Urge governments to coordinate agrivoltaic policies horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts); help align social and environmental safeguards with agrivoltaic policies.
  • Advocate for streamlined permitting procedures and standardize documents such as templates for PPAs.
  • Offer financial assistance to farmers, cooperatives, or communities seeking to deploy agrivoltaics; advocate for targeted incentives to developers and farmers, such as subsidies (especially to reduce up-front cost), feed-in tariffs, tax credits, grants, green bonds, waived grid connection fees, and forgivable or concessional loans; recommend subsidies be gradually reduced as the market stabilizes; earmark funds and/or urge governments to earmark incentives for smallholder and low- and middle-income farmers.
  • Advocate for carbon taxes and redirection of fossil fuel subsidies into agrivoltaics and renewables.
  • Urge policymakers to invest in and subsidize grid-enhancing technologies, flexibility, storage, and transmission infrastructure to manage variable generation.
  • Work with policymakers and industry to diversify solar panel supply chains; help design incentives and policies to stimulate local or regional production; urge policymakers to invest in R&D for solar panels and related equipment such as batteries.
  • Help strengthen labor and human rights laws and standards around solar PV supply chains; invest in enforcement mechanisms – particularly for the extraction and use of critical minerals and panel manufacturing.
  • Help strengthen land tenure rights through documentation and advocacy; help policymakers clarify and allow agrivoltaics on agricultural land; differentiate agrivoltaics from conventional ground-mounted solar panels; create supportive policies to deploy agrivoltaic systems for restoring abandoned or contaminated land.
  • Offer services to conduct environmental and health impact assessments before installation and during operations of agrivoltaics.
  • Participate in community feedback sessions and co-design agrivoltaic projects with farmers, developers, and other relevant stakeholders.
  • Help create or support community agrivoltaics using a variety of development models and benefit-sharing arrangements (e.g., build-own-operate, publicly owned businesses, developer-owned businesses, public-private partnerships, energy communities, and cooperatives).
  • Create certification programs for all stages of deployment, including resource extraction, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and end-of-life service for solar panels used in agrivoltaic systems.
  • Work with policymakers and the private sector to develop workforce training programs; ensure capacity development for all stages of deployment, including end-of-life services; create professional certifications for the full spectrum of roles.
  • Help create strong regulations for end-of-life services for solar panels; advocate for EPR for manufacturers; work with industry to foster a market for used, refurbished, and recycled panels.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.
  • Help expand extension services and create educational opportunities, including demonstration projects and peer-to-peer learning in agrivoltaics; work with energy agencies to raise awareness.

Further information:

Investors
  • Offer low-interest loans and concessional financing to farmers, panel manufacturers, developers, operators, recyclers, and others involved in agrivoltaics.
  • Invest directly in agrivoltaics projects.
  • Invest in companies that produce, deploy, or provide end-of-life servicing for solar panels used in agrivoltaics; support supply chain localization and diversification.
  • Invest in supportive infrastructures, such as utility companies and grid development.
  • Invest in green bonds and/or explore blended finance structures to mobilize capital for agrivoltaics and enabling infrastructure.
  • Invest in solar panel recycling infrastructure and circular supply chains.
  • Invest in R&D for component technology and related equipment, such as batteries.
  • Help de-risk agrivoltaics adoption in low- and middle-income communities through low-interest loans, concessional financing, and/or favorable terms.
  • Align investments with existing public-private partnerships, voluntary agreements, or voluntary guidance that may apply in the location of the investment.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Advocate for ambitious long-term renewable energy goals in national climate plans and multilateral agreements; help incorporate agrivoltaics into national climate, energy, and agriculture plans. 
  • Operate agrivoltaic demonstration projects, equipment testing, certification systems, market information disclosures, and onsite supervision.
  • Offer low-interest loans and concessional financing for farmers, panel manufacturers, developers, operators, recyclers, and others involved in agrivoltaics.
  • Award grants for the development of agrivoltaics projects and/or adjacent areas such as mini-grids.
  • Award grants to or invest in companies that produce, deploy, or provide end-of-life servicing for solar panels used in agrivoltaics; seek to diversify and localize supply chains.
  • Provide financing for supportive infrastructures, such as utility companies and grid development.
  • Invest in green bonds and/or explore blended finance structures to mobilize capital for companies developing or deploying agrivoltaics and supportive infrastructure.
  • Finance recycling infrastructure for solar panels and circular supply chains.
  • Help de-risk transitions to agrivoltaic systems in low- and middle-income communities by earmarking a percentage of grant funds and/or offering low-interest loans, concessional financing, and/or favorable terms.
  • Conduct open-access research to improve the performance of solar PVs in agrivoltaic systems; research optimal crops and panel arrangements, forecasting, and related technologies; help standardize models across geographies and agricultural applications. 
  • Help create clear and easy-to-understand regulations that enable agrivoltaics deployment and investment; promote flexible definitions to allow for innovation; provide scientific evidence for the impacts to grid stability, microgrids, soil carbon, biodiversity, and water management; recommend avoiding rigid annual yield requirements and allowing farmers flexibility in crop selection in subsidy and insurance programs.
  • Contribute to clear guidelines for installing and operating agrivoltaics to optimize land productivity while minimizing soil compaction and other environmental impacts.
  • Urge governments to coordinate agrivoltaic policies horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts); help align social and environmental safeguards with agrivoltaic policies.
  • Advocate for streamlined permitting procedures and standardize documents such as templates for PPAs.
  • Call on governments to provide financial incentives to developers and farmers, such as subsidies (especially to reduce up-front cost), feed-in tariffs, tax credits, grants, green bonds, waived grid connection fees, and forgivable or concessional loans; recommend subsidies be gradually reduced as the market stabilizes; urge governments to earmark incentives for smallholder, low- and middle-income farmers.
  • Advocate for carbon taxes and redirection of fossil fuel subsidies into agrivoltaics and renewables.
  • Urge policymakers to invest in and subsidize grid enhancing technologies, flexibility, storage, and transmission infrastructure to manage variable generation.
  • Work with policymakers and industry to diversify solar panel supply chains; help design incentives and policies to stimulate local or regional production and advance R&D for solar panels and related equipment such as batteries.
  • Help strengthen labor and human rights laws and standards around solar PV supply chains; invest in enforcement mechanisms – particularly for the extraction and use of critical minerals and panel manufacturing.
  • Help strengthen land tenure rights through documentation and advocacy; help policymakers clarify and allow agrivoltaics on agricultural land; differentiate agrivoltaics from conventional ground-mounted solar panels; create supportive policies to deploy agrivoltaic systems for restoring abandoned or contaminated land.
  • Offer or support services to conduct environmental and health impact assessments before installation and during operations of agrivoltaics.
  • Participate in community feedback sessions and co-design agrivoltaic projects with farmers, developers, and other relevant stakeholders.
  • Help create or support community agrivoltaics using a variety of development models and benefit-sharing arrangements (e.g., build-own-operate, publicly owned businesses, developer-owned businesses, public-private partnerships, energy communities, and cooperatives).
  • Finance or create certification programs for all stages of deployment, including resource extraction, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and end-of-life service for agrivoltaic systems. 
  • Work with policymakers and the private sector to develop workforce training programs; ensure capacity development for all stages of deployment, including end-of-life services; create professional certifications for the full spectrum of roles.
  • Help create strong regulations for end-of-life services for solar panels; advocate for EPR for manufacturers; work with industry to foster a market for used, refurbished, and recycled panels.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.
  • Help expand extension services or create educational opportunities that offer options for deployment, technical guidance, demonstration projects, and peer-to-peer learning opportunities in agrivoltaics; work with energy agencies to raise awareness.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for ambitious long-term renewable energy goals in national climate plans and multilateral agreements; help incorporate agrivoltaics into national climate, energy, and agriculture plans. 
  • Operate agrivoltaic demonstration projects, equipment testing, certification systems, market information disclosures, and onsite supervision.
  • Conduct open-access research to improve the performance of solar PV in agrivoltaic systems; research optimal crops and panel arrangements, forecasting, and related technologies; help standardize models across geographies and agricultural applications. 
  • Help create clear and easy-to-understand regulations that enable agrivoltaics deployment and investment; promote flexible definitions to allow for innovation; provide scientific evidence on the impacts to grid stability, microgrids, soil carbon, biodiversity, and water management; recommend avoiding rigid annual yield requirements and allowing farmers flexibility in crop selection in subsidy and insurance programs. 
  • Contribute to clear guidelines for installing and operating agrivoltaics to optimize land productivity while minimizing soil compaction and other environmental impacts.
  • Urge governments to coordinate agrivoltaic policies horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts); help align social and environmental safeguards with agrivoltaic policies.
  • Advocate for streamlined permitting procedures and standardize documents such as templates for PPAs.
  • Call on governments to provide financial incentives to developers and farmers, such as subsidies (especially to reduce up-front cost), feed-in tariffs, tax credits, grants, green bonds, waived grid connection fees, and forgivable or concessional loans; recommend subsidies be gradually reduced as the market stabilizes; urge policymakers to earmark incentives for smallholder, low- and middle-income farmers.
  • Advocate for carbon taxes and redirection of fossil fuel subsidies into agrivoltaics and renewables.
  • Urge policymakers to invest in and subsidize grid-enhancing technologies, flexibility, storage, and transmission infrastructure to manage variable generation.
  • Help strengthen labor and human rights laws and standards around solar PV supply chains; invest in enforcement mechanisms –particularly, for the extraction and use of critical minerals and panel manufacturing.
  • Help strengthen land tenure rights through documentation and advocacy; help policymakers clarify and allow agrivoltaics on agricultural land; differentiate agrivoltaics from conventional ground-mounted solar panels; create supportive policies to deploy agrivoltaic systems for restoring abandoned or contaminated land.
  • Offer services to conduct environmental and health impact assessments before installation and during operations of agrivoltaics.
  • Participate in community feedback sessions and co-design agrivoltaic projects with farmers, developers, and other relevant stakeholders.
  • Help create certification programs for all stages of deployment, including resource extraction, manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and end-of-life service for agrivoltaic systems.
  • Work with policymakers and the private sector to develop workforce training programs; ensure capacity development for all stages of deployment, including end-of-life services; create professional certifications for the full spectrum of roles.
  • Help create strong regulations for end-of-life services for solar panels; advocate for EPR for manufacturers; work with industry to foster a market for used, refurbished, and recycled panels.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.
  • Help expand extension services or create educational opportunities that offer options for deployment, technical guidance, demonstration projects, and peer-to-peer learning opportunities in agrivoltaics; work with energy agencies to raise awareness.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Design solar panels and mounting systems that reduce material requirements and overall system weight.
  • Research lighter-weight materials for agrivoltaic systems and evaluate their technical, economic, and environmental feasibility. 
  • Advance scientific understanding of optimal crop selection for agrivoltaic systems; improve solar panel wavelength selectivity; develop standardized system configurations for specific geographies and agricultural applications; identify optimal spacing requirements for various arrangements.
  • Research soil compaction impacts in agrivoltaic systems, ways to prevent or minimize it during site preparation and installation, and ways to alleviate or reverse it post-installation – with priority on approaches compatible with ongoing PV operations and long-term soil health.
  • Identify ways to reduce the impact of agrivoltaic systems on satellite signals to improve navigation technology.
  • Improve semi-transparent photovoltaic panels to increase efficiency and reduce costs for agrivoltaic systems.
  • Examine the impacts of agrivoltaics on soil health, water management, biodiversity, and other environmental factors.
  • Create publicly accessible databases of agrivoltaic models, performance data, and best practices.
  • Assess policy frameworks and regulations that enable or inhibit agrivoltaics adoption. 
  • Identify barriers to adoption for farmers; research impacts of agrivoltaics on property value and land classification.
  • Improve and update spatial data on power grid locations and available transmission capacities, especially in rural and underserved areas.
  • Examine the impacts of agrivoltaics on food security, energy access, and rural communities.
  • Advance the use of AI or other technological tools for predictive analytics, yield forecasting, and power system control.
  • Improve recycling infrastructure and scalable technologies to repair, reuse, or recover materials from solar panels.
  • Improve related mining technologies for critical minerals, making the extraction process safer, less disruptive to local communities and ecosystems, and less energy intensive.
  • Develop ways of eliminating, reducing, reusing, and/or safely disposing of hazardous by-products of PV manufacturing.
  • Research social factors that drive community acceptance and the role of agrivoltaics in a fair and just energy transition. 

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Help create or support community agrivoltaic projects using models such as build-own-operate, public-private partnerships, energy communities, and cooperatives.
  • Take advantage of available government incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and forgivable or concessional loans for community agrivoltaic projects.
  • Advocate for ambitious long-term renewable energy goals in national climate plans and multilateral agreements.
  • Call on governments to provide financial incentives to developers and farmers, such as subsidies (especially to reduce up-front cost), feed-in tariffs, tax credits, grants, green bonds, waived grid connection fees, and forgivable or concessional loans; recommend subsidies be gradually reduced as the market stabilizes; urge policymakers to earmark incentives for smallholder, low- and middle-income farmers.
  • Advocate for carbon taxes and the redirection of fossil fuel subsidies into agrivoltaics and renewables.
  • Urge policymakers to invest in and subsidize improvements to grid integration and flexibility, storage, and infrastructure to manage variable generation.
  • Participate in community feedback sessions and co-design agrivoltaic projects with farmers, developers, and other relevant stakeholders.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.
  • Volunteer with community agrivoltaic projects; participate in public awareness campaigns; share information with your community and networks regarding the benefits of agrivoltaic systems.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of overall effectiveness of agrivoltaics: High

A wide range of peer-reviewed studies, meta-analyses, and life-cycle assessments provide strong evidence that agrivoltaics reduce GHG emissions. International organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and IEA identify rapid solar PV deployment as a critical component in mitigation pathways and net-zero scenarios. Life-cycle assessments show that, despite 20% higher embodied emissions from elevated structures compared with conventional solar PV, agrivoltaic systems deliver significant net emissions reductions by displacing fossil generation while maintaining agricultural output on the same footprint (Agostini et al., 2021; Barron-Gafford et al., 2019; Campana et al., 2025).

There is sufficient evidence that well-sited agrivoltaic systems increase land-use efficiency, and can provide additional benefits including reduced water stress, avoided land-use conflict, and improved solar PV performance in suitable climates (Barron-Gafford et al., 2019; Campana et al., 2025; Dupraz et al., 2011; Trommsdorff et al., 2025). Meta-analyses show manageable yield responses for shade-tolerant or neutral crops, especially in arid and semi-arid regions (Chirinda et al., 2024; Mamun et al., 2022); however yields for shade-intolerant crops or in temperate and humid climates are less consistent. Higher capital costs, site-specific challenges, and limited long-term data beyond two to three growing seasons create economic uncertainty. 

Consensus is mixed regarding net emissions savings of solar PV, given the diurnal nature of solar energy and the need for storage or other energy resources to meet peak evening demand. There is also a lack of global scientific or regulatory consensus regarding the definition of agrivoltaics, with qualification thresholds for which agricultural activities and what level of activity constitutes dual-use land varying substantially across jurisdictions (Trommsdorff et al., 2025).

This summary draws from 5 reviews and meta-analyses, 25 institutional reports, 6 market reports, and 32 original studies covering more than 25 countries, with strongest evidence from Europe, North America, East Asia, and select arid regions. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias toward higher-income and temperate-to-arid settings. Further research and data sharing in underrepresented low-income regions is required, where land, water, and energy pressures makes agrivoltaic systems potentially most impactful.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Produce Biochar

Sector
Industrial Carbon Removal
Mode
Remove Carbon
Cluster
Biomass Carbon Removal & Storage
Image
Biochar
Coming Soon
On

Key Takeaways

  • By transforming carbon absorbed by plants and animals into a highly stable form, large-scale biochar production and application to soils could potentially remove 0.13–0.47 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.
  • The carbon permanence of biochar can range from hundreds to thousands of years when applied to soil, but more research is needed to understand durability in response to real-world soil and environmental factors.
  • Biochar increases soil health and nutrient availability. This can increase yields of a variety of staple crops, but benefits vary across soil types.
Summary

Producing biochar is the process of taking organic matter such as crop residues, animal manure, and forest residues and converting it into a charcoal-like substance known as biochar. Producing biochar removes carbon from the atmosphere by transforming carbon absorbed by plants and animals and into a highly stable form, preventing it from quickly returning to the atmosphere (Belmont & Sanchez, 2025). Biochar can be used as a soil amendment, a replacement for certain construction materials, or for filtration or pollution remediation. This solution focuses on large-scale production of biochar for soil application.

Food security,Health
Nature protection,Land resources,Water resources,Water quality,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Producing biochar takes the carbon from organic wastes (agricultural and forestry wastes) and converts it into a stable form that will sequester the carbon for hundreds of years. Biochar is mainly used as a soil amendment where it can improve soil fertility.
Overview

Biochar is a charcoal-like substance that is mainly produced by burning organic matter in an oxygen-deficient environment, a process called pyrolysis (Spears, 2018; Figure 1). Biochar production converts the carbon in the organic matter into a stable form that is not readily released into the atmosphere. 

This solution considers producing biochar from agricultural (crop residue, manure) or industrial (forest residue) waste feedstocks. It does not include using purpose-grown plants, edible portions of food or feed crops, or other non-waste feedstocks, which could compete for land use and reduce the climate benefits. We focused on biochar facilities that process 1,000 or more metric tons of waste per year (Amonette et al., 2021). We included both pyrolysis and gasification in our analysis; however, the proportion of carbon that is turned into biochar can differ between processes (NorthX, 2025). We excluded hydrothermal processing of wet biomass that produces hydrochar from our analysis because the carbon storage properties differ from those of typical biochar (Lehmann & Joseph, 2015).

Co-products such as bio-oil or syngas can be produced during biochar production and used as energy or sold. Using biochar can have climate benefits in addition to storing carbon, such as avoiding the production of methane from waste (Afshar & Mofatteh, 2024) and enhancing soil carbon sequestration in certain soil types (Yang et al., 2025). This solution focuses only on the carbon sequestered in biochar. We do not quantify potential avoided waste emissions, reduced energy use from co-products, or any enhanced sequestration after soil application. 

Figure 1. Example of a biochar production process. The conversion of 100% of biomass carbon to 50% biochar is specific to the pyrolysis process and can vary with different temperatures and methods used.

Diagram of biochar process.

Source: International Biochar Initiative. (n.d.). Why Biochar. Retrieved 6 March 2026.

This solution focuses on biochar use as a soil additive in soils where it can improve soil organic matter as well as help retain water and nutrients. The carbon permanence of biochar can range from hundreds to thousands of years when applied to soil (Belmont & Sanchez, 2025). Biochar also can be used in filtration or remediation applications or as a filler material in building materials such as asphalt or concrete (Amonette et al., 2022).

References

Afshar, M., & Mofatteh, S. (2024). Biochar for a sustainable future: Environmentally friendly production and diverse applications. Results in Engineering, 23, Article 102433. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.102433

Agegnehu, G., Bass, A. M., Nelson, P. N., & Bird, M. I. (2016). Benefits of biochar, compost and biochar–compost for soil quality, maize yield and greenhouse gas emissions in a tropical agricultural soil. Science of The Total Environment, 543, 295–306. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.11.054

Alayaki, F. M., Hajikarimi, P., Meky, N., Rashid, S., & Fini, E. H. (2025). Global applications of biochar in sustainable cities of the future: A perspective. Biochar X, 1(1), Article e010. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.48130/bchax-0025-0009

Aman, A. M. N., Selvarajoo, A., Lau, T. L., & Chen, W.-H. (2022). Biochar as cement replacement to enhance concrete composite properties: A review. Energies, 15(20), Article 7662. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15207662 

Amonette, James. E., Archuleta, J. G., Fuchs, M. R., Hills, K. M., Yorgey, G. G., Flora, G., Hunt, J., Han, H.-S., Jobson, B. T., Miles, T. R., Page-Dumroese, D. S., Thompson, S., Trippe, K. M., Wilson, K., Baltar, R., Carloni, K., Christoforou, C., Collins, D. P., Dooley, J., … Wheeler, E. (2021). Biomass to biochar: Maximizing the carbon value. Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, Washington State University, Pullman WA. Link to source: https://csanr.wsu.edu/biomass2biochar/

Baek, N., Lee, S.-I., Pia, H. I., Park, S.-W., Shin, E.-S., Lee, J., Kim, H.-Y., & Choi, W-.J. (2025). Biochar effects on methane emission from rice paddy differ with nitrogen fertilization, organic inputs, and water management. Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer, 58(1), 133-143. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2025.58.1.133 

Belmont, E. L., & Sanchez, D. L. (2025, July 8). Biochar’s long game: Unraveling the science of carbon permanence. Carbon Direct. Link to source: https://www.carbon-direct.com/research-and-reports/biochars-long-game-unraveling-the-science-of-carbon-permanence

Bhuvaneshwari, S., Hettiarachchi, H., & Meegoda, J. N. (2019). Crop residue burning in India: Policy challenges and potential solutions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(5), Article 832. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050832

Bijay-Singh, & Craswell, E. (2021). Fertilizers and nitrate pollution of surface and ground water: An increasingly pervasive global problem. SN Applied Sciences, 3(4), Article 518. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04521-8

British Columbia Centre for Innovation & Clean Energy & Deloitte. (2023). Carbon management blueprint report: Attracting investments in British Columbia. Link to source: https://northx.ca/intelligence/bc-carbon-management-blueprint-report

British Columbia Centre for Innovation & Clean Energy & Innovative Breakthrough Energy Technologies. (2024). Catalyzing carbon dioxide removal at scale. Link to source: https://northx.ca/announcements/catalyzing-carbon-dioxide-removal-at-scale-new-report-released

Buss, W., Wurzer, C., Manning, D. A. C., Rohling, E. J., Borevitz, J., & Mašek, O. (2022). Mineral-enriched biochar delivers enhanced nutrient recovery and carbon dioxide removal. Communications Earth & Environment, 3(67). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00394-w

Energy Transitions Commission. (2022). Mind the gap: How carbon dioxide removals must complement deep decarbonisation to keep 1.5°C alive. Link to source: https://www.energy-transitions.org/publications/mind-the-gap-cdr/

Fuss, S., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., Beringer, T., de Oliveira Garcia, W., Hartmann, J., Khanna, T., Luderer, G., Nemet, G. F., Rogelj, J., Smith, P., Vicente, J. L. V., Wilcox, J., del Mar Zamora Dominguez, M., & Minx, J. C. (2018). Negative emissions—part 2: Costs, potentials and side effects. Environmental Research Letters, 13(6). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f

Genesio, L., Vaccari, F. P., & Miglietta, F. (2016). Black carbon aerosol from biochar threats its negative emission potential. Global Change Biology, 22(7), 2313–2314. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13254

Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., Schlesinger, W. H., Shoch, D., Siikamäki, J. V., Smith, P., Woodbury, P., Zganjar, C., Blackman, A., Campari, J., Conant, R. T., Delgado, C., Elias, P., Gopalakrishna, T., Hamsik, M. R., … Fargione, J. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(44), 11645–11650. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114

Grossi, G., Goglio, P., Vitali, A., & Williams, A. G. (2019). Livestock and climate change: Impact of livestock on climate and mitigation strategies. Animal Frontiers, 9(1), 69–76. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfy034

Gupta, S. (2019). Agriculture crop residue burning and its consequences on respiration health of school-going children. Global Pediatric Health, 6, Article 333794X19874679. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/2333794X19874679

Huang, T., Ma, J., Song, S., Ling, Z., Macdonald, R. W., Gao, H., Tao, S., Shen, H., Zhao, Y., Liu, X., Tian, C., Li, Y., Jia, H., Lian, L., & Mao, X. (2022). Health and environmental consequences of crop residue burning correlated with increasing crop yields midst India’s green revolution. Npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 5(1). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-022-00306-x

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018). Strengthening and implementing the global response (Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 oC). Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-4/

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Chapter 7: Agriculture, forestry and other land uses (AFOLU). Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/

International Biochar Initiative. (n.d.). Why Biochar. Retrieved 6 March 2026, from  https://biochar-international.org/why-biochar/

International Biochar Initiative. (2014). State of the biochar industry 2013. Link to source: https://biochar-international.org/state-of-the-biochar-industry-2013/

International Biochar Initiative. (2015). State of the biochar industry 2014. Link to source: https://biochar-international.org/state-of-the-biochar-industry-2014/

International Biochar Initiative. (2016). State of the biochar industry 2015. Link to source: https://biochar-international.org/state-of-the-biochar-industry-2015/

International Biochar Initiative. (2024). 2023 Global biochar market report. Link to source: http://145249425.hs-sites-eu1.com/2023-global-biochar-market-report

International Biochar Initiative & HAMERKOP. (2025). Announcing the updated manual for biochar carbon removal. Link to source: https://biochar-international.org/news/announcing-the-updated-manual-for-biochar-carbon-removal/

International Renewable Energy Agency. (2018). Biogas for road vehicles technology brief. Link to source: https://www.irena.org/publications/2017/Mar/Biogas-for-road-vehicles-Technology-brief

Joseph, S., Cowie, A. L., Van Zwieten, L., Bolan, N., Budai, A., Buss, W., Cayuela, M. L., Graber, E. R., Ippolito, J. A., Kuzyakov, Y., Luo, Y., Ok, Y. S., Palansooriya, K. N., Shepherd, J., Stephens, S., Weng, Z. (Han), & Lehmann, J. (2021). How biochar works, and when it doesn’t: A review of mechanisms controlling soil and plant responses to biochar. GCB Bioenergy, 13(11), 1731–1764. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12885

Kabir, E., Kim, K.-H., & Kwon, E. E. (2023). Biochar as a tool for the improvement of soil and environment. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1324533

Krause, M., Kenny, S., Stephenson, J., & Singleton, A. (2023). Quantifying methane emissions from landfilled food waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/land-research/quantifying-methane-emissions-landfilled-food-waste

Kumar, P., Kumar, S., & Joshi, L. (2015). The extent and management of crop stubble. In P. Kumar, S. Kumar, & L. Joshi (Eds), Socioeconomic and Environmental Implications of Agricultural Residue Burning: A Case Study of Punjab, India (pp. 13–34). Springer India. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2014-5_2

Lan, R., Eastham, S. D., Liu, T., Norford, L. K., & Barrett, S. R. H. (2022). Air quality impacts of crop residue burning in India and mitigation alternatives. Nature Communications, 13(1), Article 6537. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34093-z

Lefebvre, D., Fawzy, S., Aquije, C. A., Osman, A. I., Draper, K. T., & Trabold, T. A. (2023). Biomass residue to carbon dioxide removal: Quantifying the global impact of biochar. Biochar, 5(1). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-023-00258-2

Lehmann, J., Cowie, A., Masiello, C. A., Kammann, C., Woolf, D., Amonette, J. E., Cayuela, M. L., Camps-Arbestain, M., & Whitman, T. (2021). Biochar in climate change mitigation. Nature Geoscience, 14, 883–892. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00852-8

Lenton, T. M. (2010). The potential for land-based biological CO2 removal to lower future atmospheric CO2 concentration. Carbon Management, 1(1), 145–160. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.10.12

Liang, P.-C., & Chen, W.-H. (2025). Present and future prospects of biochar. ACS Sustainable Resource Management, 2(5), 684–686. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssusresmgt.5c00139

NorthX. (2025). Biocarbon rising: From concept to commercialization. Link to source: https://northx.ca/intelligence/biocarbon-rising

Petersen, S. O., Blanchard, M., Chadwick, D., Del Prado, A., Edouard, N., Mosquera, J., & Sommer, S. G. (2013). Manure management for greenhouse gas mitigation. Animal, 7, 266–282. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731113000736

Porter, E. M., Bowman, W. D., Clark, C. M., Compton, J. E., Pardo, L. H., & Soong, J. L. (2013). Interactive effects of anthropogenic nitrogen enrichment and climate change on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. Biogeochemistry, 114(1), 93–120. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-012-9803-3

Porter, S. (2020). Manure overload: Manure plus fertilizer overwhelms Minnesota’s land and water. Environmental Working Group. Link to source: http://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2020-manure-overload/

Prateep Na Talang, R., Na Sorn, W., Polruang, S., & Sirivithayapakorn, S. (2024). Alternative crop residue management practices to mitigate the environmental and economic impacts of open burning of agricultural residues. Scientific Reports, 14(1), Article 14372. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-65389-3

Ravi, S., Sharratt, B. S., Li, J., Olshevski, S., Meng, Z., & Zhang, J. (2016). Particulate matter emissions from biochar-amended soils as a potential tradeoff to the negative emission potential. Scientific Reports, 6(1), Article 35984. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35984

Raza, M. H., Abid, M., Faisal, M., Yan, T., Akhtar, S., & Adnan, K. M. M. (2022). Environmental and health impacts of crop residue burning: Scope of sustainable crop residue management practices. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(8). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084753

Russell, P. (2025, September 1). Locating the sweet spot for biochar carbon removal. Counteract. Link to source: https://counteract.vc/perspectives/locating-the-sweet-spot-for-biochar-carbon-removal

Sanchez, D., & Belmont, E. (2025, July 2). What is biochar? A carbon removal solution gaining ground. Carbon Direct. Link to source: https://www.carbon-direct.com/insights/what-is-biochar-a-carbon-removal-solution-gaining-ground

Sayara, T., & Sánchez, A. (2021). Gaseous emissions from the composting process: Controlling parameters and strategies of mitigation. Processes, 9(10), Article 1844. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9101844

Searchinger, T., Peng, L., Zionts, J., & Waite, R. (2023). The global land squeeze: Managing the growing competition for land. Link to source: https://www.wri.org/research/global-land-squeeze-managing-growing-competition-land

Simon, M. (2024, August 22). This simple farming technique can capture carbon for thousands of years. Grist. Link to source: https://grist.org/climate/biochar-farming-capture-carbon-thousands-of-years/

Singh, G., Gupta, M. K., Chaurasiya, S., Sharma, V. S., & Pimenov, D. Y. (2021). Rice straw burning: A review on its global prevalence and the sustainable alternatives for its effective mitigation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(25), 32125–32155. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14163-3

Smith, P., Calvin, K., Nkem, J., Campbell, D., Cherubini, F., Grassi, G., Korotkov, V., Le Hoang, A., Lwasa, S., McElwee, P., Nkonya, E., Saigusa, N., Soussana, J.-F., Taboada, M. A., Manning, F. C., Nampanzira, D., Arias-Navarro, C., Vizzarri, M., House, J., … Arneth, A. (2019). Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification? Global Change Biology, 26(3), 1532–1575. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14878

Spears, S. (2018, May 16). What is biochar? Regeneration International. Link to source: https://regenerationinternational.org/2018/05/16/what-is-biochar/

Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/4/a0701e/a0701e00.htm

The Institute for Carbon Removal Law and Policy. (2020). Fact sheet: Biochar. American University. Link to source: https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/fact-sheet-biochar.cfm

Viger, M., Hancock, R. D., Miglietta, F., & Taylor, G. (2014). More plant growth but less plant defence? First global gene expression data for plants grown in soil amended with biochar. GCB Bioenergy, 7(4), 658–672. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12182

Weng, Z. H., & Cowie, A. L. (2025). Estimates vary but credible evidence points to gigaton-scale climate change mitigation potential of biochar. Communications Earth & Environment, 6(259). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02228-x

Woolf, D., Amonette, J. E., Street-Perrott, F. A., Lehmann, J., & Joseph, S. (2010). Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature Communications, 1(56). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1053

Woolf, D., Lehmann, J., Ogle, S., Kishimoto-Mo, A. W., McConkey, B., & Baldock, J. (2021). Greenhouse Gas Inventory Model for Biochar Additions to Soil. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(21), 14795–14805. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c02425

Woolley, S., & Hallowell, B. (2018). Biochar: An overview. Biomass Controls. Link to source: https://biomasscontrols.com/biochar-overview/

Xiao, L., Feng, L., Yuan, G., & Wei, J. (2020). Low-cost field production of biochars and their properties. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 42(6), 1569–1578. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-019-00458-5

Yang, J., Xia, L., van Groenigen, K. J., Zhao, X., Ti, C., Wang, W., Du, Z., Fan, M., Zhuang, M., Smith, P., Lal, R., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Han, X., Meng, J., Liu, J., Cai, H., Cheng, Y., Liu, X., Shu, X., … Yan, X. (2025). Sustained benefits of long-term biochar application for food security and climate change mitigation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(33), Article e2509237122. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2509237122

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Jason Lam

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Emily Cassidy

Effectiveness

We estimated that 1 metric ton of biochar produced and incorporated into soil will remove 0.84 t CO₂‑eq (0.82 t CO₂‑eq , 20-yr), after subtracting production emissions (Table 1). This assumes the primary feedstock is agricultural waste and forestry residue. Due to very limited direct production emissions data, we estimated that any carbon not stabilized in biochar is emitted as CO₂ or methane.

Producing and using biochar may have various additional benefits after application in different soil types (Yang et al., 2025). Afshar & Mofatteh (2024) found biochar applied to soils can reduce the production of methane from rice paddies, and Kabir et al. (2023) observed decreased nitrous oxide emissions from some soils treated with biochar. Because these additional benefits of biochar are context specific, our analysis of effectiveness in reducing GHGs focused only on the amount of carbon sequestered with biochar.

Biochar's carbon sequestration potential depends in part on the feedstock used, because carbon content varies with type of organic waste. Woolf et al. (2021) examined several globally abundant feedstocks and found that the carbon content of biochar can also vary depending on how the biochar is produced, ranging from 10–81% of the carbon found in the dry mass feedstocks. 

Table 1. Effectiveness at sequestering carbon.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /t biochar, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 0.81
Mean 0.63
Median (50th percentile) 0.84
75th percentile 1.30
Left Text Column Width
Cost

To sequester 1 t CO₂‑eq with biochar, a biochar production facility will have an initial cost of around US$200/t biochar, an operating cost of roughly US$510/t biochar, and revenue of US$120/t biochar. However, these values do not include potential costs for applying biochar to soils. Globally, the net cost of producing and using biochar is roughly US$190/t biochar, based on literature estimates of abatement costs. Table 2 shows the cost per unit climate impact, based on net cost.

Our cost data only include revenue from the sale of biochar for soil amendment and do not include revenue from increased crop yield, carbon credit systems, or other by-products such as the thermal energy, syngas or bio-oils, which can be used to reduce energy costs or sold as fuel (Amonette et al., 2021). We found limited capital cost and revenue data; many sources (Buss et al., 2022; British Columbia Centre for Innovation & Clean Energy [CICE] & Deloitte, 2023; Fuss et al., 2018; IPCC, 2018; Liang & Chen, 2025; Russel et al., 2025) focused on the overall costs of biochar production. Operating costs include labor, feedstocks, transportation, and application of biochar, and can vary significantly (Liang & Chen, 2025; Shackley et al., 2014; Xiao et al, 2019). Xiao et al. (2019) found that it is possible to achieve low-cost biochar production at small scales. Some facilities may have a feedstock cost near zero with local organic waste, while others may have a high cost due to transportation and processing (International Renewable Energy Agency [IRENA], 2018).

We considered the baseline scenario where biomass is left to naturally decompose or is collected and processed for conventional disposal. We assumed baseline initial costs, operational costs, and revenue to be 0.

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Median 230
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

The processes and technologies for producing biochar are mature, and we were unable to find literature suggesting the costs to implement these solutions will fall in the future (The Institute for Carbon Removal, 2020). Even if technology costs drop over time, competition for feedstocks with bioenergy producers or composters could also increase production costs.

Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Producing biochar is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. 

Caveats

Biochar properties may vary depending on the feedstock and production process. The carbon content of biochar can range from 10–81% of the carbon found in the feedstock (Woolf et al., 2021). Production processes also affect what co-products are produced: Slow pyrolysis generates more biochar, while fast pyrolysis boosts bio-oil production, and producing biochar with gasification will have syngas as the largest output (Afshar & Mofatteh, 2024). 

While strong evidence suggests that biochar sequesters carbon for hundreds to thousands of years, some uncertainties about permanence remain. Short-duration experiments have shown carbon loss over years or decades due to exposure to oxygen, water, and ultraviolet light, but these might not reflect real-world soil and environmental factors (Belmont & Sanchez, 2025). There is also evidence that co-application of biochar with nitrogen fertilizer can mitigate methane emissions in rice paddies (Baek et al., 2025). 

Current Adoption

We estimated that 380,000 t of biochar were produced in 2023 (Table 3).

We found only one source for current global annual production of biochar (International Biochar Initiative, 2024). These data were based on voluntary surveys of biochar producers with more than 1,000 respondents in 2023; we assumed it is an underestimate because it likely doesn’t include all biochar production facilities. 

Table 3. Current adoption level (2023).

Unit: t biochar produced and added to soil/yr

25th percentile 370,000
Mean 380,000
Median (50th percentile) 380,000
75th percentile 400,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

We were only able to find adoption trend data for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2021, and 2023, all from the International Biochar Initiative (2014, 2015, 2016, 2024). These data rely on voluntary surveys; the source noted that some companies did not respond to the survey every year and that some biochar producers did not respond to the survey.

These adoption data show that biochar production has increased over time; however, it’s not clear whether this is due to increasing biochar production or increasing response rates from producers. 

Adoption Ceiling

Producing biochar has an estimated adoption ceiling of 1.3 billion t/yr (Table 4) based on reports from Energy Transition Commission (2022), Fuss et al. (2018), International Biochar Initiative (2024), IPCC (2022), Lehmann et al. (2021), Lenton (2010), NorthX, (2025), Smith et al. (2019), and Woolf et al. (2010). 

The adoption ceiling for biochar is often stated in terms of CO₂‑eq/yr removed. To convert this into metric tons of biochar we used the value of 1.9 t CO₂‑eq removed per mewtric ton of biochar produced given by the International Biochar Initiative (2024). In practice, the amount of carbon sequestered will depend on the feedstock used as well as the method used for producing biochar.

We based our analysis on the current level of organic waste produced by agriculture and industry. Many projections (Energy Transition Commission, 2022; Fuss et al., 2018; International Biochar Initiative, 2024; IPCC 2022; Lehmann et al., 2021; Lenton, 2010; NorthX, 2025; Smith et al., 2019; Woolf et al., 2010) show the technical potential of biochar production using all available waste biomass from agriculture or industry feedstocks. If biochar production is increased, we would expect to see more waste feedstocks used for biochar and less available for other climate solutions that use organic waste feedstocks.

Table 4. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: t biochar produced and added to soil/yr

25th percentile 530,000,000
Mean 1,100,000,000
Median (50th percentile) 1,300,000,000
75th percentile 1,600,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

Biochar production depends on the source and volume of feedstock. We estimate an achievable adoption of 160–570 Mt of biochar (Table 5). The low value was based on the projected biochar ceiling from Griscom et al. (2017), which excludes avoided emissions and partially accounts for restrictions in biomass availability. The high value aligns with IPCC (2022)’s estimate for the mitigation potential of biochar based on a US$100/t CO₂‑eq carbon price. The US$100/t CO₂‑eq carbon price is an indicator that biochar production will require economic support for widespread adoption and assumes that achievable biochar production is constrained more by economics than by biomass availability.

Large-scale biochar production will likely be limited by biomass competition with other climate solutions. Many sources do not specify how they calculated the amount of biomass available for biochar production, making it difficult to determine where achievable adoption would fall between the current adoption and the full technical adoption ceiling. We have chosen to be conservative for the high achievable adoption to reduce the chance of biochar production being restricted by feedstock constraints.

Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: t biochar produced and added to soil/yr

Current adoption 380,000
Achievable – low 160,000,000
Achievable – high 570,000,000
Adoption ceiling 1,300,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Producing and using biochar has the potential to sequester a large amount of carbon emissions. While biochar currently sequesters 0 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, we estimated 0.13–0.47 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr on a 100-yr basis (0.13–0.46 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr) could be sequestered (Table 6). The economics of building, operating, and maintaining biochar production facilities, along with biomass feedstock availability, will greatly affect how biochar production and use grows in the future. 

Producing biochar requires the use of biomass as a feedstock. Multiple climate solutions require biomass, and projected demand across solutions greatly exceeds supply. The deforestation that would be required to meet demand would produce emissions far greater than any mitigation gains from full deployment of these solutions (Searchinger, 2024). In addition to deforestation, there would also be costs and emissions incurred to transport biomass from where it is produced to where it can be processed and used. Thus, the estimated climate impacts presented here are only possible if feedstocks are prioritized for this solution. If feedstocks are instead prioritized for other climate solutions (see Interactions for examples), adoption and impact will be lower for this solution. It is not possible to set all biomass-dependent solutions to high adoption levels, add up their impacts, and determine an accurate combined emissions impact.

Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.00
Achievable – low 0.13
Achievable – high 0.47
Adoption ceiling 1.10
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Food Security

When used as a soil amendment, biochar has been found to increase soil health and yields of a variety of staple crops (Agegnehu et al., 2016; Kabir et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2025).

Health

Producing biochar can benefit health by mitigating the impacts of crop residue burning. Poor air quality from crop residue burning is harmful to health and can lead to premature mortality, especially in Southeast Asia, where residue burning is more common (Lan et al. 2022). Air pollution from burning crop residue has been linked to eye irritation, headaches, nausea, skin irritation, allergies, respiratory infections, increased risk of lung cancer, and reduced lung function (Gupta, 2019; Huang et al., 2022; Raza et al., 2022). 

Nature Protection

Using biochar can reduce nutrient-rich runoff from manure that can lead to eutrophication and hypoxic zones in aquatic ecosystems (Bijay-Singh & Craswell, 2021). Nitrogen pollution also harms terrestrial biodiversity through soil acidification and increases the productivity of fast-growing species, including invasives, which can outcompete native species (Porter et al., 2013).

Land Resources

By using crop residues instead of burning them, producing biochar can improve soils that would otherwise be degraded from crop residue burning (Bhuvaneshwari et al., 2019). 

When used as a soil amendment, biochar has been found to increase soil quality (Agegnehu et al., 2016). Biochar can aid in nutrient retention, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and soil organic carbon, and can improve soil water content (Agegnehu et al., 2016; Kabir et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2025). Some benefits depend on soil type; for example, amending biochar to mineral soils can increase soil pH, organic matter, and nutrient availability, especially in sandy and acidic soils, but soils with high pH could see a reduction in micronutrient availability (Yang et al., 2025).

Water Resources

Amending soil with biochar can increase soil water content, which can improve plant growth (Agegnehu et al., 2016; Kabir et al., 2013). 

Water Quality

Producing biochar can mitigate the use of manure on agriculture fields, which can improve water quality. Manure contains nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus as well as drug residues, heavy metals, and pathogens (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Manure can also leach into water sources when used as a fertilizer on croplands (Porter & Cox, 2020).

Air Quality

Producing biochar can benefit air quality by mitigating crop residue burning and the use of manure as fertilizer. Reducing the amount of manure applied as a fertilizer on croplands can improve air quality by reducing nitrogen and ammonia emissions associated with manure application (Grossi et al., 2019; Peterson et al., 2013; Steinfeld et al., 2006).

Crop residue burning is a major source of air pollution, including fine particulate matter, CO₂, and carbon monoxide, in South and Southeast Asia (Lan et al., 2022; Na Talang et al., 2024; Singh et al., 2021). Because fine particulate matter and black carbon make up a large part of the pollution, crop residue burning can lead to poor air quality far from agricultural fields (Kaskaoutis et al., 2014). Poor air quality associated with burning crop residues could be improved by instead producing biochar. 

Risks

The environmental impact of high adoption of biochar application in soils is unknown. Feasibility, long-term mitigation potential, side effects, and trade-offs are uncertain. Resolving these uncertainties will require biochar application on different soil types, environments, and management conditions in real-world settings for long periods (Fuss et al., 2018; Belmont & Sanchez, 2025).

The application of biochar could potentially change the microbial composition of the soils or lower the ability of plants to defend against insects, pathogens, and environmental stresses (Viger et al., 2014). It also could darken the soil surface, altering the land surface radiation balance. Fine biochar particles could get released into the atmosphere during production, transportation, or handling, leading to poor air quality, disrupted local hydrological cycles, and potential health concerns (Genesio et al., 2016; Ravi et al., 2016). GHG emissions from producing biochar differ across scales and technologies. Strategies to minimize the potentially negative impacts of biochar will need to be developed in order to guarantee that biochar has an overall positive impact on global climate change.

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Sayara & Sánchez (2021) observed reduced nitrogen emissions when biochar was added to compost.

Competing

Biochar production can compete with solutions that use biomass, specifically wood and crop residues, in other processes. Because the total projected demand for biomass for climate solutions exceeds the supply, not all of these solutions will be able to achieve their potential adoption. This solution competes with the following solutions for raw material:

Dashboard

Solution Basics

t biochar produced and added to soil

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
00.810.84median
units/yr
Current 380,000 01.6×10⁸5.7×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0 0.130.47
US$ per t CO₂-eq
230
Gradual

CO₂

Trade-offs

To preserve soil health and nutrient recovery, some agricultural and industrial forestry waste must be left on the land. If revenues from biochar production are very high, producers may be incentivized to convert additional land to grow crops for biochar. This could affect food security and soil health (CICE & Innovative Breakthrough Energy Technologies [IBET], 2023). 

Pyrolytic production of biochar can generate heat and power. However, different processes produce different outputs, and it is important to understand the economic considerations for biochar production (Afshar & Mofatteh, 2024). 

Biochar can be used to replace a small amount of cement in concrete production or incorporated into other building materials (Aman et al., 2022), but this limits its usage as a soil amendment and potential for enhanced soil carbon sequestration. However, using biochar in durable building materials stores carbon for multiple decades, while some agricultural applications could involve further combustion or decomposition of biochar and so release stored carbon back into the atmosphere within a few years. 

Action Word
Produce
Solution Title
Biochar
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Create strong regulatory frameworks and streamline permitting processes; if necessary, revise classification schemes for biochar production systems from “incinerators” to “carbon stabilizers”; fund necessary scientific assessments and convenings to develop robust regulatory framework.
  • Provide financial incentives such as payment for ecosystem services (PES), tax breaks, subsidies, or tax exemptions to support production, infrastructure, and biomass collection and delivery; offer subsidies for equipment purchases, equipment rentals, and biochar products such as soil amendments, construction materials, and other local uses.
  • Limit incentives for eligible feedstocks and biochar production to avoid unintended consequences such as land grabbing, deforestation, and land conversion.
  • Institute a carbon tax to incentivize the production of biochar while also discouraging burning crop residue and biomass.
  • Create or improve robust certification schemes for biochar – include clear governance models, standards for testing, systems and timelines for evaluation, and enforcement and verification mechanisms. 
  • Work with industry to develop products, supply chains, and markets; use public procurement when possible to help stabilize biochar markets.
  • Offer or subsidize biomass collection services; seek to establish local production and supply chains, aiming to minimize transportation of biomass and biochar products.
  • Co-design biochar projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and mitigation; ensure finalized projects address sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under Free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC); codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Invest in R&D to optimize feedstock collection, biochar production, and biochar application to meet needs of local soils and/or rice paddies.
  • Invest in R&D for other uses of biochar beyond soil amendments, such as building materials and water treatment; research other land use applications, such as flood mitigation in upstream soils.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to educate the industry and public on regulations, benefits of biochar, best practices, and other relevant information; ensure the material is sufficient and appropriate for local contexts, paying close attention to language barriers. 
  • Offer demonstration projects at relevant events and venues; expand agricultural extension services and ensure farmers are aware of biochar options, benefits, and incentives.
  • Work with industry to create high-integrity carbon markets that do not allow for deforestation and/or incentivize growing trees or crops solely for the production of biochar.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Fuel pyrolysis with by-products such as syngas and bio-oils and low-emission fuels.
  • Work to achieve consistent product quality; experiment with different equipment designs, feedstocks, applications, and products to identify locally optimal processes. 
  • Produce and/or invest in R&D to develop a variety of products beyond soil amendments, such as building materials and water filtration systems.
  • Invest in short- and long-term market analyses on entry points and possible products to meet local needs; help coordinate long-term research between public and private stakeholder groups. 
  • Secure written contracts for biomass feedstocks from suppliers to ensure consistent delivery.
  • Create and promote technical workforce and professional development programs; develop the full range of capacity to address every step of the value chain, including engineering, collection, biochemical sciences, product design, and business development.
  • Foster consumer awareness of biochar’s use and benefits through advertising and professional relationships.
  • Rent equipment for onsite production; offer a range of products that can accommodate different budgets and needs; offer services or rent equipment for post-production treatment processes and application.
  • Co-design biochar projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and mitigation; ensure finalized projects address sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Create or improve robust certification schemes for biochar – include clear governance models, standards for testing, systems and timelines for evaluation, and enforcement and verification mechanisms. 
  • Advocate for favorable regulatory frameworks and incentives such as PES, tax breaks, subsidies, or exemptions to support production, infrastructure, and biomass collection and delivery; advocate for subsidies for equipment purchases, equipment rentals, and biochar products such as soil amendments, construction materials, and other local uses.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to educate the industry and public on regulations, the benefits of biochar, best practices, and other relevant information; ensure the material is sufficient and appropriate for local contexts, paying close attention to language barriers. 
  • Offer demonstration projects at relevant events and venues; work with or advocate to expand agricultural extension services to ensure stakeholders are aware of biochar options, benefits, and incentives.
  • Work with policymakers and other stakeholders to create high-integrity carbon markets that do not allow for deforestation and/or incentivize growing trees or crops solely for the production of biochar.
  • Seek to establish local production and supply chains, aiming to minimize transportation of biomass and biochar products.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • If relevant, establish long-term procurement contracts with biochar producers; work with local producers to develop products and services.
  • Take advantage of government incentives such as tax credits, if possible; seek to gradually reduce reliance on these incentives to create long-term market stability.
  • Participate in community engagement processes; help co-design biochar projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and mitigation; ensure finalized projects address sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
  • Offer financial services, including low-interest loans, microfinancing, and grants, to support biochar initiatives.
  • Only purchase carbon credits from high-integrity, verifiable carbon markets, and do not use them as replacements for reducing emissions.
  • Support workforce development programs, offer employee scholarships, and/or sponsor training for careers in biochar.
  • Offer pro bono business advice or general support for community biochar projects using structures such as cooperative business models.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Help operate or establish biochar collection, distribution, production, and/or processing facilities; advocate for government support in these areas when necessary; help ensure production and supply chains remain local, aiming to minimize transportation of biomass and biochar products.
  • If relevant, establish long-term procurement contracts with biochar producers; work with local producers to develop products and services.
  • Advocate for and help develop strong regulatory frameworks and streamlined permitting processes; if necessary, suggest revising classification of biochar production systems from incinerators to carbon stabilizers; advocate for funding necessary scientific assessments and convenings to develop a robust regulatory framework.
  • Advocate for favorable regulatory frameworks and incentives, such as PES, tax breaks, subsidies, or exemptions to support production, infrastructure, and biomass collection and delivery; advocate for subsidies for equipment purchases, equipment rentals, and biochar products, such as soil amendments, construction materials, and other local uses.
  • Advocate for carbon taxes and for restrictions, taxes, or bans on burning crop residue and biomass.
  • Help create or improve robust certification schemes for biochar; include clear governance models, standards for testing, systems and timelines for evaluation, and enforcement and verification mechanisms. 
  • Work with industry to develop products, supply chains, and markets; help coordinate public procurement when possible to help stabilize biochar markets.
  • Participate in community engagement processes; help co-design biochar projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and mitigation; ensure finalized projects address sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPICt; advocate to codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Conduct R&D to match biochar production and post-treatment processes that can produce the type of biochar that meet the needs of local soils and/or rice paddies; help collect and share optimal feedstock, production, methods, and application combinations for various soil types.
  • Research other uses for biochar, such as building materials and water treatment; research other land use applications such as flood mitigation in upstream soils.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to educate the industry and public on regulations, the benefits of biochar, best practices, and other relevant information; ensure the material is sufficient and appropriate for local contexts, paying close attention to language barriers. 
  • Offer demonstration projects at relevant events and venues; work with or advocate to expand agricultural extension services to ensure stakeholders are aware of biochar options, benefits, and incentives.
  • Work with industry to create high-integrity carbon markets that do not allow for deforestation and/or incentivize growing trees or crops solely for the production of biochar.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Investors
  • Invest in companies involved in the production biochar; ensure projects include thorough community engagement. 
  • Offer low-interest loans and concessional financing for companies developing biochar production facilities.
  • Invest in green bonds and/or explore blended finance structures to mobilize capital for companies involved in the production of biochar.
  • Align investments with existing public-private partnerships, voluntary agreements, or voluntary guidance that may apply in the location of the investment (including those that apply to biodiversity).

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Award grants directly to companies involved in biochar production; ensure projects include thorough community engagement. 
  • Offer low-interest loans and concessional financing for companies developing biochar production facilities.
  • Invest in or offer green bonds and/or explore blended finance structures to mobilize capital for companies involved in biochar production.
  • Help operate or establish biochar collection, distribution, production, and/or processing facilities; advocate for government support in these areas when necessary; help ensure production and supply chains remain local to minimize transportation of biomass and biochar products.
  • If relevant, establish long-term procurement contracts with biochar producers; work with local producers to develop products and services.
  • Advocate for and help develop strong regulatory frameworks and streamlined permitting processes; if necessary, suggest revising classification of biochar production systems from incinerators to carbon stabilizers; advocate for funding scientific assessments and convenings needed to develop a robust regulatory framework.
  • Advocate for favorable regulatory frameworks and incentives, such as PES, tax breaks, subsidies, or exemptions to support production, infrastructure, and biomass collection and delivery; advocate for subsidies for equipment purchases, equipment rentals, and biochar products, such as soil amendments, construction materials, and other local uses.
  • Advocate for carbon taxes and for restrictions, taxes, or bans on burning crop residue and biomass.
  • Help create or improve robust certification schemes for biochar – include clear governance models, standards for testing, systems and timelines for evaluation, and enforcement and verification mechanisms. 
  • Work with industry to develop products, supply chains, and markets; help coordinate public procurement when possible to help stabilize biochar markets.
  • Participate in community engagement processes; help co-design biochar projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and mitigation; ensure finalized projects address sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; advocate to codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Conduct R&D to match biochar production and post-treatment processes that can produce the type of biochar that meet the needs of local soils and/or rice paddies; help collect and share optimal feedstock, production, methods, and application combinations for various soil types.
  • Research other uses for biochar, such as building materials and water treatment; research other land use applications, such as flood mitigation in upstream soils.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to educate the industry and public on regulations, the benefits of biochar, best practices, and other relevant information; ensure the material is sufficient and appropriate for local contexts, paying close attention to language barriers. 
  • Offer demonstration projects at relevant events and venues; work with or advocate to expand agricultural extension services to ensure stakeholders are aware of biochar options, benefits, and incentives.
  • Work with industry to create high-integrity carbon markets that do not allow for deforestation and/or incentivize growing trees or crops solely for the production of biochar.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Help operate or establish biochar collection, distribution, production, and/or processing facilities; advocate for government support in these areas when necessary; help ensure production and supply chains remain local to minimize transportation of biomass and biochar products.
  • Advocate for and help develop strong regulatory frameworks and streamlined permitting processes; if necessary, suggest revising classification of biochar production systems from incinerators to carbon stabilizers; advocate for funding necessary scientific assessments and convenings to develop a robust regulatory framework.
  • Advocate for favorable regulatory frameworks and incentives such as PES, tax breaks, subsidies, or exemptions to support production, infrastructure, and biomass collection and delivery; advocate for subsidies for equipment purchases, equipment rentals, and biochar products such as soil amendments, construction materials, and other local uses.
  • Advocate for carbon taxes and for restrictions, taxes, or bans on burning crop residue and biomass.
  • Help create or improve robust certification schemes for biochar – include clear governance models, standards for testing, systems and timelines for evaluation, and enforcement and verification mechanisms. 
  • Work with industry to develop products, supply chains, and markets; help coordinate public procurement when possible to help stabilize biochar markets.
  • Participate in community engagement processes; help co-design biochar projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and mitigation; ensure finalized projects address sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; advocate to codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Conduct R&D to match biochar production and post-treatment processes that can produce the type of biochar that meet the needs of local soils and/or rice paddies; help collect and share optimal feedstock, production, methods, and application combinations for various soil types.
  • Research other uses for biochar, such as building materials and water treatment; research other land use applications, such as flood mitigation in upstream soils.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to educate the industry and public on regulations, the benefits of biochar, best practices, and other relevant information; ensure the material is sufficient and appropriate for local contexts, paying close attention to language barriers. 
  • Offer demonstration projects at relevant events and venues; work with or advocate to expand agricultural extension services to ensure stakeholders are aware of biochar options, benefits, and incentives.
  • Work with industry to create high-integrity carbon markets that do not allow for deforestation and/or incentivize growing trees or crops solely for the production of biochar.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to de-risking markets, deployment, technology transfers, education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Help standardize production and post-treatment processes; identify feedstocks and processes that align with needs such as soil additives, construction material, and water filtration. 
  • Help measure pollutants and GHGs from the biochar production process, including black carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide.
  • Create publicly accessible databases of biochar production processes and products; help model production methods to identify optimal engineering. 
  • Collect and catalog data on biophysical processes, biochar properties, feedstock formulas, application procedures, and biochar supply chains and markets.
  • Investigate potential impacts of biochar use on crops yields and biomass production; impacts on soil carbon stocks; GHG emissions reductions and fluxes; competition for biomass availability; carbon permanence; effects on nature, air quality, and biodiversity; and changes in application of other agricultural inputs such as fertilizers and herbicides.
  • Improve understanding of the role biochar can play in regenerating soils and microbial life.
  • Research and seek to improve the ability of biochar to remove heavy metals, plastics, PFAS, and other contaminants from soils.
  • Run long-term field investigations on the performance of biochar in asphalt and concrete; examine impacts on the urban heat island effect.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Explore uses for biochar in your garden or lawn; use biochar building materials or other biochar products.
  • Advocate for and help develop strong regulatory frameworks and streamlined permitting processes; if necessary, suggest revising classification of biochar production systems from incinerators to carbon stabilizers; advocate for funding necessary scientific assessments and convenings to develop a robust regulatory framework.
  • Advocate for favorable regulatory frameworks and incentives such as PES, tax breaks, subsidies, or exemptions to support production, infrastructure, and biomass collection and delivery; advocate for subsidies for equipment purchases, equipment rentals, and biochar products such as soil amendments, construction materials, and other local uses.
  • Advocate for carbon taxes and for restrictions, taxes, or bans on burning crop residue and biomass.
  • Help ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; advocate to codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Participate in community engagement processes; help co-design biochar projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and mitigation; ensure finalized projects address sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in sequestering carbon: High

A wide variety of organic feedstocks can be used to produce biochar, mainly from the agricultural and industrial forestry sectors. Converting biomass into biochar using pyrolysis converts a portion of the carbon into a stable form, thereby slowing its release into the atmosphere. When biochar is used as a soil amendmen,t it improves soil fertility by retaining water and nutrients (Woolley & Hallowell, 2018).

The process used to create biochar can have varying efficiencies because the conversion of organic carbon in the feedstock to biochar can range from 30–55% with slow pyrolysis or be as low as 3% with regular combustion (Amonette et al., 2021). In addition, different biomass feedstocks contain different amounts of carbon, which will affect the carbon content of the biochar (Joseph et al., 2021).

Using biochar can also have additional benefits. Biochar can be used as filter material for remediation of soil or water pollution, an additive for composting or anaerobic digestion (Alayaki et al., 2025), or a supplement to concrete and other building materials, packaging, and bio-oils (Russell, 2025).

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 21 reviews and meta-analyses and 17 original studies reflecting current evidence from two countries (the United States and Canada) and from sources examining global biochar production. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and we hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Improve Annual Cropping

Sector
FALO & Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Cut Emissions Remove Carbon
Cluster
Shift Agriculture Practices
Image
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Farmers on much of the world’s 1.4 billion ha of cropland grow and harvest annual crops – crops like wheat, rice, and soybeans that live for one year or less. After harvest, croplands are often left bare for the rest of the year and sometimes tilled, exposing the soil to wind and rain. This keeps soil carbon levels low and can lead to soil erosion. There are many ways to improve annual cropping to protect or enhance the health of the soil and increase soil organic matter. Project Drawdown’s Improve Annual Cropping solution is a set of practices that protects soils by minimizing plowing (no-till/reduced tillage) and maintaining continuous soil cover (by retaining crop residues or growing cover crops). This increases soil carbon sequestration and reduces nitrous oxide emissions. These techniques are commonly used in conservation agriculture, regenerative, and agro-ecological cropping systems. Other annual cropping practices with desirable climate impacts – including compost application and crop rotations – are omitted here due to lack of data and much smaller scale of adoption. New adoption is estimated from the 2025 level as a baseline which is therefore set to zero.

Extreme weather events,Droughts
Income & work,Food security
Nature protection,Land resources,Water quality
Description for Social and Search
Improve Annual Cropping is a highly recommended climate solution. It enhances soil’s ability to store carbon and reduces emissions of nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas.
Overview

The Improve Annual Cropping solution incorporates several practices that minimize soil disturbance and introduce a physical barrier meant to prevent erosion to fragile topsoils. Our definition includes two of the three pillars of conservation agriculture: minimal soil disturbance and permanent soil cover (Kassam et al., 2022).

Minimal Soil Disturbance

Soil organic carbon (SOC) – which originates from decomposed plants – helps soils hold moisture and provides the kinds of chemical bonding that allow nutrients to be stored and exchanged easily with plants. Soil health and productivity depend on microbial decomposition of plant biomass residues, which mobilizes critical nutrients in soil organic matter (SOM) and builds SOC. Conventional tillage inverts soil, buries residues, and breaks down compacted soil aggregates. This process facilitates microbial activity, weed removal, and water infiltration for planting. However, tillage can accelerate CO₂ fluxes as SOC is lost to oxidation and runoff. Mechanical disturbance further exposes deeper soils to the atmosphere, leading to radiative absorption, higher soil temperatures, and catalyzed biological processes – all of which increase oxidation of SOC (Francaviglia et al., 2023).

Reduced tillage limits soil disturbance to support increased microbial activity, moisture retention, and stable temperature at the soil surface. This practice can increase carbon sequestration, at least when combined with cover cropping. These effects are highly contextual, depending on tillage intensity and soil depth as well as the practice type, duration, and timing. Reduced tillage further reduces fossil fuel emissions from on-farm machinery. However, this practice often leads to increased reliance on herbicides for weed control (Francaviglia et al., 2023).

Permanent Soil Cover

Residue retention and cover cropping practices aim to provide permanent plant cover to protect and improve soils. This can improve aggregate stability, water retention, and nutrient cycling. Farmers practicing residue retention leave crop biomass residues on the soil surface to suppress weed growth, improve water infiltration, and reduce evapotranspiration from soils (Francaviglia et al., 2023).

Cover cropping includes growth of spontaneous or seeded plant cover, either during or between established cropping cycles. In addition to SOC, cover cropping can help decrease nitrous oxide emissions and bind nitrogen typically lost via oxidation and leaching. Leguminous cover crops can also fix atmospheric nitrogen, reducing the need for fertilizer. Cover cropping can further be combined with reduced tillage for additive SOC and SOM gains (Blanco-Canqui et al., 2015; Francaviglia et al., 2023).

Improved annual cropping practices can simultaneously reduce GHG emissions and improve SOC stocks. However, there are biological limits to SOC stocks – particularly in mineral soils. Environmental benefits are impermanent and only remain if practices continue long term (Francaviglia et al., 2023).

References

Abdalla, M., Hastings, A., Cheng, K., Yue, Q., Chadwick, D., Espenberg, M., Truu, J., Rees, R. M., & Smith, P. (2019). A critical review of the impacts of cover crops on nitrogen leaching, net greenhouse gas balance and crop productivity. Global Change Biology, 25(8), 2530–2543. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14644 

Arslan, A., McCarthy, N., Lipper, L., Asfaw, S., Cattaneo, A., & Kokwe, M. (2015). Climate smart agriculture? Assessing the adaptation implications in Zambia. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 753-780. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12107

Bai, X., Huang, Y., Ren, W., Coyne, M., Jacinthe, P.-A., Tao, B., Hui, D., Yang, J., & Matocha, C. (2019). Responses of soil carbon sequestration to climate-smart agriculture practices: A meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 25(8), 2591–2606. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14658

Blanco‐Canqui, H., Shaver, T. M., Lindquist, J. L., Shapiro, C. A., Elmore, R. W., Francis, C. A., & Hergert, G. W. (2015). Cover crops and ecosystem services: Insights from studies in temperate soils. Agronomy journal, 107(6), 2449-2474. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj15.0086

Blanco-Canqui, H., & Francis, C. A. (2016). Building resilient soils through agroecosystem redesign under fluctuating climatic regimes. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 71(6), 127A-133A. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.71.6.127A 

Cai, A., Han, T., Ren, T., Sanderman, J., Rui, Y., Wang, B., Smith, P., Xu, M., & Li, Y. (2022). Declines in soil carbon storage under no tillage can be alleviated in the long run. Geoderma, 425, 116028. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2022.116028 

Clapp, J. (2021). Explaining growing glyphosate use: The political economy of herbicide-dependent agriculture. Global Environmental Change, 67, 102239. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102239

Cui, Y., Zhang, W., Zhang, Y., Liu, X., Zhang, Y., Zheng, X., Luo, J., & Zou, J. (2024). Effects of no-till on upland crop yield and soil organic carbon: A global meta-analysis. Plant and Soil, 499(1), 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05854-y

Damania, R., Polasky, S., Ruckelshaus, M., Russ, J., Amann, M., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Gerber, J., Hawthorne, P., Heger, M. P., Mamun, S., Ruta, G., Schmitt, R., Smith, J., Vogl, A., Wagner, F., & Zaveri, E. (2023). Nature's Frontiers: Achieving Sustainability, Efficiency, and Prosperity with Natural Capital. World Bank Publications. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1923-0

Francaviglia, R., Almagro, M., & Vicente-Vicente, J. L. (2023). Conservation agriculture and soil organic carbon: Principles, processes, practices and policy options. Soil Systems, 7(1), 17. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems7010017 

Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., Schlesinger, W. H., Shoch, D., Siikamäki, J. V., Smith, P., Woodbury, P., Zganjar, C., Blackman, A., Campari, J., Conant, R. T., Delgado, C., Elias, P., Gopalakrishna, T., Hamsik, M. R., Herrero, M., & Fargione, J. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(44), 11645-11650. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114

Hassan, M. U., Aamer, M., Mahmood, A., Awan, M. I., Barbanti, L., Seleiman, M. F., Bakhsh, G., Alkharabsheh, H. M., Babur, E., Shao, J., Rasheed, A., & Huang, G. (2022). Management strategies to mitigate N2O emissions in agriculture. Life, 12(3), 439. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/life12030439

Hu, Q., Thomas, B. W., Powlson, D., Hu, Y., Zhang, Y., Jun, X., Shi, X., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Soil organic carbon fractions in response to soil, environmental and agronomic factors under cover cropping systems: A global meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 355, 108591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2023.108591

Jat, H. S., Choudhary, K. M., Nandal, D. P., Yadav, A. K., Poonia, T., Singh, Y., Sharma, P. C., & Jat, M. L. (2020). Conservation agriculture-based sustainable intensification of cereal systems leads to energy conservation, higher productivity and farm profitability. Environmental Management, 65(6), 774–786. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01273-w

Jayaraman, S., Dang, Y. P., Naorem, A., Page, K. L., & Dalal, R. C. (2021). Conservation agriculture as a system to enhance ecosystem services. Agriculture, 11(8), 718. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11080718

Kan, Z.-R., Liu, W.-X., Liu, W.-S., Lal, R., Dang, Y. P., Zhao, X., & Zhang, H.-L. (2022). Mechanisms of soil organic carbon stability and its response to no-till: A global synthesis and perspective. Global Change Biology, 28(3), 693–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15968

Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., & Derpsch, R. (2022). Successful experiences and lessons from conservation agriculture worldwide. Agronomy, 12(4), 769. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12040769

Lal, R., Smith, P., Jungkunst, H. F., Mitsch, W. J., Lehmann, J., Nair, P. K. R., McBratney, A. B., Sá, J. C. D. M., Schneider, J., Zinn, Y. L., Skorupa, A. L. A., Zhang, H.-L., Minasny, B., Srinivasrao, C., & Ravindranath, N. H. (2018). The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial ecosystems. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 73(6), 145A-152A. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.73.6.145A

Lessmann, M., Ros, G. H., Young, M. D., & de Vries, W. (2022). Global variation in soil carbon sequestration potential through improved cropland management. Global Change Biology, 28(3), 1162–1177. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15954

Luo, Z., Wang, E., & Sun, O. J. (2010). Can no-tillage stimulate carbon sequestration in agricultural soils? A meta-analysis of paired experiments. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 139(1), 224–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.08.006

Martínez-Mena, M., Carrillo-López, E., Boix-Fayos, C., Almagro, M., García Franco, N., Díaz-Pereira, E., Montoya, I., & De Vente, J. (2020). Long-term effectiveness of sustainable land management practices to control runoff, soil erosion, and nutrient loss and the role of rainfall intensity in Mediterranean rainfed agroecosystems. CATENA, 187, 104352. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.104352

Moukanni, N., Brewer, K. M., Gaudin, A. C. M., & O’Geen, A. T. (2022). Optimizing carbon sequestration through cover cropping in Mediterranean agroecosystems: Synthesis of mechanisms and implications for management. Frontiers in Agronomy, 4, 844166. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2022.844166 

Mrabet, R., Singh, A., Sharma, T., Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Basch, G., Moussadek, R., & Gonzalez-Sanchez, E. (2023). Conservation Agriculture: Climate Proof and Nature Positive Approach. In G. Ondrasek & L. Zhang (Eds.), Resource management in agroecosystems. IntechOpen. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.108890

Nyagumbo, I., Mupangwa, W., Chipindu, L., Rusinamhodzi, L., & Craufurd, P. (2020). A regional synthesis of seven-year maize yield responses to conservation agriculture technologies in Eastern and Southern Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 295, 106898. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106898

Ogle, S. M., Alsaker, C., Baldock, J., Bernoux, M., Breidt, F. J., McConkey, B., Regina, K., & Vazquez-Amabile, G. G. (2019). Climate and Soil Characteristics Determine Where No-Till Management Can Store Carbon in Soils and Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 11665. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47861-7

Paustian, K., Larson, E., Kent, J., Marx, E., & Swan, A. (2019). Soil C Sequestration as a Biological Negative Emission Strategy. Frontiers in Climate, 1, 8. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2019.00008 

Pittelkow, C. M., Liang, X., Linquist, B. A., van Groenigen, K. J., Lee, J., Lundy, M. E., van Gestel, N., Six, J., Venterea, R. T., & van Kessel, C. (2015). Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature, 51, 365–368. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13809

Poeplau, C., & Don, A. (2015). Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops–A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 200, 33–41. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.10.024

Powlson, D. S., Stirling, C. M., Jat, M. L., Gerard, B. G., Palm, C. A., Sanchez, P. A., & Cassman, K. G. (2014). Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 4(8), 678–683. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2292

Prestele, R., Hirsch, A. L., Davin, E. L., Seneviratne, S. I., & Verburg, P. H. (2018). A spatially explicit representation of conservation agriculture for application in global change studies. Global Change Biology, 24(9), 4038–4053. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14307

Project Drawdown (2020) Farming Our Way Out of the Climate Crisis. Project Drawdown. https://drawdown.org/publications/farming-our-way-out-of-the-climate-crisis

Quintarelli, V., Radicetti, E., Allevato, E., Stazi, S. R., Haider, G., Abideen, Z., Bibi, S., Jamal, A., & Mancinelli, R. (2022). Cover crops for sustainable cropping systems: A review. Agriculture, 12(12), 2076. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12122076

Searchinger, T., R. Waite, C. Hanson, and J. Ranganathan. (2019). World Resources Report: Creating a Sustainable Food Future. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Link to source: https://research.wri.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/WRR_Food_Full_Report_0.pdf

Stavi, I., Bel, G., & Zaady, E. (2016). Soil functions and ecosystem services in conventional, conservation, and integrated agricultural systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36(2), 32. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0368-8

Su, Y., Gabrielle, B., Beillouin, D., & Makowski, D. (2021). High probability of yield gain through conservation agriculture in dry regions for major staple crops. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 3344. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82375-1

Sun, W., Canadell, J. G., Yu, L., Yu, L., Zhang, W., Smith, P., Fischer, T., & Huang, Y. (2020). Climate drives global soil carbon sequestration and crop yield changes under conservation agriculture. Global Change Biology, 26(6), 3325–3335. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15001 

Tambo, J. A., & Mockshell, J. (2018). Differential impacts of conservation agriculture technology options on household income in sub-Saharan Africa. Ecological Economics, 151, 95–105. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.05.005

Tiefenbacher, A., Sandén, T., Haslmayr, H.-P., Miloczki, J., Wenzel, W., & Spiegel, H. (2021). Optimizing carbon sequestration in croplands: A synthesis. Agronomy, 11(5), 882. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11050882

Toensmeier, E. (2016). The Carbon Farming Solution: A Global Toolkit of Perennial Crops and Regenerative Agriculture Practices for Climate Change Mitigation and Food Security. Green Publishing. Link to source: https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/the-carbon-farming-solution/?srsltid=AfmBOoqsMoY569HfsXOdBsRguOzsDLlRZKOnyM4nyKwZoIALvPoohZlq 

Vendig, I., Guzman, A., De La Cerda, G., Esquivel, K., Mayer, A. C., Ponisio, L., & Bowles, T. M. (2023). Quantifying direct yield benefits of soil carbon increases from cover cropping. Nature Sustainability, 6(9), 1125–1134. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01131-7

WCCA (2021). The future of farming: Profitable and sustainable farming with conservation agriculture. 8th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture, Vern Switzerland. Link to source: https://ecaf.org/8wcca

Wooliver, R., & Jagadamma, S. (2023). Response of soil organic carbon fractions to cover cropping: A meta-analysis of agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 351, 108497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2023.108497

Xing, Y., & Wang, X. (2024). Impact of agricultural activities on climate change: a review of greenhouse gas emission patterns in field crop systems. Plants, 13(16), 2285. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13162285

Credits

Lead Fellows

  • Avery Driscoll

  • Erika Luna

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Eric Toensmeier

  • Aishwarya Venkat, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Emily Cassidy

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Based on seven reviews and meta-analyses, which collectively analyzed over 500 studies, we estimate that this solution’s SOC sequestration potential is 1.28 t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr. This is limited to the topsoil (>30 cm), with minimal effects at deeper levels (Sun et al., 2020; Tiefenbacher et al., 2021). Moreover, carbon sequestration potential is not constant over time. The first two decades show the highest increase, followed by an equilibrium or SOC saturation (Cai, 2022; Sun et al., 2020).

The effectiveness of the Improve Annual Cropping solution heavily depends on local geographic conditions (e.g., soil properties, climate), crop management practices, cover crop biomass, cover crop types, and the duration of annual cropping production – with effects typically better assessed in the long term (Abdalla et al., 2019; Francaviglia et al., 2023; Moukanni et al., 2022; Paustian et al., 2019).

Based on reviewed literature (three papers, 18 studies), we estimated that improved annual cropping can potentially reduce nitrous oxide emissions by 0.51 t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr (Table 1). Cover crops can increase direct nitrous oxide emissions by stimulating microbial activity, but – compared with conventional cropping – lower indirect emissions allow for reduced net nitrous oxide emissions from cropland (Abdalla et al., 2019). 

Nitrogen fertilizers drive direct nitrous oxide emissions, so genetic optimization of cover crops to increase nitrogen-use efficiencies and decrease nitrogen leaching could further improve mitigation of direct nitrous oxide emissions (Abdalla et al., 2019). 

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions and removing carbon.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 0.29
Median (50th percentile) 0.51
75th percentile 0.80

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 0.58
Median (50th percentile) 1.28
75th percentile 1.72

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 0.87
Median (50th percentile) 1.79
75th percentile 2.52
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Because baseline (conventional) annual cropping systems are already extensive and well established, we assume there is no cost to establish new baseline cropland. In the absence of global datasets on costs and revenues of cropping systems, we used data on the global average profit per ha of cropland from Damania et al. (2023) to create a weighted average profit of US$76.86/ha/yr.

Based on 13 data points (of which seven were from the United States), the median establishment cost of the Improve Annual Cropping solution is $329.78/ha. Nine data points (three from the United States) provided a median increase in profitability of US$86.01/ha/yr. 

The net net cost of the Improve Annual Cropping solution is US$86.01. The cost per t CO₂‑eq is US$47.80 (Table 2).

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis

Median 47.80
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

We found limited information on this solution’s learning curve. A survey of farmers in Zambia found a reluctance to avoid tilling soils because of the increased need for weeding or herbicides and because crop residues may need to be used for livestock feed (Arslan et al., 2015; Searchinger et al., 2019).

Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Improve Annual Cropping is a DELAYED climate solution. It works more slowly than gradual or emergency brake solutions. Delayed solutions can be robust climate solutions, but it’s important to recognize that they may not realize their full potential for some time.

Caveats

As with other biosequestration solutions, carbon stored in soils via improved annual cropping is not permanent. It can be lost quickly through a return to conventional agriculture practices like plowing, and/or through a regional shift to a drier climate or other human- or climate change–driven disturbances. Carbon sequestration also only continues for a limited time, estimated at 20–50 years (Lal et al., 2018)).

Current Adoption

Kassam et al. (2022) provided regional adoption from 2008–2019. We used a linear forecast to project 2025 adoption. This provided a figure of 267.4 Mha in 2025 (Table 3). Note that in Solution Basics in the dashboard we set current adoption at zero. This is a conservative assumption to avoid counting carbon sequestration from land that has already ceased to sequester net carbon due to saturation, which takes place after 20–50 years (Lal et al., 2018).

Table 3. Current (2025) adoption level.

Unit: Mha of improved annual cropping

Estimate 267.4
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Between 2008–2009 and 2018–2019 (the most recent data available), the cropland area under improved annual cropping practices nearly doubled globally, increasing from 10.6 Mha to 20.5 Mha at an average rate of 1.0 Mha/yr (Kassam et al., 2022), equivalent to a 9.2% annual increase in area relative to 2008–2009 levels. Adoption slowed slightly in the latter half of the decade, with an average increase of 0.8 Mha/yr between 2015–2016 and 2018–2019, equivalent to 4.6% annual increase in area relative to 2015–2016 levels, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. 2008–2009 to 2018–2019 adoption trend.

Unit: Mha adopted/yr

Mean 9.99
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

Griscom et al. (2017) estimate that 800 Mha of global cropland are suitable – but not yet used for – cover cropping, in addition to 168 Mha already in cover crops (Popelau and Don, 2015). We update the 168 Mha in cover crops to 267 Mha based on Kassam (2022). Griscom et al.’s estimate is based on their analysis that much cropland is unsuitable because it already is used to produce crops during seasons in which cover crops would be grown. Their estimate thus provides a maximum technical potential of 1,067 Mha  by adding 800 Mha of remaining potential to the 267.4 Mha of current adoption (Table 5). 

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mha

Adoption ceiling 1,067
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

The 8th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture (8WCCA) set a goal to achieve adoption of improved annual cropping on 50% of available cropland by 2050 (WCCA 2021). That provides an Achievable – High of 700 Mha – though this is not a biophysical limit. 

We used the 2008–2019 data from Kassam (2022) to calculate average annual regional growth rates. From these we selected the 25th percentile as our low achievable level (Table 6).

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mha

Current adoption 267.4
Achievable – low 331.7
Achievable – high 700.0
Adoption ceiling 1,067

Unit: Mha installed

Current adoption 0.00
Achievable – low 64.2
Achievable – high 432.6
Adoption ceiling 868.6
Left Text Column Width

Carbon sequestration continues only for a period of decades; because adoption of improved annual cropping was already underway in the 1970s (Kassam et al., 2022), we could not assume that previously adopted hectares continue to sequester carbon indefinitely. Much of the current adoption of improved annual cropping has been in place for decades and sequestration in some of this land has presumably already slowed down to almost zero. We apply an adoption adjustment factor of 0.5 to current adoption (see methodology) to reflect that an estimated half of current adoption is no longer sequestering significant carbon, yet there is substantial new adoption within the last 20-50 years.

For new adoption, the calculation is effectiveness * new adoption = climate impact.

For calculating impact of current adoption, the calculation is the sum of a and b where:

a:  for carbon sequestration, the calculation is effectiveness * 0.5 * current adoption = climate impact, and

b: for nitrous oxide reduction, the calculation is effectiveness * current adoption = climate impact.

Climate impacts shown in Table 6 are the sum of current and new adoption impacts. Combined effect is 0.31 Gt CO2-eq/yr for current adoption, 0.43 for Achievable – Low, 1.09 for Achievable – High, and 1.87 for our Adoption Ceiling.

Table 8. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.14
Achievable – low 0.17
Achievable – high 0.36
Adoption ceiling 0.58

(from nitrous oxide)

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.17
Achievable – low 0.25
Achievable – high 0.73
Adoption ceiling 1.29

(from SOC)

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.31
Achievable – low 0.43
Achievable – high 1.09
Adoption ceiling 1.87
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Extreme Weather Events

The soil and water benefits of this solution can lead to agricultural systems that are more resilient to extreme weather events (Mrabet et al., 2023). These agricultural systems have improved uptake, conservation, and use of water, so they are more likely to successfully cope and adapt to drought, dry conditions, and other adverse weather events (Su et al., 2021). Additionally, more sustained year-round plant cover can increase the capacity of cropping systems to adapt to high temperatures and extreme rainfall (Blanco-Canqui & Francis, 2016; Martínez-Mena et al., 2020).

Droughts

Increased organic matter due to improved annual cropping increases soil water holding capacity. This increases drought resilience (Su et al., 2021). 

Income and Work

Conservation agriculture practices can reduce costs on fuel, fertilizer, and pesticides (Stavi et al., 2016). The highest revenues from improved annual cropping are often found in drier climates. Tambo et al. (2018) found when smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa jointly employed the three aspects of conservation agriculture – reduced tillage, cover crops, and crop rotation – households and individuals saw the largest income gains. Nyagumbo et al. (2020) found that smallholder farms in sub-Saharan Africa using conservation agriculture had the highest returns on crop yields when rainfall was low. 

Food Security

Improved annual cropping can improve food security by increasing the amount and the stability of crop yields. A meta-analysis of studies of South Asian cropping systems found that those following conservation agriculture methods had 5.8% higher mean yield than cropping systems with more conventional agriculture practices (Jat et al., 2020). Evidence supports that conservation agriculture practices especially improve yields in water scarce areas (Su et al., 2021). Nyagumbo et al. (2020) found that smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa experienced reduced yield variability when using conservation agriculture practices.

Nature Protection

Improved annual cropping can increase biodiversity below and above soils (Mrabet et al., 2023). Increased vegetation cover improves habitats for arthropods, which help with pest and pathogen management (Stavi et al., 2016).

Land Resources

Improved annual cropping methods can lead to improved soil health through increased stability of soil structure, increased soil nutrients, and improved soil water storage (Francaviglia et al., 2023). This can reduce soil degradation and erosion (Mrabet et al., 2023). Additionally, more soil organic matter can lead to additional microbial growth and nutrient availability for crops (Blanco-Canqui & Francis, 2016). 

Water Quality

Runoff of soil and other agrochemicals can be minimized through conservation agricultural practices, reducing the amount of nitrate and phosphorus that leach into waterways and contribute to algal blooms and eutrophication (Jayaraman et al., 2021). Abdalla et al. (2019) found that cover crops reduced nitrogen leaching.

Risks

Herbicides – in place of tillage – are used in many but not all no-till cropping systems to kill (terminate) the cover crop. The large-scale use of herbicides in improved annual cropping systems can produce a range of environmental and human health consequences. Agricultural impacts can include development of herbicide-resistant weeds (Clapp, 2021). 

If cover crops are not fully terminated before establishing the main crop, there is a risk that cover crops can compete with the main crop (Quintarelli et al., 2022). 

Interactions with Other Solutions

Improved annual cropping has competing interactions with several other solutions related to shifting annual practices. For each of these other solutions, the Improve Annual Cropping solution can reduce the area on which the solution can be applied or the nutrient excess available for improved management. 

COMPETING

In no-till systems, cover crops are typically terminated with herbicides, often preventing incorporation of trees depending on the type of herbicide used.

Land managed under the Improve Annual Cropping solution is not available for perennial crops.

Improved annual cropping typically reduces fertilizer demand, reducing the scale of climate impact under improved nutrient management. 

Our definition of improved annual cropping requires residue retention, limiting the additional area available for deployment of reduced burning.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha cropland

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
00.881.8median
units
Current 2.674×10⁸ 03.317×10⁸7.0×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.31 0.431.09
US$ per t CO₂-eq
48
Delayed

CO₂ , N₂O

Trade-offs

Some studies have found that conservation tillage without cover crops can reduce soil carbon stocks in deeper soil layers. They caution against overreliance on no-till as a sequestration solution in the absence of cover cropping. Reduced tillage should be combined with cover crops to ensure carbon sequestration (Luo et al., 2010; Ogle et al., 2019; Powlson et al., 2014).

t CO2-eq/ha
0≥ 400

Thousands of years of agricultural land use have removed nearly 500 Gt CO2-eq from soils

Agriculture has altered the soil carbon balance around the world, resulting in changes (mostly losses) of soil carbon. Much of the nearly 500 Gt CO2-eq lost in the last 12,000 years is now in the atmosphere in the form of CO2.

Sanderman, J. et al. (2017). The soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use [Data set]. PNAS 114(36): 9575–9580. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706103114

t CO2-eq/ha
0≥ 400

Thousands of years of agricultural land use have removed nearly 500 Gt CO2-eq from soils

Agriculture has altered the soil carbon balance around the world, resulting in changes (mostly losses) of soil carbon. Much of the nearly 500 Gt CO2-eq lost in the last 12,000 years is now in the atmosphere in the form of CO2.

Sanderman, J. et al. (2017). The soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use [Data set]. PNAS 114(36): 9575–9580. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706103114

Maps Introduction

Adoption of this solution varies substantially across the globe. Currently, improved annual cropping practices are widely implemented in Australia and New Zealand (74% of annual cropland) and Central and South America (69%), with intermediate adoption in North America (34%) and low adoption in Asia, Europe, and Africa (1–5%) (Kassam et al., 2022), though estimates vary (see also Prestele et al., 2018). Future expansion of this solution is most promising in Asia, Africa, and Europe, where adoption has increased in recent years. Large areas of croplands are still available for implementation in these regions, whereas Australia, New Zealand, and Central and South America may be reaching a saturation point, and these practices may be less suitable for the relatively small area of remaining croplands.

The carbon sequestration effectiveness of this solution also varies across space. Drivers of soil carbon sequestration rates are complex and interactive, with climate, initial soil carbon content, soil texture, soil chemical properties (such as pH), and other land management practices all influencing the effectiveness of adopting this solution. Very broadly, the carbon sequestration potential of improved annual cropping tends to be two to three times higher in warm areas than cool areas (Bai et al., 2019; Cui et al., 2024; Lessmann et al., 2022). Warm and humid conditions enable vigorous cover crop growth, providing additional carbon inputs into soils. Complicating patterns of effectiveness, however, arid regions often experience increased crop yields following adoption of this solution whereas humid regions are more likely to experience yield losses (Pittelkow et al., 2015). Yield losses may reduce adoption in humid areas and can lead to cropland expansion to compensate for lower production. 

Uptake of this solution may be constrained by spatial variation in places where cover cropping is suitable. In areas with double or triple cropping, there may not be an adequate interval for growth of a cover crop between harvests. In areas with an extended dry season, there may be inadequate moisture to grow a cover crop.

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Annual Cropping
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Provide local and regional institutional guidance for improving annual cropping that adapts to the socio-environmental context.
  • Integrate soil protection into national climate mitigation and adaptation plans.
  • Remove financial incentives, such as subsidies, for unsustainable practices and replace them with financial incentives for carbon sequestration practices.
  • Place taxes or fines on emissions and related farm inputs (such as nitrogen fertilizers).
  • Reform international agricultural trade, remove subsidies for emissions-intensive agriculture, and support climate-friendly practices.
  • Strengthen and support land tenure for smallholder farmers.
  • Mandate insurance schemes that allow farmers to use cover crops and reduce tillage.
  • Support, protect, and promote traditional and Indigenous knowledge of land management practices.
  • Set standards for measuring, monitoring, and verifying impacts on SOC accounting for varying socio-environmental conditions.
  • Develop economic budgets for farmers to adopt these practices.
  • Invest in or expand extension services to educate farmers and other stakeholders on the economic and environmental benefits of improved annual cropping.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate stakeholder discussions.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Implement no-till practices and use cover crops.
  • Utilize or advocate for financial assistance and tax breaks for farmers to use improved annual cropping techniques.
  • Adjust the timing and dates of the planting and termination of the cover crops in order to avoid competition for resources with the primary crop.
  • Find opportunities to reduce initial operation costs of no-tillage and cover crops, such as selling cover crops as forage or grazing.
  • Take advantage of education programs, support groups, and extension services focused on improved annual cropping methods.
  • Create, support, or join stakeholder discussions, especially around standardized monitoring frameworks, ROI, and climate benefits.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Source from producers implementing improved annual cropping practices, create programs that directly engage and educate farmers, and promote inspiring case studies with the industry and wider public.
  • Create sustainability goals and supplier requirements that incorporate this solution and offer pricing incentives for compliant suppliers.
  • Invest in companies that utilize improved annual cropping techniques or produce the necessary inputs.
  • Promote and develop markets for products that employ improved annual cropping techniques and educate consumers about the importance of the practice.
  • Stay abreast of recent scientific findings and use third-party verification to monitor sourcing practices.
  • Offer financial services – including low-interest loans, micro-financing, and grants – to support low-carbon agriculture (e.g., sustainable land management systems).
  • Support high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate stakeholder discussions, especially around standardized monitoring frameworks, ROI, and climate benefits.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Start model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Conduct and share research on improving annual cropping techniques and local policy options.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improving annual cropping techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Educate farmers on sustainable means of agriculture and support implementation.
  • Help integrate improved annual cropping practices as part of the broader climate agenda.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor soil health.
  • Offer resources and training in financial planning and yield risk management to farmers adopting improved annual cropping approaches.
  • Partner with research institutions and businesses to co-develop and distribute region-specific best practices.
  • Create, support, or join stakeholder discussions, especially around standardized monitoring frameworks, ROI, and climate benefits.

Further information:

Investors
  • Integrate science-based due diligence on improved annual cropping techniques and soil health measures into all farming and agritech investments.
  • Encourage companies in your investment portfolio to adopt improved annual cropping practices.
  • Offer access to capital, such as low-interest loans, micro-financing, and grants to improve annual cropping.
  • Invest in companies developing technologies that improve annual cropping, such as soil management equipment and related software.
  • Create, support, or join stakeholder discussions, especially around standardized monitoring frameworks, ROI, and climate benefits.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Start model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Offer access to capital, such as low-interest loans, micro-financing, and grants to support improving annual cropping, (e.g., traditional land management).
  • Conduct and share research on improved annual cropping techniques and local policy options.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved annual cropping techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Educate farmers on traditional means of agriculture and support implementation.
  • Help integrate improved annual cropping practices as part of the broader climate agenda.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor soil health.
  • Offer resources and training in financial planning and yield risk management to farmers adopting improved annual cropping approaches.
  • Partner with research institutions and businesses to co-develop and distribute region-specific best practices.
  • Create, support, or join stakeholder discussions, especially around standardized monitoring frameworks, ROI, and climate benefits.
  • Invest in companies developing technologies that improve annual cropping, such as soil management equipment and related software.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Start model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Conduct and share research on improved annual cropping techniques and local policy options.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved annual cropping techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Educate farmers on traditional means of agriculture and support implementation.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor soil health.
  • Research the regional impacts of cover crops on SOC and SOM and publish the data.
  • Partner with research institutions and businesses to co-develop and distribute region-specific best practices.
  • Create, support, or join stakeholder discussions, especially around standardized monitoring frameworks, ROI, and climate benefits.
  • Work with farmers and other private organizations to improve data collection on uptake of improved annual cropping techniques, effectiveness, and regional best practices.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Help develop standards for measuring, monitoring, and verifying impacts on SOC accounting for varying socio-environmental conditions.
  • Research the regional impacts of cover crops (particularly outside the United States) on SOC and SOM, and publish the data.
  • Create tracking and monitoring software to support farmers' decision-making.
  • Research the application of AI and robotics for crop rotation.
  • Improve data and analytics to monitor soil and water quality, assist farmers, support policymaking, and assess the impacts of policies.
  • Develop education and training applications to improve annual cropping techniques and provide real-time feedback.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Participate in urban agriculture or community gardening programs that implement these practices.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor soil health.
  • Work with farmers and other private organizations to improve data collection on uptake of improved annual cropping techniques, effectiveness, and regional best practices.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved annual cropping techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Start model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Educate farmers on traditional means of agriculture and support implementation.
  • Create, support, or join stakeholder discussions, especially around standardized monitoring frameworks, ROI, and climate benefits.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness of cover cropping for sequestering carbon: 

The impacts of improved annual cropping practices on soil carbon sequestration have been extensively studied, and there is high consensus that adoption of cover crops can increase carbon sequestration in soils. However, estimates of how much carbon can be sequestered vary substantially, and sequestration rates are strongly influenced by factors such as climate, soil properties, time since adoption, and how the practices are implemented.

The carbon sequestration benefits of cover cropping are well established. They have been documented in reviews and meta-analyses including Hu et al. (2023) and Vendig et al. (2023). 

Consensus of effectiveness of reduced tillage for sequestering carbon: Mixed

Relative to conventional tillage, estimates of soil carbon gains in shallow soils under no-till management include average increases of 5–20% (Bai et al., 2019; Cui et al., 2024; Kan et al., 2022). Lessmann et al. (2022) estimated that use of no-till is associated with an average annual increase in carbon sequestration of 0.88 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr relative to high-intensity tillage. 

Nitrous oxide reduction: Mixed

Consensus on nitrous oxide reductions from improved annual cropping is mixed. Several reviews have demonstrated a modest reduction in nitrous oxide from cover cropping (Abdalla et al., 2019; Xing & Wang, 2024). Reduced tillage can result in either increased or decreased nitrous oxide emissions (Hassan et al., 2022). 

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 10 reviews and meta-analyses reflecting current evidence at the global scale. Nonetheless, not all countries are represented. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Improve Rice Production

Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean (FALO)
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Agriculture Practices
Image
Rice field
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Rice production is a significant source of methane emissions and a minor source of nitrous oxide emissions. Most rice production occurs in flooded fields called paddies, where anaerobic conditions trigger high levels of methane production. This solution includes two related practices that each reduce emissions from paddy rice production: noncontinuous flooding and nutrient management. Noncontinuous flooding is a water management technique that reduces the amount of time rice paddy soils spend fully saturated, thereby reducing methane. Unfortunately, noncontinuous flooding increases nitrous oxide emissions. Nutrient management helps to address this challenge by controlling the timing, amount, and type of fertilization to maximize plant uptake and minimize nitrous oxide emissions.

Health
Land resources,Water resources,Water quality
Description for Social and Search
Improve Rice Production is a Highly Recommended climate solution. It reduces emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, two potent greenhouse gases, by converting rice paddies from continuous flooding to noncontinuous flooding and improving nutrient management.
Overview

Rice is a staple crop of critical importance, occupying 11% of global cropland (FAOstat 2025). Rice production has higher GHG emissions than most crop production, accounting for 9% of all anthropogenic methane and 10% of cropland nitrous oxide (Wang et al., 2020). Nabuurs et al. (2022) found methane emissions from global rice production to be 0.8–1.0 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr and growing 0.4% annually.

Rice paddy systems are fields with berms and plumbing to permit the flooding of rice for the production periods, which helps with weed and pest control (rice thrives in flooded conditions, though it does not require them). Paddy rice is the main source of methane from rice production. Upland rice is grown outside of paddies and does not produce significant methane emissions, so we excluded it from this analysis. Irrigated paddies are provided with irrigation water, while rain-fed paddies are only filled by rainfall and runoff (Raffa, 2021). For this analysis, we considered both irrigated and rain-fed paddies.

Methane Reduction

Flooded rice paddies encourage the production of methane by microbes. Conventional paddy rice production uses continuous flooding, in which the paddy is flooded for the full rice production period. Several approaches can reduce methane, with the most widespread being noncontinuous flooding. This is a collection of practices (such as alternate wetting and drying) that drain the fields one or more times during the rice production period. As a result, the paddy spends less time in its methane-producing state. This can be done without reducing rice yields in many, but not all, cases, and also significantly reduces irrigation water use (Bo et al., 2022). Impacts on yields depend on soils, climate, and other variables (Cheng et al., 2022). 

Nitrous Oxide Reduction

A major drawback to noncontinuous flooding is that it increases nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer compared to continuous flooding. High nitrogen levels in flooded paddies encourage the growth of bacteria that produce methane, reduce the natural breakdown of methane, and facilitate emissions of nitrous oxide to the atmosphere (Li et al., 2024). The effect is small compared to the mitigated emissions from methane reduction (Jiang et al., 2019), but remains serious. Use of nutrient management techniques, such as controlling fertilizer amount, type (e.g., controlled-release urea), timing, and application techniques (e.g., deep fertilization), can reduce these emissions. This is in part because nitrogen fertilizers are often overapplied, leaving room to increase efficiency without reducing rice yields (Hergoualc’h et al., 2019; Li et al., 2024). 

Other Promising Practices

Other practices also show potential but were not included in our analysis. These include the application of biochar to rice paddies and the use of rice cultivars that produce fewer emissions (Qian et al., 2023). Other approaches include saturated soil culture, System of Rice Intensification (“SRI”), ground-cover systems, raised beds, and improved irrigation and paddy infrastructure (Surendran et al., 2021). 

Note that some practices, such as incorporating rice straw or the use of compost or manure, can increase nitrous oxide emissions (Li et al., 2024). 

There is also evidence that, under some circumstances, noncontinuous flooding can sequester soil organic carbon by increasing soil organic matter. However, there are not enough data available to quantify this (Qian et al., 2023). Indeed, one meta-analysis found that noncontinuous flooding can actually lead to a decrease in soil organic carbon (Livsey et al., 2019). One complication is that many production areas plant rice two or even three times per year, and data are typically presented on a per-harvest or even per-flooded day basis. To overcome this challenge, we use data on the percentage of global irrigated rice land in single, double, and triple cropping from Carlson et al. (2016) to create weighted average values as appropriate.

References

Adalibieke, W., Cui, X., Cai, H., You, L., & Zhou, F. (2023). Global crop-specific nitrogen fertilization dataset in 1961–2020. Scientific Data, 10(1), Article 617. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02526-z

Alauddin, M., Rashid Sarker, Md. A., Islam, Z., & Tisdell, C. (2020). Adoption of alternate wetting and drying (AWD) irrigation as a water-saving technology in Bangladesh: Economic and environmental considerations. Land Use Policy, 91, Article 104430. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104430

Bijay-Singh, & Craswell, E. (2021). Fertilizers and nitrate pollution of surface and ground water: An increasingly pervasive global problem. SN Applied Sciences, 3(4), Article 518. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04521-8

Bo, Y., Jägermeyr, J., Yin, Z., Jiang, Y., Xu, J., Liang, H., & Zhou, F. (2022). Global benefits of non‐continuous flooding to reduce greenhouse gases and irrigation water use without rice yield penalty. Global Change Biology, 28(11), 3636–3650. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16132

Carlson, K. M., Gerber, J. S., Mueller, N. D., Herrero, M., MacDonald, G. K., Brauman, K. A., Havlik, P., O’Connell, C.S., Johnson, J.A., Saatchi, S., & West, P.C. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions intensity of global croplands. Nature Climate Change, 7(1), 63–68. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3158 

Carrijo, D. R., Lundy, M. E., & Linquist, B. A. (2017). Rice yields and water use under alternate wetting and drying irrigation: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Research, 203, 173–180. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.12.002

Cheng, H., Shu, K., Zhu, T., Wang, L., Liu, X., Cai, W., Qi, Z., & Feng, S. (2022). Effects of alternate wetting and drying irrigation on yield, water and nitrogen use, and greenhouse gas emissions in rice paddy fields. Journal of Cleaner Production, 349, Article 131487. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131487

Cui, X., Zhou, F., Ciais, P., Davidson, E. A., Tubiello, F. N., Niu, X., Ju, X., Canadell, J.P., Bouwman, A.F., Jackson, R.B., Mueller, N.D., Zheng, X., Kanter, D.R., Tian, H., Adalibieke, W., Bo, Y., Wang, Q., Zhan, X., & Zhu, D. (2021). Global mapping of crop-specific emission factors highlights hotspots of nitrous oxide mitigation. Nature Food, 2(11), 886–893. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00384-9 

Damania, R., Polasky, S., Ruckelshaus, M., Russ, J., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Gerber, J., Hawthorne, P., Heger, M.P., Mamun, S., Amann, M., Ruta, G., & Wagner, F. (2023). Nature's Frontiers: Achieving Sustainability, Efficiency, and Prosperity with Natural Capital. World Bank Publications. Link to source: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/855c2e15-c88b-4c04-a2e5-2d98c25b8eca 

Enriquez, Y., Yadav, S., Evangelista, G. K., Villanueva, D., Burac, M. A., & Pede, V. (2021). Disentangling challenges to scaling alternate wetting and drying technology for rice cultivation: Distilling lessons from 20 years of experience in the Philippines. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5, 1-16. Link to source: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2021.675818/full 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2025). FAOSTAT Statistical Database, [Rome]: FAO, 1997. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/ 

Gerber, J. S., Ray, D. K., Makowski, D., Butler, E. E., Mueller, N. D., West, P. C., Johnson, J. A., Polasky, S., Samberg, L. H., & Siebert, S. (2024). Global spatially explicit yield gap time trends reveal regions at risk of future crop yield stagnation. Nature Food, 5(2), 125–135. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00913-8 

Gu, B., Zhang, X., Lam, S. K., Yu, Y., Van Grinsven, H. J., Zhang, S., Wang, X., Bodirsky, B.L., Wang, S., Duan, J., Ren, C., Bouwman, L., de Vries, W., Xu, J., & Chen, D. (2023). Cost-effective mitigation of nitrogen pollution from global croplands. Nature, 613(7942), 77–84. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05481-8 

Hergoualc’h, K., Akiyama, H., Bernoux, M., Chirinda, N., del Prado, A., Kasimir, A., MacDonald, J.D., Ogle, S.M., Regina, K., van der Weerden, T.J. (2019) 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Chapter 11: N2O Emissions from Managed Soils, and CO2 Emissions from Lime and Urea Application. Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O%26CO2.pdf 

Ishfaq, M., Farooq, M., Zulfiqar, U., Hussain, S., Akbar, N., Nawaz, A., & Anjum, S. A. (2020). Alternate wetting and drying: A water-saving and ecofriendly rice production system. Agricultural Water Management, 241, Article 106363. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106363

Jameel, Y., Mozumder, M. R. H., Van Geen, A., & Harvey, C. F. (2021). Well‐Switching to Reduce Arsenic Exposure in Bangladesh: Making the Most of Inaccurate Field Kit Measurements. GeoHealth, 5(12), Article e2021GH000464. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GH000464

Jiang, Y., Carrijo, D., Huang, S., Chen, J., Balaine, N., Zhang, W., Van Groenigen, K.J. & Linquist, B. (2019). Water management to mitigate the global warming potential of rice systems: A global meta-analysis. Field Crops Research, 234, 47–54. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.02.101 

Lampayan, R. M., Rejesus, R. M., Singleton, G. R., & Bouman, B. A. (2015). Adoption and economics of alternate wetting and drying water management for irrigated lowland rice. Field Crops Research, 170, 95–108. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.10.013

Li, L., Huang, Z., Mu, Y., Song, S., Zhang, Y., Tao, Y., & Nie, L. (2024). Alternate wetting and drying maintains rice yield and reduces global warming potential: A global meta-analysis. Field Crops Research, 318, Article 109603. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2024.109603

Liang, K., Zhong, X., Fu, Y., Hu, X., Li, M., Pan, J., Liu, Y., Hu, R., & Ye, Q. (2023). Mitigation of environmental N pollution and greenhouse gas emission from double rice cropping system with a new alternate wetting and drying irrigation regime coupled with optimized N fertilization in South China. Agricultural Water Management, 282, Article 108282. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108282

Linquist, B. A., Adviento-Borbe, M. A., Pittelkow, C. M., van Kessel, C., & van Groenigen, K. J. (2012). Fertilizer management practices and greenhouse gas emissions from rice systems: a quantitative review and analysis. Field Crops Research, 135, 10–21. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.06.007

Liang, X. Q., Chen, Y. X., Nie, Z. Y., Ye, Y. S., Liu, J., Tian, G. M., Wang, G. H., & Tuong, T. P. (2013). Mitigation of nutrient losses via surface runoff from rice cropping systems with alternate wetting and drying irrigation and site-specific nutrient management practices. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 20(10), 6980–6991. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-012-1391-1

Livsey, J., Kätterer, T., Vico, G., Lyon, S. W., Lindborg, R., Scaini, A., Da, C.T,. & Manzoni, S. (2019). Do alternative irrigation strategies for rice cultivation decrease water footprints at the cost of long-term soil health? Environmental Research Letters, 14(7), 074011. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab2108 

Ludemann, C. I., Gruere, A., Heffer, P., & Dobermann, A. (2022). Global data on fertilizer use by crop and by country. Scientific data, 9(1), 1–8. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01592-z 

Nabuurs, G-J., R. Mrabet, A. Abu Hatab, M. Bustamante, H. Clark, P. Havl.k, J. House, C. Mbow, K.N. Ninan, A. Popp, S. Roe, B. Sohngen, S. Towprayoon, 2022: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses (AFOLU). In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.009

Ogle, S. M., Wakelin, S. J., Buendia, L., McConkey, B., Baldock, J., Akiyama, H., ... & Zheng, X. (2019). 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Chapter 4: Cropland. Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2019-refinement-to-the-2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/ 

Qian, H., Zhu, X., Huang, S., Linquist, B., Kuzyakov, Y., Wassmann, R., ... & Jiang, Y. (2023). Greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation in rice agriculture. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 4(10), 716–732. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00482-1 

Raffa, D.W. & Morales-Abubakar, A. L. (2021) Soil Health for Paddy Rice. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/fcd04aae-0389-411b-8a47-a622b23d642f/content 

Roe, S., Streck, C., Beach, R., Busch, J., Chapman, M., Daioglou, V., Deppermann, A., Doelman, J., Emmet-Booth, J., Engelmann, J., Fricko, O., Frischmann, C., Funk, J., Grassi, G., Griscom, B., Havlik, P., Hanssen, S., Humpenöder, F., Landholm, D., LOmax, G., Lehmann, J., Mesnildrey, L., Nabuurrs, G., Popp, A., Rivard, C., Sanderman, J., Sohngen, B., Smith, P., Stehfest, E., Woolf, D., & Lawrence, D. (2021). Land‐based measures to mitigate climate change: Potential and feasibility by country. Global Change Biology, 27(23), 6025–6058. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15873

Salmon, J. M., Friedl, M. A., Frolking, S., Wisser, D., & Douglas, E. M. (2015). Global rain-fed, irrigated, and paddy croplands: A new high resolution map derived from remote sensing, crop inventories and climate data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 38, 321–334. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2015.01.014

Surendran, U., Raja, P., Jayakumar, M., & Subramoniam, S. R. (2021). Use of efficient water saving techniques for production of rice in India under climate change scenario: A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 309. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127272

Suwanmaneepong, S., Kultawanich, K., Khurnpoon, L., Sabaijai, P. E., Cavite, H. J., Llones, C., Lepcha, N., & Kerdsriserm, C. (2023). Alternate Wetting and Drying as Water-Saving Technology: An Adoption Intention in the Perspective of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) Suburban Rice Farmers in Thailand. Water, 15(3), Article 402. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030402

Xia, L., Lam, S. K., Chen, D., Wang, J., Tang, Q., & Yan, X. (2017). Can knowledge‐based N management produce more staple grain with lower greenhouse gas emission and reactive nitrogen pollution? A meta‐analysis. Global change biology, 23(5), 1917–1925. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13455

Zhang, W., Yu, J., Xu, Y., Wang, Z., Liu, L., Zhang, H., Gu, J., Zhang, J., & Yang, J. (2021). Alternate wetting and drying irrigation combined with the proportion of polymer-coated urea and conventional urea rates increases grain yield, water and nitrogen use efficiencies in rice. Field Crops Research, 268, Article 108165. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108165

Zhang, Y., Wang, W., Li, S., Zhu, K., Hua, X., Harrison, M.T., Liu, K., Yang, J., Liu, L, & Chan, Y. (2023). Integrated management approaches enabling sustainable rice production under alternate wetting and drying irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 281. Link to source: https://doi.org/10/1016/j.agwat.2023.108265 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Eric Toensmeier

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Methane Reduction

We calculated per-hectare methane emissions using Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) methodology (Ogle et. al, 2019). To develop regional emissions per rice harvest, we multiplied standard regional daily baseline emissions by standard cultivation period lengths, then multiplied by the mean scaling factor for noncontinuous flooding systems. However, the total number of rice harvests per year ranged from one to three. Carlson et al. (2016) reported a global figure of harvests on rice fields: 42% were harvested once, 50% were harvested twice, and 8% were harvested three times. We used this to develop a weighted average methane emissions figure for each region. National effectiveness ranged from 1.55 to 3.29 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr (Table 1a).

Nitrous Oxide Reduction

Using data from Adalibieke et al. (2024) and Gerber et al. (2024), we calculated the current country-level rate of nitrogen application per hectare and a target rate reflecting improved efficiency through nutrient management. For a full methodology, see the Appendix. 

In noncontinuously flooded systems, nitrous oxide emissions are 1.66 times higher per t of nitrogen applied (Hergoualc’h et al., 2019). Using the different emissions factors, we calculated total nitrous oxide emissions for 1) flooded rice with current nitrogen application rates, and 2) noncontinuously flooded rice with target nitrogen application rates. 

The effectiveness of nutrient management for each country with over 100,000 ha of rice production ranged from –0.48 to 0.11 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr (Table 1).

Combined Reduction

Combined effectiveness of methane and nitrous oxide reduction was 1.49–3.39 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr (Table 1).

Table 1a. Combined effectiveness at reducing emissions, by country, for noncontinuous flooding with nutrient management. 

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr

Afghanistan 1.63
Argentina 2.70
Bangladesh 1.63
Benin 2.30
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 2.70
Brazil 2.70
Burkina Faso 2.30
Cambodia 2.13
Cameroon 2.30
Chad 2.30
China 2.48
Colombia 2.70
Côte d'Ivoire 2.30
Democratic People's Republic of Korea 2.48
Democratic Republic of the Congo 2.30
Dominican Republic 2.70
Ecuador 2.70
Egypt 2.30
Ghana 2.30
Guinea 2.30
Guinea-Bissau 2.30
Guyana 2.70
India 1.63
Indonesia 2.13
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 3.29
Italy 3.29
Japan 2.48
Lao People's Democratic Republic 2.13
Liberia 2.30
Madagascar 2.30
Malaysia 2.13
Mali 2.30
Mozambique 2.30
Myanmar 2.13
Nepal 1.63
Nigeria 2.30
Pakistan 1.63
Paraguay 2.70
Peru 2.70
Philippines 2.13
Republic of Korea 2.48
Russian Federation 3.29
Senegal 2.30
Sierra Leone 2.30
Sri Lanka 1.63
Thailand 2.13
Turkey 3.29
Uganda 2.70
United Republic of Tanzania 2.30
United States of America 1.55
Uruguay 2.70
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 2.70
Vietnam 2.13

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr

Afghanistan 0.03
Argentina 0.07
Bangladesh 0.06
Benin 0.03
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 0.00
Brazil 0.00
Burkina Faso –0.02
Cambodia 0.01
Cameroon 0.00
Chad 0.01
China 0.01
Colombia –0.07
Côte d'Ivoire 0.02
Democratic People's Republic of Korea 0.02
Democratic Republic of the Congo 0.01
Dominican Republic –0.16
Ecuador –0.08
Egypt –0.15
Ghana 0.05
Guinea 0.01
Guinea-Bissau 0.01
Guyana –0.06
India –0.02
Indonesia 0.11
Iran (Islamic Republic of) –0.05
Italy 0.00
Japan 0.07
Lao People's Democratic Republic 0.02
Liberia 0.02
Madagascar 0.00
Malaysia –0.01
Mali –0.03
Mozambique 0.01
Myanmar 0.04
Nepal 0.04
Nigeria 0.01
Pakistan –0.04
Paraguay 0.01
Peru 0.09
Philippines 0.00
Republic of Korea 0.00
Russian Federation 0.04
Senegal –0.04
Sierra Leone 0.02
Sri Lanka 0.02
Thailand –0.03
Turkey 0.10
Uganda 0.00
United Republic of Tanzania 0.04
United States of America –0.05
Uruguay 0.03
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) –0.48
Vietnam 0.00

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha rice paddies/yr

Afghanistan 1.67
Argentina 2.77
Bangladesh 1.69
Benin 2.34
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 2.70
Brazil 2.70
Burkina Faso 2.28
Cambodia 2.15
Cameroon 2.30
Chad 2.32
China 2.48
Colombia 2.63
Côte d'Ivoire 2.32
Democratic People's Republic of Korea 2.50
Democratic Republic of the Congo 2.31
Dominican Republic 2.54
Ecuador 2.62
Egypt 2.16
Ghana 2.35
Guinea 2.32
Guinea-Bissau 2.32
Guyana 2.63
India 1.61
Indonesia 2.24
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 3.24
Italy 3.29
Japan 2.54
Lao People's Democratic Republic 2.15
Liberia 2.32
Madagascar 2.31
Malaysia 2.13
Mali 2.28
Mozambique 2.32
Myanmar 2.17
Nepal 1.67
Nigeria 2.32
Pakistan 1.59
Paraguay 2.71
Peru 2.79
Philippines 2.14
Republic of Korea 2.47
Russian Federation 3.33
Senegal 2.27
Sierra Leone 2.32
Sri Lanka 1.65
Thailand 2.10
Turkey 3.39
Uganda 2.31
United Republic of Tanzania 2.35
United States of America 1.49
Uruguay 2.72
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 2.22
Vietnam 2.13
Left Text Column Width

Table 1b. Combined effectiveness at reducing emissions, by country, for noncontinuous flooding with nutrient management. 

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha rice paddies/yr

Afghanistan 4.75
Argentina 7.85
Bangladesh 4.75
Benin 6.71
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 7.85
Brazil 7.85
Burkina Faso 6.71
Cambodia 6.21
Cameroon 6.71
Chad 6.71
China 7.20
Colombia 7.85
Côte d'Ivoire 6.71
Democratic People's Republic of Korea 7.20
Democratic Republic of the Congo 6.71
Dominican Republic 7.85
Ecuador 7.85
Egypt 6.71
Ghana 6.71
Guinea 6.71
Guinea-Bissau 6.71
Guyana 7.85
India 4.75
Indonesia 6.21
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 9.57
Italy 9.57
Japan 7.20
Lao People's Democratic Republic 6.21
Liberia 6.71
Madagascar 6.71
Malaysia 6.21
Mali 6.71
Mozambique 6.71
Myanmar 6.21
Nepal 4.75
Nigeria 6.71
Pakistan 4.75
Paraguay 7.85
Peru 7.85
Philippines 6.21
Republic of Korea 7.20
Russian Federation 9.57
Senegal 6.71
Sierra Leone 6.71
Sri Lanka 4.75
Thailand 6.21
Turkey 9.57
Uganda 6.71
United Republic of Tanzania 6.71
United States of America 4.51
Uruguay 7.85
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 7.85
Vietnam 6.21

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha rice paddies/yr

Afghanistan 0.03
Argentina 0.07
Bangladesh 0.06
Benin 0.03
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 0.00
Brazil 0.00
Burkina Faso 0.02
Cambodia 0.01
Cameroon 0.00
Chad 0.01
China 0.01
Colombia –0.07
Côte d'Ivoire 0.02
Democratic People's Republic of Korea 0.02
Democratic Republic of the Congo 0.01
Dominican Republic 0.16
Ecuador –0.08
Egypt –0.15
Ghana 0.05
Guinea 0.01
Guinea-Bissau 0.01
Guyana –0.06
India –0.02
Indonesia 0.11
Iran (Islamic Republic of) –0.05
Italy 0.00
Japan 0.07
Lao People's Democratic Republic 0.02
Liberia 0.02
Madagascar 0.00
Malaysia –0.01
Mali –0.03
Mozambique 0.01
Myanmar 0.04
Nepal 0.04
Nigeria 0.01
Pakistan –0.04
Paraguay 0.01
Peru 0.09
Philippines 0.00
Republic of Korea 0.00
Russian Federation 0.04
Senegal –0.04
Sierra Leone 0.02
Sri Lanka 0.02
Thailand –0.03
Turkey 0.10
Uganda 0.00
United Republic of Tanzania 0.04
United States of America –0.05
Uruguay 0.03
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) –0.48
Vietnam 0.00

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha rice paddies/yr

Afghanistan 4.78
Argentina 7.93
Bangladesh 4.81
Benin 6.74
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 7.85
Brazil 7.85
Burkina Faso 6.68
Cambodia 6.22
Cameroon 6.71
Chad 6.72
China 7.21
Colombia 7.21
Côte d'Ivoire 6.73
Democratic People's Republic of Korea 7.23
Democratic Republic of the Congo 6.71
Dominican Republic 7.69
Ecuador 7.77
Egypt 6.56
Ghana 6.76
Guinea 6.72
Guinea-Bissau 6.72
Guyana 7.79
India 4.73
Indonesia 6.31
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 9.52
Italy 9.57
Japan 7.27
Lao People's Democratic Republic 6.23
Liberia 6.72
Madagascar 6.71
Malaysia 6.20
Mali 6.20
Mozambique 6.72
Myanmar 6.25
Nepal 4.79
Nigeria 6.72
Pakistan 4.71
Paraguay 7.86
Peru 7.95
Philippines 6.21
Republic of Korea 7.20
Russian Federation 9.61
Senegal 6.67
Sierra Leone 6.73
Sri Lanka 4.77
Thailand 6.18
Turkey 9.67
Uganda 6.71
United Republic of Tanzania 6.75
United States of America 4.45
Uruguay 7.88
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 7.38
Vietnam 6.20
Left Text Column Width
Cost

For conventional paddy rice, we assumed an initial cost of US$0 because many millions of hectares of paddies are already in place (Table 2). We used regional per-hectare average profits from Damania et al. (2024) as the source for net profit per year. Because the initial cost per hectare is US$0, the net cost per hectare is the negative of the per-hectare annual profit.

Table 2. Net cost and profit of conventional paddy rice by region in 2023.

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies

Africa 0.00
East Asia 0.00
Europe 0.00
North America 0.00
South America 0.00
South Asia 0.00
Southeast Asia 0.00

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

Africa 457.34
East Asia 543.67
Europe 585.43
North America 356.27
South America 285.69
South Asia 488.85
Southeast Asia 322.13

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

Africa -457.34
East Asia -543.67
Europe -585.43
North America -356.27
South America -285.69
South Asia -488.85
Southeast Asia -322.13
Left Text Column Width

For noncontinuous flooding, we assumed an initial cost of US$0 because no new inputs or changes to paddy infrastructure are required in most cases. Median impact on net profit was an increase of 17% based on nine data points from seven sources. National results are shown in Table 3.

We assumed nutrient management has an initial cost of US$0 because in many cases, nutrient management begins with reducing the overapplication of fertilizer. Here we used the mean value from Gu et al. (2023), a savings of US$507.8/t nitrogen. We used our national-level data on overapplication of nitrogen to calculate savings per hectare. National results are shown in Table 3.

Combined Net Profit per Hectare

Net profit per hectare varies by country due to regional and some country-specific variables. Country-by-country results are shown in Table 3.

Net Net Cost Compared to Conventional Paddy Rice

Net net cost varies by country. Country-by-country results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Net cost and profit of noncontinuous flooding with nutrient management by region.

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies

Afghanistan 0.00
Argentina 0.00
Bangladesh 0.00
Benin 0.00
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 0.00
Brazil 0.00
Burkina Faso 0.00
Cambodia 0.00
Cameroon 0.00
Chad 0.00
China 0.00
Colombia 0.00
Cote d'Ivoire 0.00
Democratic People's Republic of Korea 0.00
Democratic Republic of the Congo 0.00
Dominican Republic 0.00
Ecuador 0.00
Egypt 0.00
Ghana 0.00
Guinea 0.00
Guinea–Bissau 0.00
Guyana 0.00
India 0.00
Indonesia 0.00
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 0.00
Italy 0.00
Japan 0.00
Lao People's Democratic Republic 0.00
Liberia 0.00
Madagascar 0.00
Malaysia 0.00
Mali 0.00
Mozambique 0.00
Myanmar 0.00
Nepal 0.00
Nigeria 0.00
Pakistan 0.00
Paraguay 0.00
Peru 0.00
Philippines 0.00
Republic of Korea 0.00
Russian Federation 0.00
Senegal 0.00
Sierra Leone 0.00
Sri Lanka 0.00
Thailand 0.00
Turkey 0.00
Uganda 0.00
United Republic of Tanzania 0.00
United States of America 0.00
Uruguay 0.00
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 0.00
Vietnam 0.00

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

Afghanistan 573.4
Argentina 354.8
Bangladesh 576.7
Benin 535.1
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) 354.1
Brazil 363.4
Burkina Faso 553.3
Cambodia 377.8
Cameroon 543.7
Chad 535.1
China 675.1
Colombia 397.7
Cote d'Ivoire 535.8
Democratic People's Republic of Korea 654.6
Democratic Republic of the Congo 535.6
Dominican Republic 428.4
Ecuador 390.3
Egypt 802.2
Ghana 535.5
Guinea 538.5
Guinea–Bissau 539.2
Guyana 382.0
India 607.9
Indonesia 382.3
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 726.7
Italy 567.9
Japan 636.0
Lao People's Democratic Republic 377.0
Liberia 535.3
Madagascar 535.0
Malaysia 401.2
Mali 561.0
Mozambique 535.5
Myanmar 380.7
Nepal 575.2
Nigeria 537.1
Pakistan 610.0
Paraguay 385.9
Peru 351.7
Philippines 399.5
Republic of Korea 678.2
Russian Federation 475.2
Senegal 569.9
Sierra Leone 535.1
Sri Lanka 591.1
Thailand 407.7
Turkey 694.5
Uganda 543.3
United Republic of Tanzania 537.4
United States of America 490.4
Uruguay 377.6
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) 546.2
Vietnam 416.6

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

Afghanistan -573.4
Argentina -354.8
Bangladesh -576.7
Benin -535.1
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) -354.1
Brazil -363.4
Burkina Faso -553.3
Cambodia -377.8
Cameroon -543.7
Chad -535.1
China -675.1
Colombia -397.7
Cote d'Ivoire -535.8
Democratic People's Republic of Korea -654.6
Democratic Republic of the Congo -535.6
Dominican Republic -428.4
Ecuador -390.3
Egypt -802.2
Ghana -535.5
Guinea -538.5
Guinea–Bissau -539.2
Guyana -382.0
India -607.9
Indonesia -382.3
Iran (Islamic Republic of) -726.7
Italy -567.9
Japan -636.0
Lao People's Democratic Republic -377.0
Liberia -535.3
Madagascar -535.0
Malaysia -401.2
Mali -561.0
Mozambique -535.5
Myanmar -380.7
Nepal -575.2
Nigeria -537.1
Pakistan -610.0
Paraguay -385.9
Peru -351.7
Philippines -399.5
Republic of Korea -678.2
Russian Federation -475.2
Senegal -569.9
Sierra Leone -535.1
Sri Lanka -591.1
Thailand -407.7
Turkey -694.5
Uganda -543.3
United Republic of Tanzania -537.4
United States of America -490.4
Uruguay -377.6
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) -546.2
Vietnam -416.6

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

Afghanistan -1,062
Argentina -640.5
Bangladesh -1,065
Benin -992.4
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) -639.8
Brazil -649.0
Burkina Faso -1,010
Cambodia -699.9
Cameroon -1,001
Chad -992.5
China -1,219
Colombia -683.4
Cote d'Ivoire -993.2
Democratic People's Republic of Korea -1,198
Democratic Republic of the Congo -992.9
Dominican Republic -714.1
Ecuador -676.0
Egypt -1,387
Ghana -992.8
Guinea -995.8
Guinea–Bissau -996.5
Guyana -667.7
India -1,096
Indonesia -704.5
Iran (Islamic Republic of) -1,312
Italy -1,053
Japan -1,179
Lao People's Democratic Republic -699.1
Liberia -992.6
Madagascar -992.4
Malaysia -723.3
Mali -1,018
Mozambique -992.8
Myanmar -702.8
Nepal -1,064
Nigeria -994.5
Pakistan -1,098
Paraguay -671.6
Peru -637.4
Philippines -721.6
Republic of Korea -1,221
Russian Federation -865.9
Senegal -1,027
Sierra Leone -992.4
Sri Lanka -1,080
Thailand -729.8
Turkey -1,279
Uganda -1,000
United Republic of Tanzania -994.7
United States of America -846.7
Uruguay -663.3
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) -831.9
Vietnam -738.8

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Unit: US$/t CO₂‑eq  

Afghanistan -222.1
Argentina -80.82
Bangladesh -221.5
Benin -147.2
Bolivia (Plurinational State of) -81.49
Brazil -82.60
Burkina Faso -151.2
Cambodia -112.5
Cameroon -149.3
Chad -147.7
China -168.9
Colombia -87.77
Cote d'Ivoire -147.6
Democratic People's Republic of Korea -165.8
Democratic Republic of the Congo -147.9
Dominican Republic -92.82
Ecuador -86.99
Egypt -211.5
Ghana -146.9
Guinea -148.1
Guinea–Bissau -148.2
Guyana -85.72
India -232.1
Indonesia -111.5
Iran (Islamic Republic of) -137.8
Italy -110.0
Japan -162.2
Lao People's Democratic Republic -112.2
Liberia -147.6
Madagascar -147.9
Malaysia -116.6
Mali -152.2
Mozambique -147.7
Myanmar -112.4
Nepal -222.2
Nigeria -148.0
Pakistan -233.3
Paraguay -85.41
Peru -80.22
Philippines -116.1
Republic of Korea -169.7
Russian Federation -90.08
Senegal -154.0
Sierra Leone -147.5
Sri Lanka -226.3
Thailand -118.1
Turkey -132.3
Uganda -149.1
United Republic of Tanzania -147.3
United States of America -190.1
Uruguay -84.18
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) -112.7
Vietnam -119.1

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Left Text Column Width

Cost per unit climate impact

The cost per t CO₂‑eq varies by country. Country-by-country results are shown in Table 3. The global weighted average is a savings of US$175.0/t CO₂‑eq (Table 4). Note that this is the same for both 100- and 20-yr results.

Table 4. Weighted average cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: US$/t CO₂‑eq

Weighted average -175.0
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

Learning curve data are not available for improved rice cultivation.

Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as gradual, emergency brake, or delayed.

The noncontinuous flooding component of Improve Rice Production is an EMERGENCY BRAKE climate solution. It has a disproportionately fast impact after implementation because it reduces the short-lived climate pollutant methane. 

The nutrient management component is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. The cumulative effect over time builds as a straight line.

Caveats

Caveats like additionality and permanence do not apply to improve rice production as described here. If its carbon sequestration component were included, those caveats would apply.

Current Adoption

Noncontinuous Flooding

Rigorous, up-to-date country-level data about the extent of noncontinuous flooding in rice production are in short supply. We found five sources reporting adoption in seven major rice-producing countries. We used these to create regional averages and applied them to all countries that produce more than 100,000 ha of rice (paddy and upland). The total estimated current adoption is 48.65 Mha, or 47% of global rice paddy area (Table 5). This should be considered an extremely rough estimate. 

The available sources encompass different forms of noncontinuous flooding, including alternate wetting and drying (Philippines, Vietnam, Bangladesh), mid-season drainage (Japan), or both (China). 

Table 5. Current adoption level (2025).

Unit: Mha

Mean 48.65

Noncontinuous flooding, ha installed.

Left Text Column Width

Nutrient Management

We based nutrient management adoption on our analysis of the overapplication of nitrogen fertilizer on a national basis. Rather than calculate adoption in a parallel way to noncontinuous flooding, this approach provided a national average overapplication rate (the amount of nitrogen fertilizer which is applied that is not needed for crop growth and ends up as nitrous oxide emissions). We assume that every hectare of noncontinuous flooding is also using nutrient management. 

Adoption Trend

We assume the adoption of both noncontinuous flooding and nutrient management for each hectare.

Adoption trend information here takes the form of annual growth rate (%), with a median of 3.76% (Table 6). Adoption rate data are somewhat scarce. 

Table 6. Adoption trend.

Unit: %

25th percentile 3.00
Median (50th percentile) 3.76
75th percentile 4.25

Percent annual growth rate.

Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

There are barriers to adoption of these techniques and practices. Not all paddy rice is suitable for improved water management, and under certain conditions, undesirable yield reductions are possible (Bo et al., 2022). Other challenges include water access, coordinating water usage between multiple users, and ownership of water pumps (Nabuurs et al., 2022).

There are many challenges in estimating paddy rice land. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) statistics can overcount because land that produces more than one crop is double or triple counted. Satellite imagery is often blocked by clouds in the tropical humid areas where rice paddies are concentrated. 

A comprehensive effort to calculate total world rice paddy land reported 66.00 Mha of irrigated paddy and 63.00 Mha of rain-fed paddy (Salmon et al., 2015). Our own calculation of the combined paddy rice area of countries producing over 100,000 ha of rice found 104.1 Mha of paddy rice.

We summed high-resolution maps of paddy rice area appropriate for noncontinuous flooding (Bo et al., 2022) over maps of irrigated and rain-fed rice areas (Salmon et al., 2015) to determine a maximum adoption ceiling for each country. Several countries have already exceeded this threshold, and we included their higher adoption in our calculation. The sum of these, and therefore, the median adoption ceiling, is 77.53 Mha (Table 7).

Table 7. Adoption ceiling: upper limit for adoption level.

Unit: Mha

Median 77.53

Mha of improved rice production installed.

Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

Table 8. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mha

Current adoption 48.65
Achievable – low 49.56
Achievable – high 77.53
Adoption ceiling 77.53

Mha of improved rice production installed.

Left Text Column Width

Given that both China and Japan have already attained adoption rates above our adoption ceiling (Bo et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2019), we selected for our adoption ceiling our Achievable – High adoption level, which is 77.53 Mha (Table 8).

In contrast, the countries with the lowest adoption rates had rates under 3%. In the absence of a modest adoption example, we chose to use current adoption plus 10% as our Achievable – Low adoption level. This provides an adoption of 49.56 Mha.

As described under Adoption Ceiling above, adoption of nutrient management is already weighted based on regional or national adoption and should not be overcounted in the achievable range calculations.

We calculated the potential impact of improved rice, on a 100-yr basis, at 0.10 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr from current adoption, and 0.10, 0.16, and 0.16 from Achievable – Low, Achievable – High, and Adoption Ceiling, respectively (Table 9). On a 20-yr basis, the totals are 0.29, 0.29, 0.46, and 0.46, respectively.

Table 9. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr

Current adoption 0.10
Achievable – low 0.10
Achievable – high 0.16
Adoption ceiling 0.16

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr

Current adoption 0.29
Achievable – low 0.29
Achievable – high 0.46
Adoption ceiling 0.46
Left Text Column Width

The IPCC estimated a technical potential at 0.3 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, with 0.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr as economically achievable at US$100/t CO₂ (100-yr basis; Nabuurs et al., 2022). Achieving the adoption ceiling of 76% of global flooded rice production could reduce rice paddy methane by 47% (Bo et al., 2022). Applying this percentage to the IPCC reported total paddy methane emissions of 0.49–0.73 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr yields a reduction of 0.23–0.34 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Nabuurs et al., 2022). Roe et al. (2021) calculated 0.19 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Note that these benchmarks only calculate methane from paddy rice, while we also addressed nitrous oxide from nutrient management.

Additional Benefits

The additional benefits of improved rice production arise from both practices (noncontinuous flooding and improved nutrient management) that form this solution. 

Health

Noncontinuous flooding can reduce the accumulation of arsenic in rice grains (Ishfaq et al., 2020). Arsenic is a carcinogen that is responsible for thousands of premature deaths in South and Southeast Asia (Jameel et al., 2021). The amount of arsenic reduced can vary by 0–90% depending upon the timing of the wetting and drying periods (Ishfaq et al., 2020).

Land Resources

Better nutrient management improves soil fertility and health, increasing resilience to extreme heat and droughts. Noncontinuous flooding also slows down the rate of soil salinization, protecting soil from degradation (Carrijo et al., 2017). 

Water Resources

Rice irrigation is responsible for 40% of all freshwater use in Asia, and rice requires two to three times more water per metric ton of grain than other cereals (Surendran et al., 2021). Field studies across South and Southeast Asia have shown that noncontinuous flooding can typically reduce irrigation requirements 20–30% compared to conventional flooded systems (Suwanmaneepong et al., 2023; Carrijo et al., 2017) without adversely affecting rice yield or grain quality. This reduction in water usage alleviates pressure on water resources in drought-prone areas (Alauddin et al., 2020).

Adoption of noncontinuous flooding up to the adoption ceiling of 76% would reduce rice irrigation needs by 25%. 

Water Quality

Both noncontinuous flooding and improved nutrient management reduce water pollution. Nitrogen utilization is generally poor using existing growing techniques, with two-thirds of the nitrogen fertilizer being lost through surface runoff and denitrification (Zhang et al., 2021). While noncontinuous flooding is primarily a water-efficiency and methane reduction technique, it can improve nitrogen use efficiency and reduce nitrogen runoff into water bodies (Liang et al., 2017; Liang et al., 2023). Improved nutrient management also reduces the excess fertilizers that could end up in local water bodies. Both mechanisms can mitigate eutrophication and harmful algal blooms, protect aquatic ecosystems, and ensure safer drinking water supplies (Bijay-Sing and Craswell, 2021). 

Risks

Not all paddies are suitable, with variables including soil type, irrigation infrastructure and ownership, community partitioning and scheduling of water resources, field size, and more (Nabuurs et al., 2022; Enriquez et al., 2021).

Many rice farmers in Asia do not directly control irrigation access, but instead use a municipal system, which is not always available when needed for noncontinuous flooding production. In addition, they may not actually experience cost savings, as pricing may be based on area rather than amount of water. An additional change is that multiple plots owned or rented by multiple farmers may be irrigated by a single irrigation gate, meaning that all must agree to an irrigation strategy. Generally speaking, pump-based irrigation areas see the best adoption, with poor adoption in gravity-based irrigation system areas. Improved irrigation infrastructure is necessary to increase adoption of noncontinuous flooding (Enriquez et al., 2021). 

Continuously flooded paddies have lower weed pressure than noncontinuous paddies, so noncontinuous flooding can raise labor costs or increase herbicide use. Not all rice varieties grow well in noncontinuous flooding (Li et al., 2024). In addition, it is difficult for farmers, especially smallholders, to monitor soil moisture level, which makes determining the timing of the next irrigation difficult (Livsey et al., 2019). 

Interactions with Other Solutions

We did not identify any aligned or competing interactions with other solutions.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha rice paddies

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
2.03
units
Current 4.865×10⁷ 04.956×10⁷7.753×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.1 0.10.16
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-175
Emergency Brake

CH₄ , N₂O

Trade-offs

In some cases, rice yields are reduced (Nabuurs et al., 2022). However, this has been excluded from our calculations because we worked from the adoption ceiling of Bo et al. (2022), which explicitly addresses the question of maximum adoption without reducing yields.

Long-term impacts on soil health of water-saving irrigation strategies have not been widely studied, but a meta-analysis by Livsey et al. (2019) indicates a risk of decreases in soil carbon and fertility.

% of area
0100

Paddy rice area, 2020

Rice is the third most widely grown crop in terms of cultivated area and provides more calories directly to people than any other crop. It also is an important source of methane emissions. Here we show pixels in which at least 1% of the area is devoted to paddy (flooded) rice. Upland (unflooded) rice is included in the Improve Nutrient Management solution.

Cao, P., Bilotto, F., Gonzalez Fischer, C., Mueller, N. D., Carlson, K. M., Gerber, J.S., Smith, P., Tubiello, F. N., West, P. C., You, L., & Herrero, M. (2025). Mapping greenhouse gas emissions from global cropland circa 2020 [Data set, PREPRINT Version 1]. In review at Nature Climate Change. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6622054/v1 

Tang, F. H. M., Nguyen, T. H., Conchedda, G., Casse, L., Tubiello, F. N., & Maggi, F. (2024). CROPGRIDS: A global geo-referenced dataset of 173 crops [Data set]. Scientific Data, 11(1), 413. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03247-7

% of area
0100

Paddy rice area, 2020

Rice is the third most widely grown crop in terms of cultivated area and provides more calories directly to people than any other crop. It also is an important source of methane emissions. Here we show pixels in which at least 1% of the area is devoted to paddy (flooded) rice. Upland (unflooded) rice is included in the Improve Nutrient Management solution.

Cao, P., Bilotto, F., Gonzalez Fischer, C., Mueller, N. D., Carlson, K. M., Gerber, J.S., Smith, P., Tubiello, F. N., West, P. C., You, L., & Herrero, M. (2025). Mapping greenhouse gas emissions from global cropland circa 2020 [Data set, PREPRINT Version 1]. In review at Nature Climate Change. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6622054/v1 

Tang, F. H. M., Nguyen, T. H., Conchedda, G., Casse, L., Tubiello, F. N., & Maggi, F. (2024). CROPGRIDS: A global geo-referenced dataset of 173 crops [Data set]. Scientific Data, 11(1), 413. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03247-7

Maps Introduction

Improved rice production has its greatest potential in regions where there is substantial paddy rice production and adequate water availability to allow farmers to implement drain/flood cycles throughout the growing season (noncontinuous flooding). Rice production is dominated by Asia, so the greatest potential for solution uptake is there. Brazil and the United States rank 9th and 11th for rice production, and each has regions where this solution would have multiple benefits. Because improved rice production solution may not decrease yields, not all paddy rice-growing areas are suitable. There are regions of great potential throughout Southeast Asia, particularly in Vietnam and Thailand.

Other factors besides biophysical factors govern the suitability of noncontinuous flooding. For example, farmers are more likely to release water in their fields if they are confident that water will be available for subsequent irrigation, which often depends on community structures. 

There is very scarce information on adoption of noncontinuous flooding, although Bangladesh, China, Japan, and South Korea have relatively high uptake.

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Rice Production
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Set national targets for improving rice production and incorporate them into planning documents such as Nationally Determined Contributions.
  • If possible and appropriate, encourage rice farmers to adopt noncontinuous flooding.
  • Use policies and regulations to improve nutrient management by focusing on the four principles – right rate, right type of fertilizer, right time, and right place.
  • Invest in research and development to improve rice varieties to require less water, have shorter growth periods, produce higher yields, and tolerate more stress.
  • Invest in research and development to improve water monitoring technology and discover alternative fertilizers.
  • Improve the reliability of water irrigation systems.
  • Work with farmers and private organizations to improve data collection on advanced cultivation uptake and water management.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving rice cultivation.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Practice noncontinuous flooding.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as tax rebates and subsidies for improved rice cultivation.
  • Improve nutrient management by focusing on the four principles – right rate, right type of fertilizer, right time, and right place.
  • Plant improved rice varieties that require less water, have shorter growth periods, produce higher yields, and tolerate more stress.
  • Work with policymakers and private organizations to improve data collection on advanced cultivation uptake and water management.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving rice cultivation.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Source food from farms that practice improved rice cultivation.
  • Invest in companies that utilize improved rice cultivation techniques or produce the necessary inputs.
  • Promote products that employ improved rice cultivation techniques and educate consumers about the importance of the practice.
  • Enter into offtake agreements for rice grown with improved techniques.
  • Invest in research and development to improve rice varieties to require less water, have shorter growth periods, produce higher yields, and tolerate more stress.
  • Invest in research and development to improve water monitoring technology and identify alternative fertilizers.
  • Work with farmers and private organizations to improve data collection on advanced cultivation uptake and water management.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved rice cultivation techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving rice cultivation.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Source food from farms that practice improved rice cultivation.
  • Start model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor rice production.
  • Help develop rice varieties to require less water, have shorter growth periods, produce higher yields, and tolerate more stress.
  • Help improve water monitoring technology and develop alternative fertilizers.
  • Work with farmers and other private organizations to improve data collection on advanced cultivation uptake and water management.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved rice cultivation techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving rice cultivation.

Further information:

Investors
  • Ensure portfolio companies and company procurement use improved rice cultivation techniques.
  • Offer financial services, including low-interest loans, micro-financing, and grants to support improving rice cultivation.
  • Invest in electronically-traded funds (ETFs); environmental, social and governance (ESG) funds; and green bonds issued by companies committed to improved rice cultivation.
  • Invest in companies developing technologies that support improved nutrient management, such as precision fertilizer applicators, alternative fertilizers, soil management equipment, and software.
  • Invest in start-ups that aim to improve rice varieties to require less water, have shorter growth periods, produce higher yields, and tolerate more stress.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving rice cultivation.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Work with agricultural supply chain sources to ensure partners employ improved rice production methods, if relevant.
  • Start model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Offer financial services, including low-interest loans, micro-financing, and grants to support improving rice cultivation.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor rice production.
  • Help develop rice varieties to require less water, have shorter growth periods, produce higher yields, and tolerate more stress.
  • Help improve water monitoring technology and identify alternative fertilizers.
  • Work with farmers and other private organizations to improve data collection on advanced cultivation uptake and water management.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved rice cultivation techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving rice cultivation.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Source rice from farms that practice improved rice cultivation.
  • Start model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor rice production.
  • Help develop rice varieties to require less water, have shorter growth periods, produce higher yields, and tolerate more stress.
  • Help improve water monitoring technology and identify alternative fertilizers.
  • Work with farmers and other private organizations to improve data collection on advanced cultivation uptake and water management.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved rice cultivation techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving rice cultivation.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Improve technology and cost-effectiveness of precision fertilizer application, slow-release fertilizer, alternative organic fertilizers, nutrient recycling, and monitoring equipment.
  • Create tracking and monitoring software to support farmers' decision-making.
  • Research the application of AI and robotics for precise fertilizer application and water management.
  • Improve data and analytics to monitor soil and water quality, assist farmers, support policymaking, and assess the impacts of policies.
  • Improve rice methane emissions modeling and monitoring using all available technologies such as satellites, low-flying instruments, and on-the-ground methods.
  • Develop education and training applications to promote improved rice cultivation techniques and provide real-time feedback.
  • Improve data collection on water management and advanced cultivation uptake.
  • Improve rice varieties to require less water, have shorter growth periods, produce higher yields, and tolerate more stress.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Purchase rice from farms or suppliers that practice improved rice cultivation.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor rice production.
  • Work with farmers and other private organizations to improve data collection on advanced cultivation uptake and water management.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved rice cultivation techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving rice cultivation.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

There is high consensus on the effectiveness and potential of noncontinuous flooding and nutrient management (Jiang et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2023; Nabuurs et al., 2022; Qian et al., 2023). 

Hergoualc’h et al. (2019) describe methane reduction and associated nitrous oxide increase from noncontinuous flooding in detail. Bo et al. (2022) calculate that 76% of global rice paddy area is suitable to switch to noncontinuous flooding without reducing yields. Carlson et al. (2016) provide emissions intensities for croplands, including rice production. Ludemann et al. (2024) provide country-by-country and crop-by-crop fertilizer use data. Qian et al. (2023) review methane emissions production and reduction potential.

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 12 reviews and meta-analyses and 26 original studies reflecting current evidence from countries across the Asian rice production region. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Appendix

In this analysis, we calculated the potential for reducing crop nitrogen inputs and associated nitrous oxide emissions by integrating spatially explicit, crop-specific data on nitrogen inputs, crop yields, attainable yields, irrigated extent, and climate. Broadly, we calculated a “target” yield-scaled nitrogen input rate based on pixels with low yield gaps and calculated the difference between nitrous oxide emissions under the current rate and under the hypothetical target emissions rate, using nitrous oxide emissions factors disaggregated by fertilizer type and climate. 

Emissions Factors

We used Tier 1 emissions factors from the IPCC 2019 Refinement to the 2006 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, including direct emissions factors as well as indirect emissions from volatilization and leaching pathways. Direct emissions factors represent the proportion of applied nitrogen emitted as nitrous oxide, while we calculated volatilization and leaching emissions factors by multiplying the proportion of applied nitrogen lost through these pathways by the proportion of volatilized or leached nitrogen ultimately emitted as nitrous oxide. Including both direct and indirect emissions, organic and synthetic fertilizers emit 4.97 kg CO₂‑eq/kg nitrogen and 8.66 kg CO₂‑eq/kg nitrogen, respectively, in wet climates, and 2.59 kg CO₂‑eq/kg nitrogen and 2.38 kg CO₂‑eq/kg nitrogen in dry climates. We included uncertainty bounds (2.5th and 97.5th percentiles) for all emissions factors. 

We classified each pixel as “wet” or “dry” using an aridity index (AI) threshold of 0.65, calculated as the ratio of annual precipitation to potential evapotranspiration (PET) from TerraClimate data (1991–2020), based on a threshold of 0.65. For pixels in dry climates that contained irrigation, we took the weighted average of wet and dry emissions factors based on the fraction of cropland that was irrigated (Mehta et al., 2024). We excluded irrigated rice from this analysis due to large differences in nitrous oxide dynamics in flooded rice systems.

Current, Target, and Avoidable Nitrogen Inputs and Emissions

Using highly disaggregated data on nitrogen inputs from Adalibieke et al. (2024) for 21 crop groups, we calculated total crop-specific inputs of synthetic and organic nitrogen. We then averaged over 2016–2020 to reduce the influence of interannual variability in factors like fertilizer prices. These values are subsequently referred to as “current” nitrogen inputs. We calculated nitrous oxide emissions under current nitrogen inputs as the sum of the products of nitrogen inputs and the climatically relevant emissions factors for each fertilizer type.

Next, we calculated target nitrogen application rates in terms of kg nitrogen per ton of crop yield using data on actual and attainable yields for 17 crops from Gerber et al., 2024. For each crop, we first identified pixels in which the ratio of actual to attainable yields was above the 80th percentile globally. The target nitrogen application rate was then calculated as the 20th percentile of nitrogen application rates across low-yield-gap pixels. Finally, we calculated total target nitrogen inputs as the product of actual yields and target nitrogen input rates. We calculated hypothetical nitrous oxide emissions from target nitrogen inputs as the product of nitrogen inputs and the climatically relevant emissions factor for each fertilizer type.

The difference between current and target nitrogen inputs represents the amount by which nitrogen inputs could hypothetically be reduced without compromising crop productivity (i.e., “avoidable” nitrogen inputs). We calculated avoidable nitrous oxide emissions as the difference between nitrous oxide emissions with current nitrogen inputs and those with target nitrogen inputs. For crops for which no yield or attainable yield data were available, we applied the average percent reduction in nitrogen inputs under the target scenario from available crops to the nitrogen input data for missing crops to calculate the avoidable nitrogen inputs and emissions. 

This simple and empirically driven method aimed to identify realistically low but nutritionally adequate nitrogen application rates by including only pixels with low yield gaps, which are unlikely to be substantially nutrient-constrained. We did not control for other factors affecting nitrogen availability, such as historical nutrient application rates or depletion, rotation with nitrogen fixing crops, or tillage and residue retention practices.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Reduce Crop Residue Burning

Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean (FALO)
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Agriculture Practices
Image
Cornfield with crop residue
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Crop residues are plant materials left after harvest, such as stalks, leaves, and seed husks. Many farmers burn crop residues in the field, which emits CO₂, , methane, and nitrous oxide. Black carbon – a form of air pollution that contributes to hundreds of thousands of deaths annually– is also produced. This solution avoids the burning of crop residues through the adoption of lower-emission options including straw balers, no-till seeders that can plant through residues, and developing markets for residue products. Some promising new techniques are also under development that could further increase future adoption and effectiveness of this solution.

Income & work,Health
Land resources,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Reducing crop residue burning is a highly recommended climate solution.
Overview

When left in the field, crop residues improve soil fertility. But when burned, the residues cause serious health problems and reduce air quality. So why do so many farmers burn crop residues? In fields in which multiple crops are sown in succession in the same year, there is often not enough time for residues to decompose before the next crop is sown, making seeding difficult (Dutta et al., 2022). In many countries – including those with vast agricultural sectors, such as India and Indonesia – crop harvesting has become mechanized, but residue removal equipment has not. Low labor availability poses a further challenge, because manual residue removal is highly labor-intensive (Dutta et al., 2022). Meanwhile, a lack of markets and processing infrastructure for residues remains a barrier in many regions as well (Dutta et al., 2022). For many farmers facing the challenges noted above, burning crop residues is often the lowest-cost option (Krishna & Mkondiwa, 2023). 

Crop residue burning produces CO₂, nitrous oxide, and methane (Dong et al., 2019). It also produces black carbon – a form of particulate matter that contributes to climate change and poses very serious health concerns. In India alone, an estimated 600,000 people die each year from air pollution, which is severely impacted by widespread crop residue burning (Krishna & Mkondiwa, 2023). 

There are many alternatives to crop residue burning that produce fewer climate pollutants. One approach leaves residues in the field but circumvents seed planting issues. For example, conservation agriculture and other reduced tillage techniques – described in the Improve Annual Cropping solution – use modern equipment capable of seeding through crop residues without difficulty (Dutta et al., 2022, Kabange et al., 2023). Some promising new techniques can accelerate residue decomposition in the field to facilitate seed planting, though these techniques may generate associated emissions of their own (Krishna & Mkondiwa, 2023). 

Another approach uses straw baling equipment to harvest residues for off-farm uses. In countries with developed markets, residues that are baled or otherwise collected from the field can be used or sold for compost production, bioenergy applications, livestock feed and bedding, natural building materials, feedstock for manufacturing of paper and other products, mushroom growing substrate, and more (Dutta et al., 2022). Given that many climate solutions require biomass feedstocks, there is likely to be mounting competition for this limited resource in the near future, so increasing availability of crop residues via reduced burning is strategically advantageous (Toensmeier & Garrity, 2020).

In this analysis, we assume different approaches for the three primary sources of crop residues: maize, rice, and wheat. For maize and wheat, we assume adoption of no-till seeding equipment; for rice, we assume the use of balers. 

References

Aalde, H., Gonzalez, P., Gytarsky, M., Krug, T., Kurz, W. A., Lasco, R. D., Martino, D. L., McConkey, B. G., Ogle, S., Paustian, K., Raison, J., Ravindranath, N. H., Schoene, D., Smith, P., Somogyi, Z., van Amstel, A., & Verchot, L. (2006). Chapter 2: Generic methodologies applicable to multiple land-use categories. In 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories (Vol. 4, pp. 2.1–2.59). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Link to source: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_02_Ch2_Generic.pdf

Bhuvaneshwari, S., Hettiarachchi, H., & Meegoda, J. N. (2019). Crop residue burning in India: Policy challenges and potential solutions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(5), 832. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050832

Bikkina, S., Andersson, A., Kirillova, E. N., Holmstrand, H., Tiwari, S., Srivastava, A. K., Bisht, D. S., & Gustafsson, Ö. (2019). Air quality in megacity Delhi affected by countryside biomass burning. Nature Sustainability, 2(3), 200–205. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0219-0

Bond, T. C., Doherty, S. J., Fahey, D. W., Forster, P. M., Berntsen, T., DeAngelo, B. J., Flanner, M. G., Ghan, S., Kärcher, B., Koch, D., Kinne, S., Kondo, Y., Quinn, P. K., Sarofim, M. C., Schultz, M. G., Schulz, M., Verkataraman, C., Zhang, H., Zhang, S., … Zender, C. S. (2013). Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118(11), 5380–5552. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50171 

Clapp, J. (2021). Explaining growing glyphosate use: The political economy of herbicide-dependent agriculture. Global Environmental Change, 67, Article 102239. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102239

Damania, R., Polasky, S., Ruckelshaus, M., Russ, J., Amann, M., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Gerber, J., Hawthorne, P., Heger, M. P., Mamun, S., Ruta, G., Schmitt, R., Smith, J., Vogl, A., Wagner, F., & Zaveri, E. (2023). Nature’s frontiers: Achieving sustainability, efficiency, and prosperity with natural capital [Report]. World Bank Group. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1923-0 

Dey, D., Gyeltshen, T., Aich, A., Naskar, M., & Roy, A. (2020). Climate adaptive crop-residue management for soil-function improvement; recommendations from field interventions at two agro-ecological zones in South Asia. Environmental Research, 183, 109164. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109164

Dong, H., MacDonald, J. D., Ogle, S. M., Sanz Sanchez, M. J., & Rocha, M. T. (2019). Agriculture, forestry, and other land use. In E. Calvo Buendia, K. Tanabe, A. Kranjc, J. Baasansuren, M. Fukuda, S. Ngarize, A. Osako, Y. Pyrozhenko, P. Shermanau, & S. Federici (Eds.), 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories (Vol. 4). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Link to source: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/vol4.html 

Dutta, A., Patra, A., Hazra, K. K., Nath, C. P., Kumar, N., & Rakshit, A. (2022). A state of the art review in crop residue burning in India: Previous knowledge, present circumstances and future strategies. Environmental Challenges, 8, Article 100581. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100581

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.). FAO-FAOSTAT: Food and agriculture data [Data set]. Retrieved December 12, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home 

Fu, B., Chen, L., Huang, H., Qu, P., & Wei, Z. (2021). Impacts of crop residues on soil health: A review. Environmental Pollutants and Bioavailability, 33(1), 164–173. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/26395940.2021.1948354

Gupta, S. (2019). Agriculture crop residue burning and its consequences on respiration health of school-going children. Global Pediatric Health, 6, 2333794X19874679. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/2333794X19874679

Huang, T., Ma, J., Song, S., Ling, Z., Macdonald, R. W., Gao, H., Tao, S., Shen, H., Zhao, Y., Liu, X., Tian, C., Li, Y., Jia, H., Lian, L., & Mao, X. (2022). Health and environmental consequences of crop residue burning correlated with increasing crop yields midst India’s Green Revolution. Npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 5(1), 81. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-022-00306-x

Jain, N., Bhatia, A., & Pathak, H. (2014). Emission of air pollutants from crop residue burning in India. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 14(1), 422–430. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2013.01.0031

Kabange, N. R., Kwon, Y., Lee, S.-M., Kang, J.-W., Cha, J.-K., Park, H., Dzorkpe, G. D., Shin, D., Oh, K.-W., & Lee, J.-H. (2023). Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from crop production and management practices, and livestock: A review. Sustainability, 15(22), Article 15889. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215889

Kaskaoutis, D. G., Kumar, S., Sharma, D., Singh, R. P., Kharol, S. K., Sharma, M., Singh, A. K., Singh, S., Singh, A., & Singh, D. (2014). Effects of crop residue burning on aerosol properties, plume characteristics, and long‐range transport over northern India. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 119(9), 5424–5444. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021357

Kaur, M., Malik, D. P., Malhi, G. S., Sardana, V., Bolan, N. S., Lal, R., & Siddique, K. H. M. (2022). Rice residue management in the Indo-Gangetic Plains for climate and food security: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 42(92). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00817-0

Krishna, V. V., & Mkondiwa, M. (2023). Economics of crop residue management. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 15(1), 19–39. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-101422-090019 

Kumar, P., Kumar, S., & Joshi, L. (2015). Socioeconomic and Environmental Implications of Agricultural Residue Burning. Springer India. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2014-5

Lan, R., Eastham, S. D., Liu, T., Norford, L. K., & Barrett, S. R. H. (2022). Air quality impacts of crop residue burning in India and mitigation alternatives. Nature Communications, 13(1), 6537. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34093-z

Lorenz, K., & Lal, R. (2018). Carbon sequestration in agricultural ecosystems (1st ed.). Springer. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92318-5 

Nabuurs, G.-J., Mrabet, R., Hatab, A. A., Bustamante, M., Clark, H., Havlík, P., House, J. I., Mbow, C., Ninan, K. N., Popp, A., Roe, S., Sohngen, B., & Towprayoon, S. (2022). Agriculture, forestry and other land uses (AFOLU). In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, & J. Malley (Eds.), Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 747–860). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.009 

Prateep Na Talang, R., Na Sorn, W., Polruang, S., & Sirivithayapakorn, S. (2024). Alternative crop residue management practices to mitigate the environmental and economic impacts of open burning of agricultural residues. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 14372. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-65389-3

Raza, M. H., Abid, M., Faisal, M., Yan, T., Akhtar, S., & Adnan, K. M. M. (2022). Environmental and health impacts of crop residue burning: Scope of sustainable crop residue management practices. International Journal of Environmental Research for Public Health, 19(8), Article 4753. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19084753

Sarkar, S., Singh, R. P., & Chauhan, A. (2018). Increasing health threat to greater parts of India due to crop residue burning. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2(8), e327–e328. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30166-9

Sharma, A. R., Kharol, S. K., K. V. S. Badarinath, & Darshan Singh. (2010). Impact of agriculture crop residue burning on atmospheric aerosol loading – a study over Punjab State, India. Annales Geophysicae, 28(2), 367–379. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-28-367-2010

Singh, D., Dhiman, S. K., Kumar, V., Babu, R., Shree, K., Priyadarshani, A., Singh, A., Shakya, L., Nautiyal, A., & Saluja, S. (2022). Crop residue burning and its relationship between health, agriculture value addition, and regional finance. Atmosphere, 13(9), Article 1405. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13091405

Toensmeier, E., & Garrity, D. (2020). The biomass bottleneck. Scientific American, 323(2), 64–72. Link to source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27411753 

Turmel, M.-S., Speratti, A., Baudron, F., Verhulst, N., & Govaerts, B. (2015). Crop residue management and soil health: A systems analysis. Agricultural Systems, 134, 6–16. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.05.009

Credits

Lead Fellows 

  • Eric Toensmeier

Contributors

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewers

  • James Gerber Ph.D.

  • Sarah Gleeson Ph.D.

  • Paul West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

We used the IPCC methodology to determine CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions per metric ton of burning avoided, for the three main crops whose burning is tracked by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): maize, rice, and wheat. These three crops collectively account for the majority of crop residue burning worldwide (Dong et al., 2019). We then weighted these emissions by the percentage of total burned residues that each crop represents. 

  • For methane, 0.06 t CO₂‑eq is reduced per metric ton of avoided burning of crop residues in GWP-100, and 0.18 t CO₂‑eq in GWP-20. 
  • For nitrous oxide, 0.02 t CO₂‑eq is reduced per metric ton of avoided burning of crop residues in both GWP-100 and GWP-20.
  • For CO₂, 1.27 t CO₂‑eq is reduced per metric ton of avoided burning of crop residues in both GWP-100 and GWP-20. We note that many estimates of emissions from crop residue burning do not include CO₂ because it is in balance with CO₂ removals through crop growth. We chose to include it here to ensure consistency with analysis of solutions related to biofuels. However, this approach makes the results of our analysis less comparable with national GHG inventories. 
  • The combined GWP-100 GHG total (CO₂,  nitrous oxide, and methane) is 1.34 t CO₂‑eq per metric ton of avoided burning. For GWP-20, the combined GHG total is 1.47. 

Note that we do not account for emissions stemming from alternative activities, such as the use of fuel for straw balers.

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /t burning avoided, 100-yr basis

Methane 0.06
Nitrous oxide 0.02
CO₂ 1.27
Combined total 1.34

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /t burning avoided, 20-yr basis

Methane 0.18
Nitrous oxide 0.02
CO₂ 1.27
Combined total 1.47
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Agricultural financial data are generally reported in land units (US$/ha/yr). In this analysis, we convert these units to US$/t of crop residues using standard t residue/ha values from the IPCC Guidelines (Aalde et al., 2006). 

For baseline rice, we assume the initial cost to be US$0.0/t because rice production is already established. Profit per hectare is based on regional figures from Damania et al. (2023), with a weighted average of US$82.5/t. Because initial cost is zero, net cost is US$82.5/t. Initial cost of reduced rice straw burning is based on purchase of rice baling equipment, assuming each baler serves 500 ha. The initial cost is US$4.55/t, profit is US$87.3/t, and net cost is –US$87.3/t.

For wheat, we assume adoption of no-till seeders, an important strategy to reduce burning given that it permits planting into crop residues (Dutta et al., 2022, Kabange et al., 2023, Kaur et al., 2022). The cost is based on purchase of a no-till seeder. Baseline initial cost is US$0.00/t. Profit per hectare is based on regional figures from Damania et al. (2023). Baseline profit is US$7.69/t and net cost is –US$7.69/t. No-till wheat’s initial cost is US$2.32/t, profit is US$40.7/t, and net cost is –US$43.0/t.

For maize, we assume no-till seeders, as for wheat. The prices per metric ton are different because of different values for t/ha of residue from IPCC (Dong et al., 2019). The cost is based on purchase of a no-till seeder. Baseline initial cost per metric ton is US$0.0. Profit per hectare is based on regional figures from Damania et al. (2023); profit is US$7.69/t, and net cost is –US$7.69/t. No-till maize’s initial cost is US$0.93/t. Profit is US$16.20/t, and net cost is –US$17.2/t.

We used a weighted average based on total t burned globally. Baseline initial values are US$0.0/t, profits are US$25.1/t, and net cost is –US$25.1/t. For reduced burning, the weighted initial cost is US$2.0/t, profit is US$3.4/t, and net cost is –US$38.8/t. 

Finally, cost per metric ton CO₂ is –US$10.2/t CO₂‑eq. Note that these are costs to the farmer; including the negative costs of health improvements and environmental benefits associated with reduced burning would make the practice even more economically desirable. See table 2.

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Median -10.2
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

Learning curve data are not available for reduced crop residue burning. However, it is likely that learning curves do exist for the baling and no-till seeding equipment modeled.

Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Reduce Crop Residue Burning is an EMERGENCY BRAKE climate solution. It has the potential to deliver a more rapid impact than gradual and delayed solutions. Because emergency brake solutions can deliver their climate benefits quickly, they can help accelerate our efforts to address dangerous levels of climate change. For this reason, they are a high priority.

Caveats

Caveats such as additionality and permanence do not apply to reduced crop residue burning.

Current Adoption

Because the amount of crop residues burned each year globally is on the rise, we have not quantified current adoption (FAO, n.d.). From 2002–2022, residues burned increased 22% (67 Mt). See Table 3.

Table 3. Current adoption level.

Unit: t of crop residue burning avoided

Median (50th percentile) not determined
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

We used FAO data showing metric tons burned for each year by country, for the three crops – maize, rice, and wheat – that account for the majority of burning (FAO, n.d.). We compared this to metric tons of those crops produced each year, and calculated the ratio of metric tons burned to metric tons produced, to make sure that reduced production of those crops did not appear as reduced burning. We express this as the “burn ratio,” which is metric tons of residues burned over total metric tons of residues produced.

During the past 20 years, the total metric tons of crop residues burned per year has increased, even as the percent of residues burned has decreased. This is because the total amount of crop residues has grown as the total cropping area – and crop yields per hectare – have increased. 

Adoption Ceiling

French Polynesia, Haiti, and Cameroon share the lowest burn ratios (ratio of metric tons of residue burned to metric tons of crops produced). Each country burns only 1% of crop residues. We have chosen this rate of 99% of residues unburned as our adoption ceiling. Applying this 99% reduction to our total metric tons burned per year provides an adoption ceiling of 364 Mt of burning avoided per year. See Table 4.

Table 4. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mt of crop residue burning avoided/yr

Median (50th percentile) 364
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

The FAO (n.d.) found that Turkmenistan has the highest percent reduction of total crop residue burning of any country, with 77.8% over a 20-year period – a reduction of 18,900 t. We use Turkmenistan’s rate of reduction as our Achievable – High level of adoption. Note that other countries had higher total metric tonnage of burning avoided – with South Africa at the highest, at 894,000 t of burning avoided, but this was a smaller percent reduction than that of Turkmenistan. Applying Turkmenistan’s rate to the total global amount burned would provide a reduction of 287 Mt/yr.

While total global metric tons of crop residues burned is increasing, the burn rate decreased 23% between 1998–2002 and 2018–2022. We used this global average reduction rate of 23% for our Achievable – Low level of adoption. Applying this rate to the total global amount burned would provide a reduction of 85 Mt/yr. See Table 5.

Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mt of avoided crop residue burning/yr

Current adoption 0
Achievable – low 85
Achievable - high 287
Adoption ceiling 364
Left Text Column Width

The GHG climate impact of current adoption is 0.00 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for all cases because current adoption is not determined (Table 6a–d). 

The GHG climate impact for Achievable – Low adoption is 0.11 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis). The climate impact for Achievable – High adoption is 0.39 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis). The climate impact for the Adoption Ceiling is 0.49 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis). See Table 6a.

Meanwhile, climate impacts for GWP-20 at Achievable – Low adoption levels in GWP-20 are 0.12 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, while climate impacts for GWP-20 at Achievable – High adoption levels in GWP-20 are 0.42 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Climate impacts for GWP-20 for the Adoption Ceiling in GWP-20 are 0.53 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. See Table 6b.

Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr

Current adoption 0.00
Achievable – low 0.11
Achievable – high 0.39
Adoption ceiling 0.49

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr

Current adoption 0.00
Achievable – low 0.12
Achievable – high 0.42
Adoption ceiling 0.53
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Sustainable crop residue management can not only reduce morbidity and mortality, but also significantly reduce health costs associated with crop residue burning (Raza et al., 2022). Farmers can increase revenues by adopting alternative practices that use crop residues instead of burning them, such as selling residues or producing biochar or bio-oils (Na Talang et al., 2024). 

Health

Poor air quality stemming from crop residue burning is harmful to health, and has demonstrably contributed to premature mortality in Southeast Asia (Lan et al., 2022). Air pollution from burning crop residue has been linked to eye irritation, headaches, nausea, skin irritation, allergies, respiratory infections, increased risk of lung cancer, and reduced lung function (Gupta, 2019; Huang et al., 2022; Raza et al., 2022). During burning season, farmers have reported increased severity of chronic illnesses as well as poorer productivity at work due to illness (Raza et al., 2022). Exposure to air pollution is particularly harmful for children because it can harm their development; Gupta et al. (2019) found that children living near agricultural fields had poorer lung function during periods of crop burning.

Land Resources

Crop residue burning can significantly degrade soils because burning leads to a loss of nutrients – especially nitrogen – that might otherwise be retained in the soil (Bhuvaneshwari et al., 2019). For example, in areas in northern India where crop residue burning is common, soils have very low nitrogen content compared with those in other regions of the country where crop burning is less common (Kumar et al., 2015). Burning also raises soil temperatures, which can kill beneficial microorganisms (Bhuvaneshwari et al., 2019). 

Studies have found that retaining crop residue on agricultural fields can benefit soil quality, soil organic carbon, soil moisture, nutrient cycling, and soil retention (Fu et al., 2021; Turmel et al., 2015). In experimental field sites in India and Bhutan, crop residue was used as mulch rather than burned, and agricultural production subsequently increased 36–64% (Dey et al., 2020).

Air Quality

Crop residue burning is a major source of air pollution because it generates fine particulate matter, CO₂, and carbon monoxide across regions such as South and Southeast Asia, and especially in countries including India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh (Jain et al., 2014; Kaskaoutis et al., 2014; Lan et al., 2022; Na Talang et al., 2024; Sharma et al., 2010, Singh et al., 2022). The burning of rice straw is often the largest contributor to air pollution, followed by wheat straw, sugarcane, and corn (Jain et al., 2014; Na Talang et al., 2024). In India, crop residue burning is most common in northern states such as Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh (Sakar et al., 2018). Because fine particulate matter and black carbon constitute a large percentage of the pollution, crop residue burning can trigger poor air quality hundreds of kilometers away from agricultural fields (Kaskaoutis et al., 2014). In fact, several studies have found that crop residue burning in northern India threatens the air quality throughout the country – especially in Delhi, the densely populated capital region (Bikkina et al., 2019; Lan et al., 2022; Sarkar et al., 2018).

Risks

For rice – mechanically harvesting of residues for off-farm use risks losses of soil fertility. There is also a risk that harvested residues will be burned off-farm, producing the same emissions and health concerns as on-field residue burning. (Dutta et al.,2022; Krishna and Mkondiwa, 2023; Raza et al., (2022); Singh et al., 2022. 

We assume wheat and maize production shifts to retaining residue in fields and subsequently uses no-till seeding equipment to plant through the residues. Risks associated with this practice include increased herbicide use (Clapp, 2021). 

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

This solution increases the supply of crop residues. In turn, this makes more raw material available for the following solutions:

Dashboard

Solution Basics

t of crop residue burning avoided

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
1.34
units/yr
Current Not Determined 08.5×10⁷2.87×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0 0.110.39
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-10
Emergency Brake

CO₂,  CH₄ , N₂O

Trade-offs

To maintain soil organic carbon levels, it is necessary to retain half of crop residues on the field. This practice applies to maize, rice, and wheat (Lorenz & Lal, 2018).

Action Word
Reduce
Solution Title
Crop Residue Burning
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Set national targets for reducing crop burning and incorporate them into planning documents, such as Nationally Determined Contributions.
  • Consult with farmers, businesses, and the public to determine the best way to reduce crop residue burning.
  • Use disincentives and incentives to stop crop residue burning, such as bans coupled with subsidies, no-interest loans, and educational programs.
  • Ensure bans are effectively enforced, but make sure that they are not the sole means of action.
  • Make sure subsidy programs are simple, disburse quickly, provide significant, practical assistance for farmers, and empower farmers to choose how they reduce burning. 
  • Work with businesses to ensure they don’t raise prices after introducing subsidies, using price caps if necessary and appropriate.
  • Collaborate with equipment rental companies to strengthen services, improve infrastructure, and apply financial incentives, such as subsidies to rentals.
  • Ensure educational programs provide ongoing technical support and offer farmers access to local academics and scientists.
  • Amend legislation and regulations that may inadvertently incentivize crop burning; allow farmers greater flexibility in selecting crops and choosing planting times.
  • Enhance infrastructure and education around alternatives to burning crop residue, such as composting, baling, mulching, introducing microorganisms, incorporating residue into the soil, or other off-field applications, such as animal feed or biochar.
  • Invest in R&D to find innovative uses for crop residue and identify the most impactful interventions at the local level.
  • Invest in R&D to develop applications for crop residue in building materials, such as cement mixes, insulation, and paper products; build out the infrastructure for these programs, if optimal.
  • Work with the private sector to develop markets for crop residue in order to limit burning.
  • Create model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers with regard to alternatives to crop residue burning.
  • Implement government programs that can collect and/or manage crop residue at no cost to farmers.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to the sustainable use of crop residue.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • View crop residue as a valuable output – and potential direct or indirect revenue source – rather than as a waste product.
  • Avoid burning crop residue, and find alternative methods for using residue, such as composting, mulching, introducing microorganisms, incorporating residue into the soil, or other off-field applications, such as biochar.
  • Engage with policymakers and advocate for policy and legal changes to facilitate crop residue burning alternatives.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives, such as tax rebates and subsidies, that advance alternatives to crop residue burning.
  • Collaborate with the private sector to develop markets for crop residue in order to limit burning.
  • Work with policymakers and private organizations to strengthen data collection related to crop residue quantities and feasible alternatives to burning.
  • Explore options for crop residue use, such as anaerobic digesters, and work with policymakers and businesses to form relevant partnerships to advance these alternatives to crop residue burning.
  • Help revise existing – or create new – high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to grow demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to the sustainable use of crop residue.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Work with agricultural supply chain sources to ensure partners employ, measure, and report on methods to reduce burning crop residue.
  • Integrate the reduction of burning crop residue into supply chain targets and policies.
  • Prioritize and monitor suppliers who commit to eliminate or reduce crop residue burning.
  • Do not raise prices on farmers if your products or services are subsidized. 
  • Help innovate uses for crop residue, develop markets, and promote products that offer alternatives to burning. 
  • Educate consumers about the importance of finding alternative uses for crop residue.
  • Enter into offtake agreements for crop residue with alternative uses, as well as for crop residue derivative products.
  • Offer financial services – including low-interest loans, microfinancing, and grants – to support alternatives to burning crop residue.
  • Help revise existing – or create new – high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms for crop residue.
  • Invest in companies that develop technologies supporting alternatives to crop residue burning, such as equipment, circular supply chains, and consumer products.
  • Fund startups that aim to improve markets for crop residue, develop innovative applications for the material, or improve crop residue removal practices.
  • Invest in R&D to develop applications for crop residue in building materials, such as cement mixes, insulation, and paper products; build out the infrastructure for these programs, if optimal.
  • Work with farmers, policymakers, and private organizations to strengthen data collection related to crop residue quantities and feasible alternatives to burning.
  • Engage with policymakers to make the case for policy and legal changes that can facilitate adoption of alternatives to crop burning.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to the sustainable use of crop residue.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Work with farm owners to ensure partners employ methods to reduce burning crop residue, if relevant.
  • Manage and operate government programs to collect and manage crop residue.
  • Consult with farmers, policymakers, businesses, and the public to determine the best way to reduce crop residue burning at the local level.
  • Start cooperatives that provide or rent equipment and/or services for crop residue management.
  • Create model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers with regard to alternatives to crop residue burning.
  • Help revise existing – or create new – high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms for crop residue.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor agriculture supply chains.
  • Help innovate uses for crop residue, develop markets, and promote products that offer alternatives to burning. 
  • Engage with policymakers to make the case for policy and legal changes that can facilitate adoption of alternatives to crop burning.
  • Educate farmers, policymakers, businesses, and consumers about the importance of using crop residue.
  • Manage local extension programs or implement government programs that collect and/or manage crop residue, at no cost to farmers.
  • Work with farmers, policymakers, and other private organizations to strengthen data collection on crop residue quantities and feasible alternatives to burning.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to the sustainable use of crop residue.

Further information:

Investors
  • Ensure relevant portfolio companies use alternatives to crop burning; place pressure on noncompliant portfolio companies.
  • Enter into offtake agreements for crop residue or associated products.
  • Offer financial services – including low-interest loans, microfinancing, and grants – to support alternatives to burning crop residue.
  • Invest in companies developing technologies that support alternatives to crop residue burning, such as equipment, circular supply chains, and consumer products.
  • Fund start-ups that aim to improve markets for crop residue, develop innovative applications for the material, or improve crop residue removal practices.
  • Invest in R&D to develop applications for crop residue in building materials, such as cement mixes, insulation, and paper products; build out the infrastructure for these programs, if optimal.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to the sustainable use of crop residue.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • If relevant, work with agricultural supply chain sources to ensure partners employ various methods to reduce crop residue burning.
  • Enter into offtake agreements for crop residue or associated products.
  • Offer financial services – including low-interest loans, micro-financing, and grants – to support alternatives to burning crop residue.
  • Invest in companies developing technologies that support alternatives to crop residue burning, such as equipment, circular supply chains, and consumer products.
  • Fund startups that aim to improve markets for crop residue, develop innovative applications for the material, or improve crop residue removal practices.
  • Invest in R&D to develop applications for crop residue in building materials, such as cement mixes, insulation, and paper products; build out the infrastructure for these programs, if optimal.
  • Manage and operate government programs to collect and manage crop residue.
  • Conduct robust consultations with farmers, policymakers, businesses, and the public to determine the best way to reduce burning crop residue at the local level.
  • Start cooperatives that provide equipment and/or services for crop residue management.
  • Create model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers with regard to alternatives to crop residue burning.
  • Help revise existing – or create new – high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms for crop residue.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor agriculture supply chains.
  • Help innovate uses for crop residue, develop markets, and promote products that offer alternatives to burning. 
  • Engage with policymakers to make the case for policy and legal changes that can facilitate adoption of alternatives to crop burning.
  • Educate farmers, policymakers, businesses, and consumers about the importance of using crop residue.
  • Manage local extension programs or implement government programs that collect and/or manage crop residue, at no cost to farmers.
  • Work with farmers, policymakers, and other private organizations to strengthen data collection on crop residue quantities and feasible alternatives to burning.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to the sustainable use of crop residue.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Start cooperatives that provide equipment and/or services for crop residue management.
  • Create model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers with regard to alternatives to crop residue burning.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor agriculture supply chains.
  • Engage with policymakers to make the case for policy and legal changes that can facilitate alternatives to crop burning.
  • Help develop markets for crop residue and promote products that offer alternatives to burning. 
  • Educate farmers, policymakers, businesses, and consumers about the importance of using crop residue.
  • Help innovate uses for crop residue, develop markets, and promote products that offer alternatives to burning. 
  • Help revise existing – or create new – high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms for crop residue.
  • Work with farmers, policymakers, and other private organizations to strengthen data collection on crop residue quantities and feasible alternatives to burning.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to the sustainable use of crop residue.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Quantify estimates of crop residue by geography and differentiate data by full or partial burning.
  • Research organic no-till methods of cultivation to retain residue in-field without herbicide use.
  • Create tracking and monitoring software to support farmers' decision-making for planting, real-time market information, and locally available services.
  • Research potential applications of AI and robotics to achieve optimal uses for crop residue, considering factors such as local soil quality and markets.
  • Improve data and analytics to monitor available crop residue, assist farmers in residue management, support policymaking, and assess the impacts of policies.
  • Research and develop innovative uses of crop residue, particularly in Africa, where data is currently lacking.
  • Research the impact of interventions in specific geographies and identify the most impactful means of reducing crop residue burning.
  • Research crop residue use for enzyme production and refine the process to make it scalable and easily accessible to farmers.
  • Develop verifiable carbon credits using technology such as blockchain to improve the integrity of carbon markets.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Buy produce from farms that use their crop residue in alternative ways, or ask merchants to supply these products to increase demand.
  • Educate farmers, policymakers, businesses, and consumers about the impact of crop residue burning at the local level – especially if it impacts you or your community.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor agriculture supply chains.
  • Work with farmers, policymakers, and other private organizations to strengthen data collection on crop residue quantities and feasible alternatives to burning.
  • Engage with policymakers to make the case for policy and legal changes that can facilitate adoption of alternatives to crop burning.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to the sustainable use of crop residue.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions: High 

There is high consensus on the effectiveness and potential of reducing crop residue burning. The 2019 Refinement to the 2006 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories provides clear formulas to calculate the impact of crop residue burning as well as the impact of limiting the practice (Dong et al., 2019). With the latest IPCC chapter on agricultural mitigation identifying crop residue burning as an important driver of global warming, advancing viable alternatives to the practice is vital (Nabuurs et al., 2022). Overviews of the alternatives to crop residue burning are provided by Dutta e. al. (2022), Krishna and Mkondiwa (2023), Singh et al. (2022), and Raza et al. (2022). 

The results presented in this analysis summarize findings from five reviews and meta-analyses reflecting current evidence at the global scale. Nonetheless, not all countries are represented. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions. 

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Protect Coastal Wetlands

Sector
FALO & Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Protect & Manage Ecosystems
Image
Birds flying over wetland
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Coastal wetland protection is the long-term protection of mangrove, salt marsh, and seagrass ecosystems from degradation by human activities. This solution focuses on legal mechanisms of coastal wetland protection, including the establishment of Protected Areas (PAs) and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), which are managed with the primary goal of conserving nature. These legal protections reduce a range of human impacts, helping to preserve existing carbon stocks and avoid CO₂ emissions.

Extreme weather events
Income & work,Food security,Equality
Nature protection,Land resources,Water quality
Description for Social and Search
Protect Coastal Wetlands is a Highly Recommended climate solution. Legal protection helps these ecosystems store carbon and avoids GHG emissions.
Overview

Coastal wetlands (defined as mangrove, salt marsh, and seagrass ecosystems, see Figure 1) are highly productive ecosystems that sequester carbon via photosynthesis, storing it primarily below ground in sediments where waterlogged, low-oxygen conditions help preserve it (Adame et al., 2024; Lovelock et al., 2017). 

Figure 1. Types of coastal wetlands, from left to right: a salt marsh in Westhampton Beach (United States), a mangrove forest near Staniel Cay (Bahamas), and a seagrass meadow off Notojima Island (Japan).

Types of wetlands

Adobe Stock | istock; Maria T Hoffman | Adobe Stock; James White and Danita Delimont | AdobeStock

These ecosystems are also efficient at trapping carbon suspended in water, which can comprise up to 50% of the carbon sequestered in these settings (McLeod et al., 2011; Temmink et al., 2022). Coastal wetlands operate as large carbon sinks (Figure 2), with long-term carbon accumulation rates averaging 5.1–8.3 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr (McLeod et al., 2011).

Figure 2. Overview of carbon storage in coastal wetlands. Salt marshes, mangroves, and seagrasses, commonly referred to as blue carbon ecosystems, store carbon in plant biomass and sediment.

Diagram demonstr ating CO2 absorption in salt marsh, mangroves, and seagrass.

Source: Macreadie, P. I., Costa, M. D., Atwood, T. B., Friess, D. A., Kelleway, J. J., Kennedy, H., ... & Duarte, C. M. (2021). Blue carbon as a natural climate solution. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2(12), 826-839. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00224-1

Protection of coastal wetlands preserves carbon stocks and avoids emissions associated with degradation, which can increase CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide effluxes. Nearly 50% of the total global area of coastal wetlands has been lost since 1900 and up to 87% since the 18th century (Davidson, 2014). With current loss rates, an additional 30–40% of remaining seagrasses and salt marshes, and nearly all mangroves, could be lost by 2100 without protection (Pendleton et al., 2012). Protection of existing coastal wetlands is especially important because restoration is challenging, costly, and not yet fully optimized. For example, seagrass restoration has generally been unsuccessful (Macreadie et al., 2021), and restored seagrass systems can have higher GHG fluxes than natural systems (Mason et al., 2023).

On land, degradation often arises from aquaculture, reclamation and drainage, deforestation, diking, and urbanization (Mcleod et al., 2011). In the ocean, impacts often occur due to dredging, mooring, pollution, and sediment disturbance (Mcleod et al., 2011). For instance, deforestation of mangroves for agriculture removes biomass and oxidizes sediment carbon stocks, leading to high CO₂ effluxes and, potentially, methane and nitrous oxide emissions (Chauhan et al., 2017, Kauffman et al., 2016, Sasmito et al., 2019). Likewise, high CO₂ or methane effluxes from salt marshes commonly result from drainage, which can oxygenate the subsurface and fuel carbon loss, or from infrastructure such as dikes, which can reduce saltwater exchange and increase methane production (Kroeger et al., 2017). In another example, dredging in seagrass meadows drives high rates of ecosystem degradation due to reduced light availability, leading to die-offs that can increase erosion and reduce sediment carbon stocks by 21–47% (Trevathan-Tackett et al., 2018).

Our analysis focused on the avoided CO₂ emissions and retained carbon sequestration capacity conferred by avoiding degradation of coastal wetlands via legal protection. While degradation can substantially alter emissions of other GHGs, such as methane and nitrous oxide, we focus on CO₂ due to the limited availability of global spatial data on degradation types and extent and associated effluxes of all GHGs across coastal wetlands. Ignoring methane and nitrous oxide benefits with protection is the most conservative approach because limited data exist on emission profiles from both functional and degraded global coastal wetlands, and even PAs/MPAs can be degraded (Holmquist et al., 2023). This solution considered wetlands to be protected if they are formally designated as PAs or MPAs under International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protection categories I–IV (UNEP-WCMC &IUCN, 2024; see Appendix for more information).

References

Adame, M. F., Kelleway, J., Krauss, K. W., Lovelock, C. E., Adams, J. B., Trevathan-Tackett, S. M., Noe, G., Jeffrey, L., Ronan, M., Zann, M., Carnell, P. E., Iram, N., Maher, D. T., Murdiyarso, D., Sasmito, S., Tran, D. B., Dargusch, P., Kauffman, J. B., & Brophy, L. (2024). All tidal wetlands are blue carbon ecosystems. BioScience, 74(4), 253–268. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae007

Balmford, A., Gravestock, P., Hockley, N., McClean, C. J., & Roberts, C. M. (2004). The worldwide costs of marine protected areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(26), 9694–9697. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403239101

Baniewicz, T. (2020, September 2). Coastal Louisiana tribes team up with biologist to protect sacred sites from rising seas. Southerly. Link to source: https://southerlymag.org/2020/09/02/coastal-louisiana-tribes-team-up-with-biologist-to-protect-sacred-sites-from-rising-seas/

Barbier, E. B., Georgiou, I. Y., Enchelmeyer, B., & Reed, D. J. (2013). The value of wetlands in protecting southeast Louisiana from hurricane storm surges. PLoS ONE, 8(3), Article e58715. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058715

Blanchard, L., Haya, B. K., Anderson, C., Badgley, G., Cullenward, D., Gao, P., Goulden, M. L., Holm, J. A., Novick, K. A., Trugman, A. T., Wang, J. A., Williams, C. A., Wu, C., Yang, L., & Anderegg, W. R. L. (2024). Funding forests’ climate potential without carbon offsets. One Earth, 7(7), 1147–1150. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.06.006

Borchert, S. M., Osland, M. J., Enwright, N. M., & Griffith, K. T. (2018). Coastal wetland adaptation to sea level rise: Quantifying potential for landward migration and coastal squeeze. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(6), 2876–2887. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13169

Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., & Balmford, A. (2004). Financial costs and shortfalls of managing and expanding protected-area systems in developing countries. BioScience, 54(12), 1119–1126. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1119:FCASOM]2.0.CO;2

Chauhan, R., Datta, A., Ramanathan, A. L., & Adhya, T. K. (2017). Whether conversion of mangrove forest to rice cropland is environmentally and economically viable? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 246, 38–47. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.05.010

Cullen-Unsworth, L. C., & Unsworth, R. (2018). A call for seagrass protection. Science, 361(6401), 446–448. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7318

Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. (2016). Wetlands and Indigenous values [Fact sheet]. Commonwealth of Australia. Link to source: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/factsheet-wetlands-indigenous-values.pdf

Dabalà, A., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Dunn, D. C., Everett, J. D., Lovelock, C. E., Hanson, J. O., Buenafe, K. C. V., Neubert, S., & Richardson, A. J. (2023). Priority areas to protect mangroves and maximise ecosystem services. Nature Communications, 14(1), Article 5863. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41333-3

Davidson, N. C. (2014). How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetland area. Marine and Freshwater Research, 65(10), 934–941. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1071/MF14173

Di Minin, E., & Toivonen, T. (2015). Global protected area expansion: Creating more than paper parks. BioScience, 65(7), 637–638. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv064

Dinerstein, E., Joshi, A. R., Hahn, N. R., Lee, A. T. L., Vynne, C., Burkart, K., Asner, G. P., Beckham, C., Ceballos, G., Cuthbert, R., Dirzo, R., Fankem, O., Hertel, S., Li, B. V., Mellin, H., Pharand‑Deschênes, F., Olson, D., Pandav, B., Peres, C. A., … Zolli, A. (2024). Conservation Imperatives: Securing the last unprotected terrestrial sites harboring irreplaceable biodiversity. Frontiers in Science, 2, Article 1349350. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsci.2024.1349350

Donato, D. C., Kauffman, J. B., Murdiyarso, D., Kurnianto, S., Stidham, M., & Kanninen, M. (2011). Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nature Geoscience, 4(5), 293–297. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1123

Eyre, B. D., Camillini, N., Glud, R. N., & Rosentreter, J. A. (2023). The climate benefit of seagrass blue carbon is reduced by methane fluxes and enhanced by nitrous oxide fluxes. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), Article 374. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01022-x

Feng, Y., Song, Y., Zhu, M., Li, M., Gong, C., Luo, S., Mei, W., Feng, H., Tan, W., & Song, C. (2025). Microbes drive more carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions from wetland under long-term nitrogen enrichment. Water Research, 272, Article 122942. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2024.122942

Fletcher, M.-S., Hamilton, R., Dressler, W., & Palmer, L. (2021). Indigenous knowledge and the shackles of wilderness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(40), Article e2022218118. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022218118

Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N. D., Fa, J. E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C. J., Watson, J. E. M., Zander, K. K., Austin, B., Brondizio, E. S., Collier, N. F., Duncan, T., Ellis, E., Geyle, H., Jackson, M. V., Jonas, H., Malmer, P., McGowan, B., Sivongxay, A., & Leiper, I. (2018). A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1(7), 369–374. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6

Giakoumi, S., McGowan, J., Mills, M., Beger, M., Bustamante, R. H., Charles, A., Christie, P., Fox, M., Garcia‑Borboroglu, P., Gelcich, S., Guidetti, P., Mackelworth, P., Maina, J. M., McCook, L., Micheli, F., Morgan, L. E., Mumby, P. J., Reyes, L. M., White, A., … Possingham, H. P. (2018). Revisiting “success” and “failure” of marine protected areas: A conservation scientist perspective. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, Article 223. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00223

Guannel, G., Arkema, K., Ruggiero, P., & Verutes, G. (2016). The power of three: Coral reefs, seagrasses and mangroves protect coastal regions and increase their resilience. PLoS ONE, 11(7), Article e0158094. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158094

Green, E. P., & Short, F. T. (Eds.). (2003). World Atlas of Seagrasses. University of California Press. Link to source: https://environmentalunit.com/Documentation/04%20Resources%20at%20Risk/World%20Seagrass%20atlas.pdf

Heck, N., Goldberg, L., Andradi‐Brown, D. A., Campbell, A., Narayan, S., Ahmadia, G. N., & Lagomasino, D. (2024). Global drivers of mangrove loss in protected areas. Conservation Biology, 38(6), Article e14293. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14293

Hochard, J. P., Barbier, E. B., & Hamilton, S. E. (2021). Mangroves and coastal topography create economic “safe havens” from tropical storms. Scientific Reports, 11(1), Article 15359. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94207-3

Holmquist, J. R., Eagle, M., Molinari, R. L., Nick, S. K., Stachowicz, L. C., & Kroeger, K. D. (2023). Mapping methane reduction potential of tidal wetland restoration in the United States. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), Article 353. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00988-y

Hutchinson, M. (2022, September 2). How coastal erosion is affecting the sacred lands of Indigenous Louisianians. Chênière: The Nicholls Undergraduate Humanities Review. Link to source: https://www.nicholls.edu/cheniere/2022/09/02/how-coastal-erosion-is-affecting-the-sacred-lands-of-indigenous-louisianians

Ickowitz, A., Lo, M. G. Y., Nurhasan, M., Maulana, A. M., & Brown, B. M. (2023). Quantifying the contribution of mangroves to local fish consumption in Indonesia: A cross-sectional spatial analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health, 7(10), e819–e830. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00196-1

Jensen, K. (2022, July 6). Climate benefits of coastal wetlands and coral reefs show why they merit protection now. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Link to source: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2022/07/06/climate-benefits-of-coastal-wetlands-and-coral-reefs-show-why-they-merit-protection-now

Kroeger, K. D., Crooks, S., Moseman-Valtierra, S., & Tang, J. (2017). Restoring tides to reduce methane emissions in impounded wetlands: A new and potent Blue Carbon climate change intervention. Scientific Reports, 7(1), Article 11914. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12138-4

Lamb, J. B., Van De Water, J. A., Bourne, D. G., Altier, C., Hein, M. Y., Fiorenza, E. A., Abu, N., Jompa, J., & Harvell, C. D. (2017). Seagrass ecosystems reduce exposure to bacterial pathogens of humans, fishes, and invertebrates. Science, 355(6326), 731–733. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal1956

Leal, M., & Spalding, M. D. (Eds.). (2022, September 21). The state of the world’s mangroves 2022. Global Mangrove Alliance. Link to source: https://www.wetlands.org/publication/the-state-of-the-worlds-mangroves-2022/

Leal, M., & Spalding, M. D. (Eds.). (2024). The state of the world’s mangroves 2024. Global Mangrove Alliance. Link to source: https://www.mangrovealliance.org/mangrove-forests/

Leverington, F., Costa, K. L., Pavese, H., Lisle, A., & Hockings, M. (2010). A global analysis of protected area management effectiveness. Environmental Management, 46(5), 685–698. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9564-5

Lovelock, C. E., Fourqurean, J. W., & Morris, J. T. (2017). Modeled CO2 emissions from coastal wetland transitions to other land uses: Tidal marshes, mangrove forests, and seagrass beds. Frontiers in Marine Science, 4, Article 143. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00143

Lu, C., Wang, Z., Li, L., Wu, P., Mao, D., Jia, M., & Dong, Z. (2016). Assessing the conservation effectiveness of wetland protected areas in Northeast China. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 24(4), 381–398. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-015-9462-y

Macreadie, P. I., Costa, M. D., Atwood, T. B., Friess, D. A., Kelleway, J. J., Kennedy, H., Lovelock, C. E., Serrano, O., & Duarte, C. M. (2021). Blue carbon as a natural climate solution. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2(12), 826–839. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00224-1

Macreadie, P. I., Robertson, A. I., Spinks, B., Adams, M. P., Atchison, J. M., Bell‑James, J., Bryan, B. A., Chu, L., Filbee‑Dexter, K., Drake, L., Duarte, C. M., Friess, D. A., Gonzalez, F., Grafton, R. Q., Helmstedt, K. J., Kaebernick, M., Kelleway, J., Kendrick, G. A., Kennedy, H., … Rogers, K. (2022). Operationalizing marketable blue carbon. One Earth, 5(5), 485–492. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.04.005

Mason, V. G., Burden, A., Epstein, G., Jupe, L. L., Wood, K. A., & Skov, M. W. (2023). Blue carbon benefits from global saltmarsh restoration. Global Change Biology, 29(23), 6517–6545. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16943

Mathews, D. L., & Turner, N. J. (2017). Ocean cultures: Northwest Coast ecosystems and Indigenous management systems. In P. S. Levin & M. R. Poe (Eds.), Conservation for the Anthropocene ocean: Interdisciplinary science in support of nature and people (pp.169–206). Academic Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805375-1.00009-X

McCrea-Strub, A., Zeller, D., Sumaila, U. R., Nelson, J., Balmford, A., & Pauly, D. (2011). Understanding the cost of establishing marine protected areas. Marine Policy, 35(1), 1–9. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.07.001

Mcleod, E., Chmura, G. L., Bouillon, S., Salm, R., Björk, M., Duarte, C. M., Lovelock, C. E., Schlesinger, W. H., & Silliman, B. R. (2011). A blueprint for blue carbon: Toward an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(10), 552–560. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1890/110004

McIvor, A. L., Spencer, T., Möller, I., & Spalding, M. (2012). Storm surge reduction by mangroves (Natural Coastal Protection Series: Report No. 2). The Nature Conservancy and Wetlands International. Link to source: https://www.nacionmulticultural.unam.mx/mezinal/docs/3151.pdf

McNally, C. G., Uchida, E. and Gold, A. J. (2011). The effect of a protected area on the tradeoffs between short-run and long-run benefits from mangrove ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(34), 13945–13950. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1101825108

Menéndez, P., Losada, I. J., Torres-Ortega, S., Narayan, S., & Beck, M. W. (2020). The Global Flood Protection Benefits of Mangroves. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 4404. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61136-6 

Noyce, G. L., Smith, A. J., Kirwan, M. L., Rich, R. L., & Megonigal, J. P. (2023). Oxygen priming induced by elevated CO2 reduces carbon accumulation and methane emissions in coastal wetlands. Nature Geoscience, 16(1), 63–68. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-01070-6

Mcowen, C. J., Weatherdon, L. V., Van Bochove, J.-W., Sullivan, E., Blyth, S., Zockler, C., Stanwell-Smith, D., Kingston, N., Martin, C. S., Spalding, M., & Fletcher, S. (2017). A global map of saltmarshes. Biodiversity Data Journal, 5, Article e11764. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.5.e11764

Narayan, S., Beck, M. W., Wilson, P., Thomas, C. J., Guerrero, A., Shepard, C. C., Reguero, B. G., Franco, G., Ingram, J. C., & Trespalacios, D. (2017). The value of coastal wetlands for flood damage reduction in the Northeastern USA. Scientific Reports, 7(1), Article 9463. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09269-z

Pendleton, L., Donato, D. C., Murray, B. C., Crooks, S., Jenkins, W. A., Sifleet, S., Craft, C., Fourqurean, J. W., Kauffman, J. B., Marbà, N., Megonigal, J. P., Pidgeon, E., Herr, D., Gordon, D., & Baldera, A. (2012). Estimating global “blue carbon” emissions from conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal ecosystems. PLoS ONE, 7(9), Article e43542. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043542

Renwick, A. R., Bode, M., & Venter, O. (2015). Reserves in context: Planning for leakage from protected areas. PLoS ONE, 10(6), Article e0129441. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129441

Roberts, C. M., O'Leary, B. C., & Hawkins, J. P. (2020). Climate change mitigation and nature conservation both require higher protected area targets. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375(1794), Article 20190121. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0121

Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D., & Martínez-Vega, J. (2022). Ecological effectiveness of marine protected areas across the globe in the scientific literature. In C. Sheppard (Ed.), Advances in marine biology (Vol. 92, pp. 129–153). Elsevier. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.amb.2022.07.002

Rosentreter, J. A., Maher, D. T., Erler, D. V., Murray, R. H., & Eyre, B. D. (2018). Methane emissions partially offset “blue carbon” burial in mangroves. Science Advances, 4(6), Article eaao4985. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao4985

Sasmito, S. D., Taillardat, P., Clendenning, J. N., Cameron, C., Friess, D. A., Murdiyarso, D., & Hutley, L. B. (2019). Effect of land‐use and land‐cover change on mangrove blue carbon: A systematic review. Global Change Biology, 25(12), 4291–4302. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14774

Schuerch, M., Spencer, T., Temmerman, S., Kirwan, M. L., Wolff, C., Lincke, D., McOwen, C. J., Pickering, M. D., Reef, R., Vafeidis, A. T., Hinkel, J., Nicholls, R. J., & Brown, S. (2018). Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise. Nature, 561(7722), 231–234. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0476-5

Sheng, P., Y., Paramygin, V. A., Rivera-Nieves, A. A., Zou, R., Fernald, S., Hall, T., & Jacob, K. (2022). Coastal marshes provide valuable protection for coastal communities from storm-induced wave, flood, and structural loss in a changing climate. Scientific Reports, 12(1), Article 3051. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06850-z

Temmink, R. J. M., Lamers, L. P. M., Angelini, C., Bouma, T. J., Fritz, C., van de Koppel, J., Lexmond, R., Rietkerk, M., Silliman, B. R., Joosten, H., & van der Heide, T. (2022). Recovering wetland biogeomorphic feedbacks to restore the world’s biotic carbon hotspots. Science, 376(6593), Article eabn1479. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abn1479

Thampanya, U., Vermaat, J. E., Sinsakul, S., & Panapitukkul, N. (2006). Coastal erosion and mangrove progradation of Southern Thailand. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 68(1–2), 75–85. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2006.01.011

Trevathan‐Tackett, S. M., Wessel, C., Cebrián, J., Ralph, P. J., Masqué, P., & Macreadie, P. I. (2018). Effects of small‐scale, shading‐induced seagrass loss on blue carbon storage: Implications for management of degraded seagrass ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(3), 1351–1359. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13081

Unsworth, R. K. F., Cullen-Unsworth, L. C., Jones, B. L. H., & Lilley, R. J. (2022). The planetary role of seagrass conservation. Science, 377(6606), 609–613. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abq6923

UNEP-WCMC, & IUCN. (2024). Protected planet: The world database on protected areas (WDPA) and world database on other effective area-based conservation measures (WD-OECM) [Data set]. Retrieved November 2024, from Link to source: https://www.protectedplanet.net

United Nations Environment Programme. (2014). The importance of mangroves to people: A call to action (J. van Bochove, E. Sullivan, & T. Nakamura, Eds.). United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Link to source: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/importance-mangroves-people-call-action

United Nations Environment Programme. (2020). Out of the blue: The value of seagrasses to the environment and to people. Link to source: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/out-blue-value-seagrasses-environment-and-people

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025a). Why are wetlands important? Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/why-are-wetlands-important

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025b). About coastal wetlands. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/about-coastal-wetlands

Waldron, A., Adams, V., Allan, J., Arnell, A., Asner, G., Atkinson, S., Baccini, A., Baillie, J. E. M., Balmford, A., Beau, J. A., Brander, L., Brondizio, E., Bruner, A., Burgess, N., Burkart, K., Butchart, S., Button, R., Carrasco, R., Cheung, W., … Zhang, Y. P. (2020). Protecting 30% of the planet for nature: Costs, benefits and economic implications [Working paper]. Campaign for Nature. Link to source: https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/16560/1/Waldron_Report_FINAL_sml.pdf

Wang, F., Sanders, C. J., Santos, I. R., Tang, J., Schuerch, M., Kirwan, M. L., Kopp, R. E., Zhu, K., Li, X., Yuan, J., Liu, W., & Li, Z. (2021). Global blue carbon accumulation in tidal wetlands increases with climate change. National Science Review, 8(9), Article nwaa296. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaa296

West, T. A. P., Wunder, S., Sills, E. O., Börner, J., Rifai, S. W., Neidermeier, A. N., Frey, G. P., & Kontoleon, A. (2023). Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation. Science, 381(6660), 873–877. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade3535

Worthington, T. A., Spalding, M., Landis, E., Maxwell, T. L., Navarro, A., Smart, L. S., & Murray, N. J. (2024). The distribution of global tidal marshes from Earth observation data. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 33(8), Article e13852. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13852

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Christina Richardson, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • Avery Driscoll

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

  • Paul West, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Avery Driscoll

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

We estimated that coastal wetland protection avoids emissions of 2.33–5.74 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr, while also sequestering an additional 1.22–2.14 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr depending on the ecosystem (Tables 1a–c; see the Appendix for more information). We estimated effectiveness as the avoided CO₂ emissions and the retained carbon sequestration capacity attributable to the reduction in wetland loss conferred by protection, as detailed in Equation 1. First, we calculated the difference between the rate of wetland loss outside PAs and MPAs (Wetland lossbaseline) versus inside PAs and MPAs, since protection does not entirely prevent degradation. Loss rates were primarily driven by anthropogenic habitat conversion. The effectiveness of protection was 53–59% (Reduction in loss). We then multiplied the avoided wetland loss by the sum of the avoided CO₂ emissions associated with the loss of carbon stored in sediment and biomass in one ha of wetland each year over a 30-yr timeframe (Carbonavoided emissions) and the amount of carbon sequestered via long-term storage in sediment carbon by one ha of protected wetland each year over a 30-yr timeframe (Carbonsequestration).

Equation 1.

\[ Effectiveness = (Wetland\text{ }loss_{baseline}\times Reduction\text{ }in\text{ }loss)\times(Carbon_{avoided\text{ } emissions} + Carbon_{sequestration}) \]

We did this calculation separately for mangrove, salt marsh, and seagrass ecosystems, because many of these factors, such as carbon emission and sequestration rates, protection effectiveness, and loss rates, vary across ecosystem types. The rationale for increasing protection varies between coastal wetland ecosystem types, but in all cases, protection is an important tool for retaining and building long-lived carbon stocks. Additionally, climate impacts associated with this solution could be much greater than estimated if protection efficacy improves or is higher than our estimates of 53–59%. 

Table 1a. Effectiveness at avoiding emissions and sequestering carbon in mangrove ecosystems.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha protected/yr, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 5.64
Mean 6.80
Median (50th percentile) 5.74
75th percentile 7.42

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha protected/yr, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 2.00
Mean 2.14
Median (50th percentile) 2.14
75th percentile 2.38

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha protected/yr, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 7.64
Mean 8.94
Median (50th percentile) 7.88
75th percentile 9.81
Left Text Column Width

Table 1b. Effectiveness at avoiding emissions and sequestering carbon in salt marsh ecosystems.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha protected/yr, 100-yr basis 

25th percentile 2.79
Mean 2.90
Median (50th percentile) 2.90
75th percentile 3.01

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha protected/yr, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 1.59
Mean 1.90
Median (50th percentile) 1.88
75th percentile 2.19

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha protected/yr, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 4.38
Mean 4.80
Median (50th percentile) 4.78
75th percentile 5.20
Left Text Column Width

Table 1c. Effectiveness at avoiding emissions and sequestering carbon in seagrass ecosystems.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha protected/yr, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 2.11
Mean 2.33
Median (50th percentile) 2.33
75th percentile 2.56

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha protected/yr, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 1.04
Mean 1.53
Median (50th percentile) 1.22
75th percentile 1.71

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha protected/yr, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 3.15
Mean 3.86
Median (50th percentile) 3.56
75th percentile 4.27
Left Text Column Width
Cost

We estimate that coastal wetland protection costs approximately US$1–2/t CO₂‑eq for mangrove and salt marsh ecosystems and seagrass ecosystem protection saves US$6/t CO₂‑eq (Tables 2a–c). This is based on protection costs of roughly US$11/ha and revenue of US$23/ha compared with the baseline for mangrove/salt marsh and seagrass ecosystems, respectively. However, data related to the costs of coastal wetland protection are extremely limited, and these estimates are uncertain. These estimates likely underestimate the potentially high costs of coastal land acquisition, for instance.

The costs of coastal wetland protection include up-front costs of land acquisition (for salt marshes and mangroves) and other one-time expenditures as well as ongoing operational costs. Protecting coastal wetlands also generates revenue, primarily through increased tourism. For consistency across solutions, we did not include revenue associated with benefits other than climate change mitigation.

Due to data limitations, we estimated the cost of land acquisition for ecosystem protection for mangroves and salt marshes by extracting coastal forest land purchase costs reported by Dinerstein et al. (2024), who found a median cost of US$1,115/ha (range: US$78–5,910/ha), which we amortized over 30 years. For seagrass ecosystems, which do not generally require land acquisition, we based initial costs were on McCrea-Strub et al.’s (2011) findings that reported a median MPA start-up cost of US$208/ha (range: US$55–434/ha) to cover expenses associated with infrastructure, planning, and site research, which we amortized over 30 years.

Costs of PA maintenance were estimated as US$17/ha/yr (Waldron et al., 2020). While these estimates reflect the costs of effective enforcement and management, many PAs lack sufficient funding for effective management (Bruner et al., 2004). Costs of MPA maintenance were estimated at US$14/ha/yr, though only 16% of the MPAs surveyed in this study reported their current funding as sufficient (Balmford et al., 2004). Tourism revenues directly attributable to protection were estimated to be US$43/ha/yr (Waldron et al., 2020) based on estimates for all PAs and MPAs and excluding downstream revenues. For consistency across solutions, we did not include revenues associated with ecosystem services, which would increase projected revenue.

We also excluded carbon credits as a revenue source due to the challenges inherent in accurate carbon accounting in these ecosystems and their frequently intended use to offset carbon emissions, similar to reported concerns with low-quality carbon credits in forest conservation projects (West et al., 2023). Future actions could explore policies that increase market financing for coastal wetland protection in more holistic ways, such as contributions-based approaches as suggested for forests (Blanchard et al., 2024). Financial support will be critical for backing conservation implementation (Macreadie et al., 2022), particularly in the face of existing political and economic challenges that have historically limited expansion. 

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Estimate 1

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Estimate 2

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Estimate -6

Negative value indicates cost savings.

Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

We define a learning curve as falling costs with increased adoption. The costs of coastal wetland protection do not fall with increasing adoption, so there is no learning curve for this solution.

Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Protect Coastal Wetlands is an EMERGENCY BRAKE climate solution. It has the potential to deliver a more rapid impact than gradual and delayed solutions. Because emergency brake solutions can deliver their climate benefits quickly, they can help accelerate our efforts to address dangerous levels of climate change. For this reason, they are a high priority.

Caveats

Additionality in this solution refers to whether the ecosystem would have been degraded without protection. In this analysis, we assumed protection confers additional carbon benefits as it reduces degradation and associated emissions. Another aspect of additionality, though not directly relevant to our analysis, is whether coastal wetlands would have been protected in the absence of carbon financing. This could become increasingly important if protection efforts seek carbon credits, since many wetlands are protected for other benefits, such as flood resilience and biodiversity.

The permanence of stored carbon in coastal wetlands is another critical issue as climate change impacts unfold. For instance, with sea-level rise, the ability of salt marshes to expand both vertically and laterally can determine resiliency, suggesting that protection of wetlands might also need to include adjacent areas for expansion (Schuerch et al., 2018). On a global scale, recent research suggests that global carbon accumulation might actually increase by 2100 from climate change impacts on tidal wetlands (Wang et al., 2021), though more work is needed as other work suggests the opposite (Noyce et al., 2023). There is also substantial risk of reversal of carbon benefits if protections are reversed or unenforced, which can require long-term financial investments, community engagement, and management/enforcement commitments (Giakoumi et al., 2018), particularly if the land is leased.

Finally, there are significant uncertainties associated with the available data on coastal wetland areas and distributions, loss rates, drivers of loss, extent and boundaries of PAs/MPAs, and efficacy of PAs/MPAs at reducing coastal wetland disturbance. For example, the geospatial datasets we used to identify the adoption ceiling for this solution could include partially degraded systems, such as drained wetlands, where protection alone would not stop emissions or restore function without restoration – yet we lack enough data to distinguish these current differences at a global scale. Similarly, legal protection of coastal wetlands does not always prevent degradation (Heck et al., 2024). The emissions dynamics of both intact and degraded coastal wetlands are also uncertain. Even less is known about the impacts of different types of degradation on coastal wetland carbon dynamics and how they vary spatially and temporally around the world.

Current Adoption

We estimated that approximately 8.04 million ha of coastal wetlands are currently protected, with 5.13 million ha recognized as PAs and MPAs in strict (I–II) protection categories and 2.90 million ha in non-strict protection categories (III–IV) (Tables 3a–c; Garnett et al., 2018; UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2024, see Appendix). Indigenous People’s Lands (IPLs) cover an additional 3.44 million ha; we did not include these in our analysis due to limited data, but we recognize that these sites might currently deliver conservation benefits. In total, we estimate that roughly 15% of all coastal wetlands have some protection (as MPAs or PAs in IUCN categories I–IV), though only about 9% are under strict protection (IUCN categories I or II). Across individual ecosystem types, strict protection categories (IUCN I–II) are highest for mangroves (~15%) and lowest for seagrasses (~7%).

Our estimates of PA and MPA protection (12–19%) were lower than previously reported estimates for mangroves (40–43%, Dabalà et al., 2023; Leal and Spalding, 2024), tidal marshes (45%, Worthington et al., 2024), and seagrasses (26%, United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2020). This is likely because our calculations excluded IUCN categories (“not assigned,” “not applicable,” and “not reported”) that contain large areal estimates for each ecosystem type – 4.3 million ha (mangrove), 1.9 million ha (salt marsh), and 5.4 million ha (seagrasses) – because their protection category was unclear as well as IUCN protection categories V–VI, which permit sustainable use and where extractive activities that could degrade these ecosystems are less formally restricted. Our spatial analysis also differed (see Appendix).

Table 3. Current extent of ecosystems under legal protection by ecosystem type (circa 2023). “Strict Protection” includes land within IUCN Categories I–II PAs or MPAs. “Nonstrict Protection” includes land within IUCN Categories III–IV PAs or MPAs. “Other” includes land within all remaining IUCN PA or MPA categories.

Unit: million ha protected

Strict protection 2.35
Nonstrict protection 0.59
Total (strict + nonstrict) 2.94
IPL 1.86
Other 7.52

Unit: million ha protected

Strict protection 0.62
Nonstrict protection 0.62
Total (strict + nonstrict) 1.24
IPL 1.09
Other 3.14

Unit: million ha protected

Strict protection 2.17
Nonstrict protection 1.69
Total (strict + nonstrict) 3.86
IPL 0.49
Other 9.00
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

We calculated the rate of PA and MPA expansion based on their recorded year of establishment. Protection expanded by an average of 59,600, 19,700, and 98,500 ha/yr in mangrove, salt marsh, and seagrass ecosystems, respectively (Tables 4a–c; Figure 3a). Salt marsh ecosystems have the lowest absolute rate of coastal wetland protection expansion (Figure 3b), while seagrasses have the lowest expansion of PAs relative to their adoption ceiling (Figure 3, right). The median total annual adoption trend across the three ecosystems is roughly 123,100 ha/yr (roughly 0.12 million ha/yr).

Table 4. 2000–2020 adoption trend for legal protection of ecosystems.

Unit: ha/yr protected

25th percentile 23,500
Mean 59,600
Median (50th percentile) 40,700
75th percentile 76,600

Unit: ha/yr protected

25th percentile 8,400
Mean 19,700
Median (50th percentile) 18,500
75th percentile 23,300

Unit: ha/yr protected

25th percentile 12,800
Mean 98,500
Median (50th percentile) 37,800
75th percentile 142,900
Left Text Column Width

Figure 3. (a) Areal trend in coastal wetland protection by ecosystem type (2000–2020). These values reflect only the area located within IUCN Class I–IV PAs or MPAs; (ha/yr protected). (b) Trend in coastal wetland protection by ecosystem type as a percent of the adoption ceiling. These values reflect only the area located within IUCN Class I–IV PAs or MPAs; (Percent). Source: Project Drawdown original analysis.

Credit: Project Drawdown

Enable Download
Off
Adoption Ceiling

We estimate an adoption ceiling of 54.6 million ha of coastal wetlands globally, which includes 15.7 million ha of mangroves, 7.50 million ha of salt marshes, and 31.4 million ha of seagrasses (Tables 5a–c). This estimate is in line with recent existing global estimates of coastal wetlands (36–185 million ha), which have large ranges due to uncertainties surrounding seagrass and salt marsh distributions (Macreadie et al., 2021, Krause et al., 2025). The adoption ceiling of our solution is therefore a conservative estimate of potential climate impact if global areas are indeed larger than calculated. While the protection of all existing coastal wetlands is highly unlikely, these values are used to represent the technical limits of adoption of this solution.

Table 5. Adoption ceiling: upper limit for adoption of legal protection of ecosystems.

Unit: million ha protected

Estimate 15.7

Unit: million ha protected

Estimate 7.50

Unit: million ha protected

Estimate 31.4
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We defined the lower end of the achievable range for coastal wetland protection (under IUCN categories I–IV) as 50% of the adoption ceiling and the higher end of the achievable range as 70% of the adoption ceiling for each ecosystem (Tables 6a–c). These numbers are ambitious but precedent exists to support them. For instance, roughly 11 countries already protect over 70% of their mangroves (Dabalà et al., 2023), and the global “30 by 30” target aims to protect 30% of ecosystems on land and in the ocean by 2030 (Roberts et al., 2020). Further, a significant extent of existing global coastal wetland areas already fall under non-strict protection categories not included in our analysis (V–VI and “Other”). These are prime candidates for conversion to stricter protection categories, so long as the designation confers real conservation benefits; recent work suggests that stricter protection can coincide with increased degradation in some mangroves (Heck et al., 2024).

Current adoption of PAs and MPAs in many countries with the highest land areas of coastal wetlands is low. For example, protection levels (IUCN I–IV) in countries with the top 10 greatest mangrove areas ranges between less than 1% (India, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Papua New Guinea) to 8.8–21.2% (Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Mexico;Dabalà et al., 2023). Expansion of PAs, particularly under IUCN I–IV categories, is a significant challenge with real implementation barriers due to competing land uses and local reliance on these areas for livelihoods. Further, protection does not guarantee conservation benefits, and significant funding is required to maintain/enforce these areas or they run the risk of becoming “paper parks” (Di Minin & Toivonen, 2015). Strong policy and financial incentives for conservation will be necessary to achieve these ambitious goals. Pathways for operationalizing protection could include finance, governance, and stakeholder alignment and will likely require a combination of these tactics around the world. 

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels for ecosystems.

Unit: million ha protected

Current adoption 2.94
Achievable – low 7.85
Achievable – high 11.0
Adoption ceiling 15.7

Unit: million ha protected

Current adoption 1.24
Achievable – low 3.75
Achievable – high 5.25
Adoption ceiling 7.50

Unit: million ha protected

Current adoption 3.86
Achievable – low 15.7
Achievable – high 22.0
Adoption ceiling 31.4
Left Text Column Width

We estimated that coastal wetland protection currently avoids approximately 0.04 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, with potential impacts of 0.27 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the adoption ceiling (Table 7a–c, see Appendix for more information on the calculations). The lower-end achievable scenario (50% protection) would avoid 0.14 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, and the upper-end achievable scenario (70% protection) would avoid 0.20 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Tables 7a–c). These values are in line with Macreadie et al. (2021), who estimated a maximum mitigation potential from avoided emissions due to degradation (land conversion) of 0.30 (range: 0.14–0.47) Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for mangrove, salt marsh, and seagrass ecosystems. Our estimate was slightly lower, but within their range, and differed in a few key ways. We accounted for the effectiveness of protection at reducing degradation (53–59%, instead of assuming 100%), included retained carbon sequestration with each hectare protected, and used slightly different loss rates and ecosystem areas.

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption for ecosystems.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.02
Achievable – low 0.06
Achievable – high 0.09
Adoption ceiling 0.12

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.01
Achievable – low 0.02
Achievable – high 0.03
Adoption ceiling 0.04

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.01
Achievable – low 0.06
Achievable – high 0.08
Adoption ceiling 0.11
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Extreme Weather Events

Wetlands buffer coastal communities from waves and storm surge due to extreme weather and have important roles in disaster risk mitigation (Sheng et al., 2022; Guannel et al., 2016). Mangroves slow the flow of water and reduce surface waves to protect more than 60 million people in low-lying coastal areas, mainly in low- and middle-income countries (McIvor et al., 2012; Hochard et al., 2021). Wetlands also protect structures against damage during storms and lead to savings in insurance claims (Barbier et al., 2013; Sheng et al., 2022). Mangroves provide an estimated US$65 billion in flood protection globally (Menéndez et al., 2020). A study of the damages of Hurricane Sandy found that wetlands in the northeastern United States avoided US$625 million in direct flood damages (Narayan et al., 2017).

Income and Work

Wetlands are a contributor to local livelihoods, providing employment for coastal populations via the fisheries and tourism that they support. Coastal ecosystems, such as mangroves, are crucial for subsistence fisheries as they sustain approximately 4.1 million small-scale fishers (Leal and Spalding, 2022). Wetlands provide sources of income for low-income coastal communities as they make small-scale fishing accessible, requiring limited gear and materials to fish (Cullen-Unsworth & Unsworth, 2018). The economic value of mangrove ecosystem services is estimated at US$33,000–57,000/ha/yr and is a major contributor to the national economies of low- and middle-income countries with mangroves (UNEP, 2014).

Food Security

Mangroves support the development of numerous commercially important fish species and strengthen overall fishery productivity. For example, research conducted across 6,000 villages in Indonesia found that rural coastal households near high and medium-density mangroves consumed more fish and aquatic animals than households without mangroves nearby (Ickowitz et al., 2023). Seagrasses also support fisheries as 20% of the world’s largest fisheries rely on seagrasses for habitats (Jensen, 2022). The amount and diversity of species within seagrasses also provide important nutrition for fishery species (Cullen-Unsworth & Unsworth, 2018).

Equality

Coastal wetlands are significant in cultural heritages and identities for nearby people. They can be associated with historical, religious, and spiritual values for communities and especially for Indigenous communities (UNEP, 2014). For example, a combination of sea-level rise and oil and gas drilling have contributed to the decline of coastal wetlands in Louisiana, which threatens livelihoods and deep spiritual ties of local Indigenous tribes (Baniewicz, 2020; Hutchinson, 2022). Indigenous people have a long history of managing and protecting coastal wetlands (Mathews & Turner, 2017). Efforts to protect these areas must include legal recognition of Indigenous ownership to support a just and sustainable conservation process (Fletcher et al., 2021).

Nature Protection

Coastal wetlands are integral in supporting the biodiversity of surrounding watersheds. High species diversity of mangroves and seagrasses provide a unique habitat for marine life, birds, insects, and mammals, and contain numerous threatened or endangered species (Green and Short, 2003; U.S. EPA, 2025a). A variety of species rely on wetlands for food and shelter, and they can provide temporary habitats for species during critical times in their life cycles, such as migration and breeding (Unsworth et al., 2022). Wetlands can improve water quality, making the surrounding ecosystem more favorable to supporting marine life (Cullen-Unsworth & Unsworth, 2018). Seagrasses can improve coral health by filtering water and reducing pathogens that could cause disease (Cullen-Unsworth & Unsworth, 2018).

Land Resources

Wetlands reduce coastal erosion which can benefit local communities during strong storms (Jensen, 2022). Wetlands mitigate erosion impacts by absorbing wave energy that would degrade sand and other marine sediments (U.S. EPA, 2025b). Specifically, mangroves reduce erosion through their aerial root structure that retain sediments that would otherwise degrade the shoreline (Thampanya et al., 2006).

Water Quality

Coastal wetlands improve the water quality of watersheds by filtering chemicals, particles (including microplastics), sediment, and cycling nutrients (Unsworth et al. 2022). There is even evidence that wetlands can remove viruses and bacteria from water, leading to better sanitation and health for marine wildlife and humans (Lamb et al., 2017).

Risks

There are several risks associated with coastal wetland protection. Leakage, wherein protection in one region could prompt degradation of another, could reduce climate benefits (Renwick et al., 2015). Strict conservation of coastal wetlands could impact local economies, creating “poverty traps” if protection threatens livelihoods (McNally et al., 2011). Conservation projects also risk unequal distribution of benefits (Lang et al., 2023). In places where habitats are fragmented or existing infrastructure limits landward migration, even protected coastal wetlands are at risk of being lost with climate change (commonly known as “the coastal squeeze”; Borchert et al., 2018). Funding gaps risk reversal of climate benefits despite initial conservation efforts; most MPAs and PAs report a lack of funding (Balmford et al., 2004; Bruner et al., 2004). If coastal wetlands are subjected to human impacts that protection cannot prevent, such as upgradient nutrient pollution, there could also be a risk of increased GHG emissions (Feng et al., 2025) and ecosystem degradation.

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Other ecosystems often occur adjacent to areas of coastal wetlands, and the health of nearby ecosystems can be improved by the services provided by intact coastal wetlands (and vice versa). 

Competing

Mangrove deforestation can occur for fuel wood needs. Fuel wood sourced from mangroves could be replaced with wood sourced from other forested ecosystems.

Protecting coastal wetlands could limit near-shore land availability for renewable energy technologies and competes with the following solution for land:

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
07.647.88median
units
Current 2.94×10⁶ 07.85×10⁶1.1×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.02 0.060.09
US$ per t CO₂-eq
1
Emergency Brake

CO₂

Solution Basics

ha protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
04.384.78median
units
Current 1.24×10⁶ 03.75×10⁶5.25×10⁶
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.01 0.020.03
US$ per t CO₂-eq
2
Emergency Brake

CO₂

Solution Basics

ha protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
03.153.56median
units
Current 3.86×10⁶ 01.57×10⁷2.2×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.01 0.060.08
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-6
Emergency Brake

CO₂

Trade-offs

Trade-offs associated with protection of coastal wetlands include emission of other GHGs not quantified in this solution that have higher global warming potentials (GWP) than CO₂. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions can be measurable in coastal wetland ecosystems, though it is important to recognize that degradation can significantly impact the magnitude and types of effluxes, too. In mangroves, methane evasion can offset carbon burial by almost 20% based on a 20-yr GWP (Rosentreter et al., 2018). In seagrasses, methane and nitrous oxide effluxes can offset burial on average, globally, by 33.4% based on a 20-yr GWP and 7.0% based on a 100-yr GWP (Eyre et al., 2023). Finally, conservation of coastal land can also restrict development of desirable coastal property for other uses.

% mangroves
> 0100

Global mangrove ecosystem distribution

Mangrove ecosystems cover approximately 15.7 million ha globally; just five countries (Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and Nigeria) contain nearly 50% of the world’s mangrove ecosystem area (FAO, 2020). Green shaded areas indicate the general location of mangrove ecosystems; zoom in for details.

Liu, L., Zhang, X., & Zhao, T. (2022). GWL_FCS30: global 30 m wetland map with fine classification system using multi-sourced and time-series remote sensing imagery in 2020 [Data set, Version 1]. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7340516

% mangroves
> 0100

Global mangrove ecosystem distribution

Mangrove ecosystems cover approximately 15.7 million ha globally; just five countries (Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and Nigeria) contain nearly 50% of the world’s mangrove ecosystem area (FAO, 2020). Green shaded areas indicate the general location of mangrove ecosystems; zoom in for details.

Liu, L., Zhang, X., & Zhao, T. (2022). GWL_FCS30: global 30 m wetland map with fine classification system using multi-sourced and time-series remote sensing imagery in 2020 [Data set, Version 1]. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7340516

Maps Introduction

The current adoption, potential adoption, and effectiveness of coastal wetland protection is ecosystem-dependent (mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses) and geographically variable. While coastal wetland protection can help avoid GHG emissions anywhere they occur, ecosystems with high rates of loss from human activity, and large unprotected areas have the greatest potential for avoiding emissions via protection. 

For instance, seagrass ecosystems have the lowest current adoption of protection, ~12%, and highest adoption ceiling (31.4 Mha) (Tables 3 and 6). Protecting seagrasses also potentially can save money (–US$23/ha, Table 2) because they do not generally require land purchase (McCrea-Strub et al., 2011). Protection of seagrasses could therefore provide meaningful climate impact as well as substantial economic and ecologic benefits (Unsworth et al., 2022). 

For seagrasses, countries like Australia (~10 Mha), Indonesia (~3 Mha), the United States (~0.5 Mha), and regions such as the Gulf of Mexico (~2 Mha) and the Western Mediterranean (~0.4 Mha), could be good initial targets for protection due to their significant seagrass extents (Green and Short, 2003). Countries that contain the top 10 largest areas of mangroves (Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Myanmar, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea) might have the greatest potential to significantly expand adoption and scale climate impact (Dabalà et al., 2023). Likewise, salt marsh protection might be most beneficial in countries with the greatest extent, such as the United States (~1.7 Mha), Australia (~1.3 Mha), Russia (~0.7 Mha), and China (~0.6 Mha) (Mcowen et al., 2017).

Action Word
Protect
Solution Title
Coastal Wetlands
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Grant Indigenous communities full property rights and autonomy; support them in monitoring, managing, and enforcing MPAs/PAs/IPLs.
  • Ensure effective enforcement and monitoring of existing PAs using real-time and satellite data, if available.
  • Create or strengthen legislative protections for coastal wetlands, requiring their consideration during land use planning and allowing for local decision-making.
  • Start expanding PAs by first designating coastal wetlands adjacent to existing MPAs/PAs/IPLs.
  • Increase designated PAs and MPAs and consider all benefits (e.g., climate, human well-being, biodiversity) and dynamics (e.g., water flows, soil, agriculture) when designating PAs to ensure maximum benefits.
  • Ensure PAs and MPAs don’t displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information; create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Integrate river, watershed, and dam management into coastal wetland protection.
  • Streamline regulations and legal requirements, when possible to simplify management and designation of MPAs/PAs/IPLs.
  • Use financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, payments for ecosystem services (PES), and debt-for-nature swaps to protect coastal wetlands from development.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid roads and other development projects that might interfere with MPAs and PAs.
  • Coordinate MPA and PA efforts horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts), ensuring an inclusive process for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Incorporate MPAs/PAs/IPLs into local, national, and international climate plans (i.e., Nationally Determined Contributions).
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain coastal wetlands.
  • Create processes for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution.
  • Create sustainable use regulations for protected coastal wetland areas that provide resources to local communities.
  • Empower local communities to manage coastal wetlands and ensure a participatory approach to designating and managing MPAs and PAs.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on MPA regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Avoid draining or degrading coastal wetlands.
  • Avoid developing intact coastal wetlands, including small-scale shoreline developments such as docks.
  • Invest in coastal wetland conservation, restoration, sustainable management practices, specialized research facilities, and other R&D efforts.
  • Participate in stakeholder engagements and help policymakers designate coastal wetlands, create regulations, and implement robust monitoring and enforcement.
  • Grant Indigenous communities full property rights and autonomy and support them in monitoring, managing, and enforcing PAs.
  • Ensure protected coastal wetlands don’t displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Integrate river, watershed, and dam management into coastal wetland protection.
  • Use real-time monitoring and satellite data to manage and enforce PA and MPA regulations.
  • Create sustainable use regulations for protected coastal wetland areas that provide resources to the local community.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with protected coastal wetlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs and MPAs.
  • Advocate for or use financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to protect coastal wetlands from development.
  • Utilize financial mechanisms such as biodiversity offsets, PES, high-integrity voluntary carbon markets, and debt-for-nature swaps to fund coastal wetland protection.
  • Help classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information as well as create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Coordinate PA and MPA efforts horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts), ensuring an inclusive process for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain coastal wetlands.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on MPA/PA/IPL regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Ensure operations, development, and supply chains are not degrading coastal wetlands or interfering with PA or MPA management.
  • Integrate coastal wetland protection into net-zero strategies, if relevant.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Only purchase carbon credits from high-integrity, verifiable carbon markets, and do not use them as replacements for less carbon-intensive operations or claim them as offsets.
  • Consider donating to established coastal wetland protection funds in place of carbon credits.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to coastal wetlands from development.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Leverage political influence to advocate for stronger coastal wetland protection policies at national and international levels.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid roads and other development projects that might interfere with PAs and MPAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing MPAs/PAs/IPLs, expansion of new MPAs/PAs/IPLs, and more public investments.
  • Help manage and monitor protected coastal wetlands using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Provide financial support for MPAs/PAs/IPLs, monitoring, and enforcement.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with protected coastal wetlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or MPAs.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support the capacity of Indigenous and local communities for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Use or advocate for financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to protect coastal wetlands from development.
  • Help classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information as well as create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain coastal wetlands.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on MPA/PA/IPL regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.

Further information:

Investors
  • Ensure investment portfolios do not degrade coastal wetlands or interfere with MPAs/PAs/IPLs, using data, information, and the latest technology to inform investments.
  • Invest in coastal wetland protection, monitoring, management, and enforcement mechanisms.
  • Use financial mechanisms such as credible biodiversity offsets, PES, voluntary high-integrity carbon markets, and debt-for-nature swaps to fund coastal wetland protection.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for legal protection and public relations.
  • Share data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid investments that drive coastal wetland destruction with other investors and nongovernmental organizations.
  • Provide favorable loans to Indigenous communities and entrepreneurs and businesses protecting wetlands.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing MPAs/PAs/IPLs, expansion of new MPAs/PAs/IPLs, and public investments.
  • Help manage and monitor protected coastal wetlands, using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Provide technical and financial assistance to low- and middle-income countries and communities to protect coastal wetlands.
  • Provide financial support to organizations and institutions developing and deploying monitoring technology and conducting wetland research.
  • Help manage and monitor protected coastal wetlands using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with protected coastal wetlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or MPAs.
  • Help classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information as well as create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain coastal wetlands.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on MPA/PA/IPL regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing MPAs/PAs/IPLs, expansion of new MPAs/PAs/IPLs, and for public investments.
  • Advocate for or use financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, PES, and debt-for-nature swaps to protect coastal wetlands from development.
  • Help manage and monitor protected coastal wetlands using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with protected coastal wetlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or MPAs.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon and biodiversity markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for legal protection, management, and public relations.
  • Help classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information as well as create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.
  • Create programs that educate the public on MPA/PA/IPL regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Study ecosystem services provided by coastal wetlands and catalogue the benefits.
  • Improve mapping of coastal wetland areas, carbon content and dynamics, tidal impacts, degradation types and levels, and emissions data – specifically methane and nitrous oxide.
  • Improve monitoring methods using field measurements, models, satellite imagery, and GIS tools.
  • Research adjacent technologies and practices such as seaweed farm management, kelp forest conservation, sediment management, and biodiversity restoration.
  • Conduct meta-analyses or synthesize existing literature on coastal wetlands and protection efforts.
  • Explore ways to use smart management systems for PAs and MPAs, including the use of real-time and satellite data.
  • Develop land-use planning tools that help avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with PAs and MPAs or incentivize drainage.
  • Create tools for local communities to monitor coastal wetlands, such as mobile apps, e-learning platforms, and mapping tools.
  • Develop verifiable carbon credits using technology such as blockchain to improve the integrity of carbon markets.
  • Develop supply chain tracking software for investors and businesses seeking to create sustainable portfolios and products.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Avoid draining or degrading coastal wetlands.
  • Avoid developing intact coastal wetlands, including small-scale shoreline developments such as docks.
  • Help manage and monitor protected coastal wetlands using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Establish coordinating bodies for farmers, developers, landowners, policymakers, dam operators, and other stakeholders to holistically manage PAs.
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing MPAs/PAs/IPLs, expansion of new MPAs/PAs/IPLs, and public investments.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with protected coastal wetlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or MPAs.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon and biodiversity markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Support Indigenous communities' capacity for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Use or advocate for financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to protect coastal wetlands from development.
  • Help classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information as well as create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Ensure PAs and MPAs don’t displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain coastal wetlands.
  • Participate or volunteer in local coastal wetland protection efforts.
  • Plant native species to help improve the local ecological balance and stabilize the soil – especially on waterfront property.
  • Use nontoxic cleaning and gardening supplies, purchase unbleached paper products, and recycle to help keep pollution and debris out of wetlands.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on MPA/PA/IPL regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing emissions and maintaining carbon removal: High

There is high scientific consensus that coastal wetland protection is an important strategy for reducing wetland loss due to degradation and that degradation results in carbon stock loss from coastal wetlands. Rates of wetland loss are generally lower inside PAs than outside them. An analysis of over 4,000 PAs (wetland and non-wetland area) showed 59% of sites are in “sound management,” which generally reflects PAs with strong enforcement, management implementation, and conservation outcome indicators (Leverington et al., 2010). Here we used a conservative effectiveness of 59% for salt marshes and mangroves that are under legal protection, consistent with the value from Leverington et al. (2010). Other regional studies show similar PA effectiveness values, with 25–50% of wetland PAs in China exhibiting moderate to very high conservation effectiveness (Lu et al., 2016).

Seagrasses differ from mangroves and salt marshes in that they fall under MPA designation because they are subtidal, or submerged. In an analysis of effectiveness of 66 MPAs in 18 countries, nearly 53% of MPAs reported positive or slightly positive ecosystem outcomes (Rodríguez-Rodríguez & Martínez-Vega, 2022). Less is known about MPA effectiveness for seagrass meadows specifically; we assumed an effectiveness of 53% – similar to other MPAs.

Prevention of degradation via legal coastal wetlands protection avoids emissions by preserving carbon stocks while also retaining carbon sequestration capacity. Degradation of coastal wetlands results in measurable loss of short- and long-lived carbon stocks, with emissions that vary based on ecosystem and degradation type (Donato et al., 2011, Holmquist et al., 2023, Lovelock et al., 2017, Mcleod et al., 2011, Pendleton et al., 2012). Estimates of existing carbon stocks in coastal wetlands are substantial, ranging between 8.97–32.7 Gt of carbon (32.9–120 Gt CO₂‑eq ), most of which is likely susceptible to degradation (Macreadie et al., 2021).

The results presented in this document synthesize findings from 14 global datasets. We recognize that geographic bias in the information underlying global data products creates bias and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions and understudied ecosystems.

Appendix

In this analysis, we integrated global land cover data; shapefiles of PAs, MPAs, and IPLs; and ecosystem type (mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses) data on carbon emissions and sequestration rates to calculate currently protected coastal wetland area, total global coastal wetland area, and avoided emissions and additional sequestration from coastal wetland protection by ecosystem type (mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrasses).

Land Cover Data

We used two land cover data products to estimate coastal wetland extent by ecosystem type (mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses) inside and outside of PAs, MPAs, and IPLs: 1) a global 30 m wetland map, GWL_FCS30, for mangroves and salt marshes (Zhang et al., 2023), and 2) the global distribution of seagrasses map from UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC & Short, 2021).

Protected Coastal Wetland Areas

The IUCN defines PAs, including MPAs, as geographically distinct areas managed primarily for the long-term conservation of nature and ecosystem services. They are further disaggregated into six levels of protection, ranging from strict wilderness preserves to sustainable use areas that allow for some natural resource extraction (including logging). We calculated all levels of protection but only considered protection categories I–IV in our analysis of adoption. We recognized that other protection categories might provide conservation benefits. We excluded categories labeled as “Not Applicable (NAP),” “Not Reported (NR),” “Not Assigned (NAS),” as well as categories VI and VII. We also estimated IPL area based on available data, but emphasized that much of their extent has not been fully mapped nor recognized for its conservation benefits (Garnett et al., 2018). Additionally, the IPL dataset only covered land and therefore did not include seagrass ecosystems explicitly beyond the extent that ecosystems bordering terrestrial IPL areas were captured within the 1 km pixels of analysis. Coastal wetlands also lack data on the effectiveness of protection with IPLs, so we did not include IPL data as currently protected in our estimates.

We identified protected coastal wetland areas using the World Database on PAs (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2024), which contains boundaries for each PA or MPA and additional information, including their establishment year and IUCN management category (Ia to VI, NAP, NR, and NAS). For each PA or MPA polygon, we extracted the coastal wetland area based on the datasets in the Land Cover Data section. Our spatial analysis required the center point of the pixel of each individual ecosystem under consideration to be covered by the PA or MPA polygon in order to be classified as protected, which is a relatively strict spatial extraction technique that likely leads to lower estimates of conservation compared to previous work with differing techniques (Dabalà et al., 2023).

We used the maps of IPLs from Garnett et al. (2018) to identify IPLs that were not inside of established PAs. We calculated the total coastal wetland area within IPLs (excluding PAs and MPAs) using the same coastal wetland data sources.

Coastal Wetland Loss, Additional Sequestration, and Emissions Factors

We aggregated coastal wetland loss rates by ecosystem type (mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses). We used data on PA and MPA effectiveness to calculate the difference in coastal wetland loss rates attributable to protection (Equation A1). We compiled baseline estimates of current rates of coastal wetland degradation from all causes (%/yr) from existing literature as shown in the “Detailed coastal wetland loss data” tab of the Supporting Data spreadsheet and used in conjunction with estimates of reductions in loss, 53–59%, associated with protection.

Equation A1.

\[ Wetland\text{ }loss_{avoided}=(Wetland\text{ }loss_{baseline}\times Reduction\text{ }in\text{ }loss) \]

We then used the ratio of coastal wetland loss in unprotected areas versus PAs to calculate avoided CO₂ emissions and additional carbon sequestration for each adoption unit. Specifically, we estimated the carbon benefits of avoided coastal wetland loss by multiplying avoided coastal wetland loss by avoided CO₂ emissions (30-yr time horizon; Equation A2) and carbon sequestration rates (30-yr time horizon; Equation A3) for each ecosystem type. Importantly, the emissions factors we used account for carbon in above- and below-ground biomass and generally do not assume 100% loss of carbon stocks because many land use impacts may retain some stored carbon, some of which is likely resistant to degradation (see the “2. current state effectiveness tab” in the spreadsheet for more information). We derived our estimates of retained carbon sequestration from global databases on sediment organic carbon burial rates in each ecosystem (see the “2. current state effectiveness tab” in the spreadsheet for more information).

Equation A2.

\[ Avoided\text{ } emissions = Wetland\text{ }loss_{avoided} \times \sum_{t=1}^{30}{Emissions} \]

Equation A3.

\[ Sequestration = Wetland\text{ }loss_{avoided} \times \sum_{t=1}^{30}{Sequestration} \]

We then estimated effectiveness (Equation A4) as the avoided CO₂ emissions and the retained carbon sequestration capacity attributable to the reduction in wetland loss conferred by protection estimated in Equations S1–S3.

Equation A4.

\[ Effectiveness = Wetland\text{ }loss_{avoided} \times (Carbon_{avoided\text{ } emissions} + Carbon_{sequestration}) \]

Finally, we calculated climate impact (Equation A5) by multiplying the adoption area under consideration by the estimated effectiveness from Equation A4.

Equation A5.

\[ Climate\text{ }impact = Effectiveness \times Adoption \]

Appendix References

Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N. D., Fa, J. E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C. J., Watson, J. E. M., Zander, K. K., Austin, B., Brondizio, E. S., Collier, N. F., Duncan, T., Ellis, E., Geyle, H., Jackson, M. V., Jonas, H., Malmer, P., McGowan, B., Sivongxay, A., & Leiper, I. (2018). A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1(7), 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6

UNEP-WCMC, & Short, F. T. (2021). Global distribution of seagrasses (version 7.1) [Data set]. UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre. https://doi.org/10.34892/x6r3-d211

UNEP-WCMC, & IUCN. (2024). Protected planet: The world database on protected areas (WDPA) and world database on other effective area-based conservation measures (WD-OECM) [Data set]. Retrieved November 2024, from https://www.protectedplanet.net

Zhang, X., Liu, L., Zhao, T., Chen, X., Lin, S., Wang, J., Mi, J., & Liu, W. (2023). GWL_FCS30: a global 30 m wetland map with a fine classification system using multi-sourced and time-series remote sensing imagery in 2020. Earth System Science Data, 15(1), 265–293. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-265-2023

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Protect Grasslands & Savannas

Sector
FALO & Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Cut Emissions and Remove Carbon
Cluster
Protect & Manage Ecosystems
Image
Boreal grassland
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

This solution focuses on the legal protection of grassland and savanna ecosystems through the establishment of protected areas (PAs), which are managed with the primary goal of conserving nature, and land tenure for Indigenous peoples. These protections reduce grassland degradation, which preserves carbon stored in soils and vegetation and enables continued carbon sequestration by healthy grasslands.

This solution only includes non-coastal grasslands and savannas on mineral soils in areas that do not naturally support forests. Salt marshes are included in the Protect Coastal Wetlands solution, grasslands on peat soils are included in the Protect Peatlands solution, grasslands that are the product of deforestation are included in the Restore Forests solution, and grasslands that have been converted to other uses are included in the Restore Grasslands and Savannas solution.

Floods,Droughts
Income & work,Food security,Equality
Nature protection,Land resources,Water resources
Description for Social and Search
The Protect Grasslands & Savannas solution is coming soon.
Overview

Grasslands, also called steppes (Europe and Asia), pampas (South America), and prairies (North America), are ecosystems dominated by herbaceous plants that have relatively low tree or shrub cover. Savannas are ecosystems characterized by low-density tree cover that allows for a grass subcanopy (Bardgett et al., 2021; Parente et al., 2024). Grasslands and savannas span arid to mesic climates from the tropics to the tundra; many depend on periodic fires and grazing by large herbivores. The dataset used to define grassland extent for this analysis classifies areas with sparse vegetation, including some shrublands, deserts, and tundra, as grasslands (Parente et al., 2024), but excludes planted and intensively managed livestock pastures. Hereafter we refer to all of these ecosystems, including savannas, as “grasslands.” 

Historically, grasslands covered up to 40% of global land area, depending on the definition used (Bardgett et al., 2021; Parente et al., 2024; Suttie et al., 2005). An estimated 46% of temperate grasslands and 24% of tropical grasslands have been converted to cropland or lost to afforestation or development (Hoekstra et al., 2004). Nearly half of remaining grasslands are estimated to be degraded due to over- or undergrazing, woody plant encroachment, climate change, invasive species, addition of fertilizers or legumes for forage production, and changing fire regimes (Bardgett et al., 2021; Briggs et al., 2005; Gang et al., 2014; Ratajczak et al., 2012). 

Grasslands store carbon primarily in soils and below-ground biomass (Bai & Cotrufo, 2022). A large fraction of the carbon that grasses take up is allocated to root growth, which over time is incorporated into soil organic matter (Bai & Cotrufo, 2022). When native vegetation is removed and land is tilled to convert grasslands to croplands, carbon from biomass and soils is lost as CO₂.  

Estimates of total carbon stocks in grasslands range from 388–1,257 Gt CO₂‑eq (Conant et al., 2017; Goldstein et al., 2020; Poeplau, 2021). Soil carbon generally persists over long timescales and takes decades to rebuild, with one study estimating that 132 Gt CO₂‑eq in grasslands is vulnerable to loss, and that 25 Gt CO₂‑eq of that would be irrecoverable over a 30-year timeframe (Goldstein et al., 2020). Our analysis did not quantify the impacts of grazing or woody plant encroachment on grassland carbon stocks, which can be mixed, though grazing is discussed further in the Improve Livestock Grazing solution (Barger et al., 2011; Conant et al., 2017; Jackson et al., 2002; Stanley et al., 2024). 

Long-term legal protection of grasslands through PAs and Indigenous peoples’ land tenure reduces conversion and therefore avoids conversion-related pulses of GHG emissions from plowing soils and removing biomass. We consider grasslands to be protected if they are 1) formally designated as PAs (United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre [UNEP-WCMC] and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources [IUCN], 2024), or 2) mapped as Indigenous peoples’ lands (IPLs) by Garnett et al. (2018) (Appendix). PAs vary in their allowed uses, ranging from strict wilderness preserves to sustainable-use areas that allow for some natural resource extraction; all levels were included in this analysis (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2024). 

IPLs and PAs reduce, but do not eliminate, ecosystem loss (Baragwanath et al., 2020; Blackman & Viet 2018; Li et al., 2024; McNicol et al., 2023; Sze et al. 2022; Wolf et al., 2023; Wade et al., 2020). Improving management to further reduce land use change within PAs and ensure ecologically appropriate grazing and fire regimes is a critical component of grassland protection (Jones et al., 2018; Meng et al., 2023; Vijay et al., 2018; Visconti et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2014). Additionally, market-based strategies and other policies can complement legal protection by reducing incentives for grassland conversion (e.g., Garett et al., 2019; Golub et al., 2021; Heilmayr et al., 2020; Lambin et al., 2018; Levy et al., 2023; Macdonald et al., 2024; Marin et al., 2022; Villoria et al., 2022; West et al., 2023). Our analyses are based on legal protection because the impact of market-based strategies is difficult to quantify, but these strategies will be further discussed in an additional appendix (coming soon).

References

Adams, V. M., Iacona, G. D., & Possingham, H. P. (2019). Weighing the benefits of expanding protected areas versus managing existing ones. Nature Sustainability, 2(5), 404–411. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0275-5

Ahlering, M., Fargione, J., & Parton, W. (2016). Potential carbon dioxide emission reductions from avoided grassland conversion in the northern Great Plains. Ecosphere, 7(12), Article e01625. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1625

Asamoah, E. F., Beaumont, L. J., & Maina, J. M. (2021). Climate and land-use changes reduce the benefits of terrestrial protected areas. Nature Climate Change, 11(12), 1105–1110. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01223-2

Bai, Y., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2022). Grassland soil carbon sequestration: Current understanding, challenges, and solutions. Science, 377(6606), 603–608. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo2380

Baragwanath, K., & Bayi, E. (2020). Collective property rights reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(34), 20495–20502. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917874117

Bardgett, R. D., Bullock, J. M., Lavorel, S., Manning, P., Schaffner, U., Ostle, N., Chomel, M., Durigan, G., L. Fry, E., Johnson, D., Lavallee, J. M., Le Provost, G., Luo, S., Png, K., Sankaran, M., Hou, X., Zhou, H., Ma, L., Ren, W., … Shi, H. (2021). Combating global grassland degradation. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2(10), 720–735. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00207-2

Barger, N. N., Archer, S. R., Campbell, J. L., Huang, C., Morton, J. A., & Knapp, A. K. (2011). Woody plant proliferation in North American drylands: A synthesis of impacts on ecosystem carbon balance. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 116(G4), Article G00K07. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JG001506

Barnes, M. D., Glew, L., Wyborn, C., & Craigie, I. D. (2018). Prevent perverse outcomes from global protected area policy. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(5), 759–762. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0501-y

Bengtsson, J., Bullock, J. M., Egoh, B., Everson, C., Everson, T., O’Connor, T., O’Farrell, P. J., Smith, H. G., & Lindborg, R. (2019). Grasslands—More important for ecosystem services than you might think. Ecosphere, 10(2), Article e02582. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2582

Berg, A., & McColl, K. A. (2021). No projected global drylands expansion under greenhouse warming. Nature Climate Change, 11(4), 331–337. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01007-8

Blackman, A., & Veit, P. (2018). Titled Amazon Indigenous communities cut forest carbon emissions. Ecological Economics, 153, 56–67. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.016

Briggs, J. M., Knapp, A. K., Blair, J. M., Heisler, J. L., Hoch, G. A., Lett, M. S., & McCarron, J. K. (2005). An ecosystem in transition: Causes and consequences of the conversion of mesic grassland to shrubland. BioScience, 55(3), 243–254. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0243:AEITCA]2.0.CO;2

Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., & Balmford, A. (2004). Financial costs and shortfalls of managing and expanding Protected-Area systems in developing countries. BioScience, 54(12), 1119–1126. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1119:FCASOM]2.0.CO;2

Carbutt, C., Henwood, W. D., & Gilfedder, L. A. (2017). Global plight of native temperate grasslands: Going, going, gone? Biodiversity and Conservation, 26(12), 2911–2932. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1398-5

Chang, J., Ciais, P., Gasser, T., Smith, P., Herrero, M., Havlík, P., Obersteiner, M., Guenet, B., Goll, D. S., Li, W., Naipal, V., Peng, S., Qiu, C., Tian, H., Viovy, N., Yue, C., & Zhu, D. (2021). Climate warming from managed grasslands cancels the cooling effect of carbon sinks in sparsely grazed and natural grasslands. Nature Communications, 12(1), Article 118. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20406-7

Conant, R. T., Cerri, C. E. P., Osborne, B. B., & Paustian, K. (2017). Grassland management impacts on soil carbon stocks: A new synthesis. Ecological Applications, 27(2), 662–668. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1473

Craine, J. M., Ocheltree, T. W., Nippert, J. B., Towne, E. G., Skibbe, A. M., Kembel, S. W., & Fargione, J. E. (2013). Global diversity of drought tolerance and grassland climate-change resilience. Nature Climate Change, 3(1), 63–67. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1634

Dinerstein, E., Joshi, A. R., Hahn, N. R., Lee, A. T. L., Vynne, C., Burkart, K., Asner, G. P., Beckham, C., Ceballos, G., Cuthbert, R., Dirzo, R., Fankem, O., Hertel, S., Li, B. V., Mellin, H., Pharand-Deschênes, F., Olson, D., Pandav, B., Peres, C. A., … Zolli, A. (2024). Conservation Imperatives: Securing the last unprotected terrestrial sites harboring irreplaceable biodiversity. Frontiers in Science, 2. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsci.2024.1349350

ESA CCI (2019). Copernicus Climate Change Service, Climate Data Store: Land cover classification gridded maps from 1992 to present derived from satellite observation. Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS). Accessed November 2024. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.006f2c9a

Feng, S., & Fu, Q. (2013). Expansion of global drylands under a warming climate. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 13(19), 10081–10094. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10081-2013

Gang, C., Zhou, W., Chen, Y., Wang, Z., Sun, Z., Li, J., Qi, J., & Odeh, I. (2014). Quantitative assessment of the contributions of climate change and human activities on global grassland degradation. Environmental Earth Sciences, 72(11), 4273–4282. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3322-6

Garnett, S. T., Burgess, N. D., Fa, J. E., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z., Robinson, C. J., Watson, J. E. M., Zander, K. K., Austin, B., Brondizio, E. S., Collier, N. F., Duncan, T., Ellis, E., Geyle, H., Jackson, M. V., Jonas, H., Malmer, P., McGowan, B., Sivongxay, A., & Leiper, I. (2018). A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability, 1(7), 369–374. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6

Garrett, R. D., Levy, S., Carlson, K. M., Gardner, T. A., Godar, J., Clapp, J., Dauvergne, P., Heilmayr, R., le Polain de Waroux, Y., Ayre, B., Barr, R., Døvre, B., Gibbs, H. K., Hall, S., Lake, S., Milder, J. C., Rausch, L. L., Rivero, R., Rueda, X., … Villoria, N. (2019). Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments. Global Environmental Change, 54, 135–147. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.003

Goldstein, A., Turner, W. R., Spawn, S. A., Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Cook-Patton, S., Fargione, J., Gibbs, H. K., Griscom, B., Hewson, J. H., Howard, J. F., Ledezma, J. C., Page, S., Koh, L. P., Rockström, J., Sanderman, J., & Hole, D. G. (2020). Protecting irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems. Nature Climate Change, 10(4), 287–295. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0738-8

Golub, A., Herrera, D., Leslie, G., Pietracci, B., & Lubowski, R. (2021). A real options framework for reducing emissions from deforestation: Reconciling short-term incentives with long-term benefits from conservation and agricultural intensification. Ecosystem Services, 49, Article 101275. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101275

Graham, V., Geldmann, J., Adams, V. M., Negret, P. J., Sinovas, P., & Chang, H.-C. (2021). Southeast Asian protected areas are effective in conserving forest cover and forest carbon stocks compared to unprotected areas. Scientific Reports, 11(1), Article 23760. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-03188-w

Grasslands, Rangelands, Savannahs and Shrublands (GRaSS) Alliance. (2023). Valuing Grasslands: Critical ecosystems for nature, climate, and people [Discussion paper]. Link to source: https://www.birdlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Valuing-Grasslands-Report-Dec-2023.pdf

Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., Schlesinger, W. H., Shoch, D., Siikamäki, J. V., Smith, P., Woodbury, P., Zganjar, C., Blackman, A., Campari, J., Conant, R. T., Delgado, C., Elias, P., Gopalakrishna, T., Hamsik, M. R., … Fargione, J. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(44), 11645–11650. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114

Heilmayr, R., Rausch, L. L., Munger, J., & Gibbs, H. K. (2020). Brazil’s Amazon Soy Moratorium reduced deforestation. Nature Food, 1(12), 801–810. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00194-5

Hoekstra, J. M., Boucher, T. M., Ricketts, T. H., & Roberts, C. (2005). Confronting a biome crisis: Global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology Letters, 8(1), 23–29. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00686.x

Huang, J., Yu, H., Guan, X., Wang, G., & Guo, R. (2016). Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6(2), 166–171. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2837

Huang, X., Ibrahim, M. M., Luo, Y., Jiang, L., Chen, J., & Hou, E. (2024). Land use change alters soil organic carbon: Constrained global patterns and predictors. Earth’s Future, 12(5), Article e2023EF004254. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF004254

IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. (2019). Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Calvo Buendia, E., Tanabe, K., Kranjc, A., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M., Ngarize S., Osako, A., Pyrozhenko, Y., Shermanau, P. and Federici, S., Eds.). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Link to source: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/pdf/0_Overview/19R_V0_00_Cover_Foreword_Preface_Dedication.pdf 

Isbell, F., Craven, D., Connolly, J., Loreau, M., Schmid, B., Beierkuhnlein, C., Bezemer, T. M., Bonin, C., Bruelheide, H., de Luca, E., Ebeling, A., Griffin, J. N., Guo, Q., Hautier, Y., Hector, A., Jentsch, A., Kreyling, J., Lanta, V., Manning, P., … Eisenhauer, N. (2015). Biodiversity increases the resistance of ecosystem productivity to climate extremes. Nature, 526(7574), 574–577. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15374

Jackson, R. B., Banner, J. L., Jobbágy, E. G., Pockman, W. T., & Wall, D. H. (2002). Ecosystem carbon loss with woody plant invasion of grasslands. Nature, 418(6898), 623–626. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature00910

Jones, K. R., Venter, O., Fuller, R. A., Allan, J. R., Maxwell, S. L., Negret, P. J., & Watson, J. E. M. (2018). One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science, 360(6390), 788–791. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9565

Kachler, J., Benra, F., Bolliger, R., Isaac, R., Bonn, A., & Felipe-Lucia, M. R. (2023). Can we have it all? The role of grassland conservation in supporting forage production and plant diversity. Landscape Ecology, 38(12), 4451–4465. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01729-4

Kemp, D. R., Guodong, H., Xiangyang, H., Michalk, D. L., Fujiang, H., Jianping, W., & Yingjun, Z. (2013). Innovative grassland management systems for environmental and livelihood benefits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(21), 8369–8374. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208063110

Kim, J. H., Jobbágy, E. G., & Jackson, R. B. (2016). Trade-offs in water and carbon ecosystem services with land-use changes in grasslands. Ecological Applications, 26(6), 1633–1644. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0863.1

Knapp, A. K., Chen, A., Griffin-Nolan, R. J., Baur, L. E., Carroll, C. J. W., Gray, J. E., Hoffman, A. M., Li, X., Post, A. K., Slette, I. J., Collins, S. L., Luo, Y., & Smith, M. D. (2020). Resolving the Dust Bowl paradox of grassland responses to extreme drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(36), 22249–22255. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922030117

Lambin, E. F., Gibbs, H. K., Heilmayr, R., Carlson, K. M., Fleck, L. C., Garrett, R. D., le Polain de Waroux, Y., McDermott, C. L., McLaughlin, D., Newton, P., Nolte, C., Pacheco, P., Rausch, L. L., Streck, C., Thorlakson, T., & Walker, N. F. (2018). The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nature Climate Change, 8(2), 109–116. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0061-1

Lefcheck, J. S., Byrnes, J. E. K., Isbell, F., Gamfeldt, L., Griffin, J. N., Eisenhauer, N., Hensel, M. J. S., Hector, A., Cardinale, B. J., & Duffy, J. E. (2015). Biodiversity enhances ecosystem multifunctionality across trophic levels and habitats. Nature Communications, 6(1), Article 6936. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7936

Levy, S. A., Cammelli, F., Munger, J., Gibbs, H. K., & Garrett, R. D. (2023). Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon could be halved by scaling up the implementation of zero-deforestation cattle commitments. Global Environmental Change, 80, Article 102671. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102671

Li, G., Fang, C., Watson, J. E. M., Sun, S., Qi, W., Wang, Z., & Liu, J. (2024). Mixed effectiveness of global protected areas in resisting habitat loss. Nature Communications, 15(1), Article 8389. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-52693-9

Li, J., Huang, L., Cao, W., Wang, J., Fan, J., Xu, X., & Tian, H. (2023). Benefits, potential and risks of China’s grassland ecosystem conservation and restoration. Science of The Total Environment, 905, Article 167413. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167413

Liechti, K., & Biber, J.-P. (2016). Pastoralism in Europe: Characteristics and challenges of highland-lowland transhumance. Revue Scientifique Et Technique (International Office of Epizootics), 35(2), 561–575. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.35.2.2541

Macdonald, K., Diprose, R., Grabs, J., Schleifer, P., Alger, J., Bahruddin, Brandao, J., Cashore, B., Chandra, A., Cisneros, P., Delgado, D., Garrett, R., & Hopkinson, W. (2024). Jurisdictional approaches to sustainable agro-commodity governance: The state of knowledge and future research directions. Earth System Governance, 22, Article 100227. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2024.100227

Marin, F. R., Zanon, A. J., Monzon, J. P., Andrade, J. F., Silva, E. H. F. M., Richter, G. L., Antolin, L. A. S., Ribeiro, B. S. M. R., Ribas, G. G., Battisti, R., Heinemann, A. B., & Grassini, P. (2022). Protecting the Amazon forest and reducing global warming via agricultural intensification. Nature Sustainability, 5, 1018–1026. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00968-8

McNicol, I. M., Keane, A., Burgess, N. D., Bowers, S. J., Mitchard, E. T. A., & Ryan, C. M. (2023). Protected areas reduce deforestation and degradation and enhance woody growth across African woodlands. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), Article 392. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01053-4

Meng, Z., Dong, J., Ellis, E. C., Metternicht, G., Qin, Y., Song, X.-P., Löfqvist, S., Garrett, R. D., Jia, X., & Xiao, X. (2023). Post-2020 biodiversity framework challenged by cropland expansion in protected areas. Nature Sustainability, 6(7), 758–768. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01093-w

Michalk, D. L., Kemp, D. R., Badgery, W. B., Wu, J., Zhang, Y., & Thomassin, P. J. (2019). Sustainability and future food security—A global perspective for livestock production. Land Degradation & Development, 30(5), 561–573. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3217

Nabuurs, G.-J., Mrabet, R., Hatab, A. A., Bustamante, M., Clark, H., Havlík, P., House, J. I., Mbow, C., Ninan, K. N., Popp, A., Roe, S., Sohngen, B., & Towprayoon, S. (2022). Agriculture, forestry and other land uses (AFOLU). In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, & J. Malley (Eds.), Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 747–860). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.009

Nugent, D. T., Baker-Gabb, D. J., Green, P., Ostendorf, B., Dawlings, F., Clarke, R. H., & Morgan, J. W. (2022). Multi-scale habitat selection by a cryptic, critically endangered grassland bird—The Plains-wanderer (Pedionomus torquatus): Implications for habitat management and conservation. Austral Ecology, 47(3), 698–712. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.13157

Olson, D. M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E. D., Burgess, N. D., Powell, G. V. N., Underwood, E. C., D’amico, J. A., Itoua, I., Strand, H. E., Morrison, J. C., Loucks, C. J., Allnutt, T. F., Ricketts, T. H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J. F., Wettengel, W. W., Hedao, P., & Kassem, K. R. (2001). Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on Earth: A new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience, 51(11), 933–938. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0.CO;2

Parente, L., Sloat, L., Mesquita, V., Consoli, D., Stanimirova, R., Hengl, T., Bonannella, C., Teles, N., Wheeler, I., Hunter, M., Ehrmann, S., Ferreira, L., Mattos, A. P., Oliveira, B., Meyer, C., Şahin, M., Witjes, M., Fritz, S., Malek, Z., & Stolle, F. (2024a). Annual 30-m maps of global grassland class and extent (2000–2022) based on spatiotemporal Machine Learning. Scientific Data, 11(1), Article 1303. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-04139-6

Parente, L., Sloat, L., Mesquita, V., Consoli, D., Stanimirova, R., Hengl, T., Bonannella, C., Teles, N., Wheeler, I., Hunter, M., Ehrmann, S., Ferreira, L., Mattos, A. P., Oliveira, B., Meyer, C., Şahin, M., Witjes, M., Fritz, S., Malek, Ž., & Stolle, F. (2024b). Global Pasture Watch—Annual grassland class and extent maps at 30-m spatial resolution (2000—2022) (Version v1) [Data set]. Zenodo. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13890417

Pelser, A., Redelinghuys, N., & Kernan, A.-L. (2015). Protected Areas and ecosystem services—Integrating grassland conservation with human well-being in South Africa. In Biodiversity in Ecosystems—Linking Structure and Function. IntechOpen. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5772/59015

Petermann, J. S., & Buzhdygan, O. Y. (2021). Grassland biodiversity. Current Biology, 31(19), R1195–R1201. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.06.060

Poeplau, C. (2021). Grassland soil organic carbon stocks along management intensity and warming gradients. Grass and Forage Science, 76(2), 186–195. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12537

Poggio, L., de Sousa, L. M., Batjes, N. H., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Kempen, B., Ribeiro, E., & Rossiter, D. (2021). SoilGrids 2.0: Producing soil information for the globe with quantified spatial uncertainty. SOIL, 7(1), 217–240. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-7-217-2021

Ratajczak, Z., Nippert, J. B., & Collins, S. L. (2012). Woody encroachment decreases diversity across North American grasslands and savannas. Ecology, 93(4), 697–703. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1199.1

Resare Sahlin, K., Gordon, L. J., Lindborg, R., Piipponen, J., Van Rysselberge, P., Rouet-Leduc, J., & Röös, E. (2024). An exploration of biodiversity limits to grazing ruminant milk and meat production. Nature Sustainability, 7(9), 1160–1170. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01398-4

Saura, S., Bertzky, B., Bastin, L., Battistella, L., Mandrici, A., & Dubois, G. (2019). Global trends in protected area connectivity from 2010 to 2018. Biological Conservation, 238, Article 108183. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.07.028

Sloat, L., Balehegn, M., & Johnson, P. (2025, May 2). Grasslands Are Some of Earth’s Most Underrated Ecosystems. World Resources Institute. Link to source: https://www.wri.org/insights/grassland-benefits

Smith, M. D., Wilkins, K. D., Holdrege, M. C., Wilfahrt, P., Collins, S. L., Knapp, A. K., Sala, O. E., Dukes, J. S., Phillips, R. P., Yahdjian, L., Gherardi, L. A., Ohlert, T., Beier, C., Fraser, L. H., Jentsch, A., Loik, M. E., Maestre, F. T., Power, S. A., Yu, Q., … Zuo, X. (2024). Extreme drought impacts have been underestimated in grasslands and shrublands globally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(4), Article e2309881120. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2309881120

Spawn, S. A., Sullivan, C. C., Lark, T. J., & Gibbs, H. K. (2020). Harmonized global maps of above and belowground biomass carbon density in the year 2010. Scientific Data, 7(1), Article 112. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0444-4

Stanley, P. L., Wilson, C., Patterson, E., Machmuller, M. B., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2024). Ruminating on soil carbon: Applying current understanding to inform grazing management. Global Change Biology, 30(3), Article e17223. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17223

Su, X., Han, W., Liu, G., Zhang, Y., & Lu, H. (2019). Substantial gaps between the protection of biodiversity hotspots in alpine grasslands and the effectiveness of protected areas on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 278, 15–23. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.03.013

Suttie, J. M., Reynolds, S. G., & Batello, C. (Eds.). (2005). Grasslands of the world (Vol. 34). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/4/y8344e/y8344e00.htm 

Sze, J. S., Carrasco, L. R., Childs, D., & Edwards, D. P. (2021). Reduced deforestation and degradation in Indigenous Lands pan-tropically. Nature Sustainability, 5(2), 123–130. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00815-2

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, & International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2024). Protected planet: The world database on protected areas (WDPA) and world database on other effective area-based conservation measures (WD-OECM) [Data set]. Retrieved November 2024 from Link to source: https://www.protectedplanet.net

Vijay, V., Fisher, J. R. B., & Armsworth, P. R. (2022). Co-benefits for terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem services available from contrasting land protection policies in the contiguous United States. Conservation Letters, 15(5), Article e12907. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12907

Villoria, N., Garrett, R., Gollnow, F., & Carlson, K. (2022). Leakage does not fully offset soy supply-chain efforts to reduce deforestation in Brazil. Nature Communications, 13(1), Article 5476. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33213-z

Visconti, P., Butchart, S. H. M., Brooks, T. M., Langhammer, P. F., Marnewick, D., Vergara, S., Yanosky, A., & Watson, J. E. M. (2019). Protected area targets post-2020. Science, 364(6437), 239–241. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav6886

Wade, C. M., Austin, K. G., Cajka, J., Lapidus, D., Everett, K. H., Galperin, D., Maynard, R., & Sobel, A. (2020). What is threatening forests in Protected Areas? A global assessment of deforestation in Protected Areas, 2001–2018. Forests, 11(5), Article 539. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/f11050539

Waldron, A., Adams, V., Allan, J., Arnell, A., Asner, G., Atkinson, S., Baccini, A., Baillie, J. E. M., Balmford, A., Beau, J. A., Brander, L., Brondizio, E., Bruner, A., Burgess, N., Burkart, K., Butchart, S., Button, R., Carrasco, R., Cheung, W., … Zhang, Y. P. (2020). Protecting 30% of the planet for nature: Costs, benefits and economic implications [Working paper]. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Link to source: https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/16560/1/Waldron_Report_FINAL_sml.pdf

Ward, M., Saura, S., Williams, B., Ramírez-Delgado, J. P., Arafeh-Dalmau, N., Allan, J. R., Venter, O., Dubois, G., & Watson, J. E. M. (2020). Just ten percent of the global terrestrial protected area network is structurally connected via intact land. Nature Communications, 11(1), Article 4563. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18457-x

Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B., & Hockings, M. (2014). The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature, 515(7525), 67–73. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13947

West, T. A. P., Wunder, S., Sills, E. O., Börner, J., Rifai, S. W., Neidermeier, A. N., Frey, G. P., & Kontoleon, A. (2023). Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation. Science, 381(6660), 873–877. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade3535

Williams, M., Reay, D., & Smith, P. (2023). Avoiding emissions versus creating sinks—Effectiveness and attractiveness to climate finance. Global Change Biology, 29(8), 2046–2049. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16598

Wolf, C., Levi, T., Ripple, W. J., Zárrate-Charry, D. A., & Betts, M. G. (2021). A forest loss report card for the world’s protected areas. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(4), 520–529. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01389-0

Yao, J., Liu, H., Huang, J., Gao, Z., Wang, G., Li, D., Yu, H., & Chen, X. (2020). Accelerated dryland expansion regulates future variability in dryland gross primary production. Nature Communications, 11(1), Article 1665. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15515-2

Yu, Q., Xu, C., Wu, H., Ke, Y., Zuo, X., Luo, W., Ren, H., Gu, Q., Wang, H., Ma, W., Knapp, A. K., Collins, S. L., Rudgers, J. A., Luo, Y., Hautier, Y., Wang, C., Wang, Z., Jiang, Y., Han, G., … Han, X. (2025). Contrasting drought sensitivity of Eurasian and North American grasslands. Nature, 639(8053), 114–118. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08478-7

Zhu, K., Chiariello, N. R., Tobeck, T., Fukami, T., & Field, C. B. (2016). Nonlinear, interacting responses to climate limit grassland production under global change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(38), 10589–10594. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606734113

Zhu, K., Song, Y., Lesage, J. C., Luong, J. C., Bartolome, J. W., Chiariello, N. R., Dudney, J., Field, C. B., Hallett, L. M., Hammond, M., Harrison, S. P., Hayes, G. F., Hobbs, R. J., Holl, K. D., Hopkinson, P., Larios, L., Loik, M. E., & Prugh, L. R. (2024). Rapid shifts in grassland communities driven by climate change. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 8(12), 2252–2264. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02552-z

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Avery Driscoll

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Christina Richardson, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

We estimated that protecting 1 ha of grasslands avoids 0.06–0.90 t CO₂‑eq/yr, with emissions reductions tending to be higher in boreal and temperate regions than tropical and subtropical regions (100-yr GWP; Table 1a–d; Appendix).

We estimated effectiveness as the avoided emissions attributable to the reduction in grassland conversion conferred by protection (Equation 1; Appendix), assuming that converted grasslands are used as croplands due to data constraints. Although some grasslands are converted to intensively managed pastures or urban development, we assumed that the total land area converted to infrastructure is relatively small and emissions associated with conversion to planted pastures are comparable to those from conversion to cropland.

We aggregated estimates of avoided grassland conversion attributable to PAs from Li et al. (2024) to the biome level (Grassland lossavoided), then multiplied the result by the total emissions over 30 years from 1 ha of grassland converted to cropland. These emissions include the change in biomass and soil carbon on conversion to cropland (Carbonemissions), 30 years of lost carbon sequestration potential (Carbonuptake), and nitrous oxide emissions associated with soil carbon loss, which is a small component of total emissions (see Appendix for details; Chang et al. 2021; Huang et al., 2024; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2019; Poggio et al., 2021; Spawn et al., 2020).

Equation 1.

\[Effectiveness=(Grassland\text{ }loss_{avoided}) \times (Carbon_{emissions} + Carbon_{uptake}) \]

The effectiveness of grassland protection as defined here reflects only a small percentage of the carbon stored in grasslands because we accounted for the likelihood that the grassland would be converted without protection. Grassland protection is particularly impactful for areas at high risk of conversion.

Table 1a–d. Effectiveness of grassland protection at avoiding emissions and sequestering carbon. Regional differences in values are driven by variation in carbon stocks, baseline rates of grassland conversion, and the effectiveness of PAs at reducing conversion.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/ha/yr

Estimate 0.90

Unit: t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/ha/yr

Estimate 0.54

Unit: t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/ha/yr

Estimate 0.13

Unit: t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/ha/yr

Estimate 0.06
Left Text Column Width
Cost

The costs of grassland protection include up-front costs of land acquisition and ongoing costs of management and enforcement. The market price of land reflects the opportunity cost of not using the land for other purposes, such as agriculture or urban development. Data related to the costs of grassland protection are very limited. 

We estimated that grassland protection provides a net cost savings of approximately US$0.53/ha/yr, or US$1.58/t CO₂‑eq avoided (Table 2). This estimate reflects global averages rather than regionally specific values, and some data are not specific to grasslands. Costs and revenues are highly variable across regions, depending on the costs of land and enforcement and the potential for tourism. 

Dienerstein et al. (2024) estimated the initial cost of establishing a PA for 60 high-biodiversity ecoregions. Amongst the 20 regions that contain grasslands, the median acquisition cost was US$897/ha, which we amortized over 30 years. Costs of PA maintenance were estimated at US$9–17/ha/yr (Bruner et al., 2004; Waldron et al., 2020), though these estimates were not specific to grasslands. Additionally, these estimates reflect the costs of effective enforcement and management, but many existing PAs lack adequate funds for effective enforcement (Adams et al., 2019; Barnes et al., 2018; Burner et al., 2004). 

Protecting grasslands can generate revenue through increased tourism. Waldron et al. (2020) estimated that, across all ecosystems, tourism revenues directly attributable to PA establishment were US$43 ha/yr, not including downstream revenues from industries that benefit from increased tourism. Inclusion of a tourism multiplier would substantially increase the estimated economic benefits of grassland protection.

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact for grassland protection. Negative value indicates cost savings.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Median -1.58
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

A learning curve is defined here as falling costs with increased adoption. The costs of grassland protection do not fall with increasing adoption, so there is no learning curve for this solution.

Speed of Action

The term speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is separate from the speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Protect Grasslands is an EMERGENCY BRAKE climate solution. It reduces pulses of emissions from the conversion of grasslands, offering the potential to deliver a more rapid impact than gradual and delayed solutions. Because emergency brake solutions can deliver their climate benefits quickly, they can help accelerate our efforts to address dangerous levels of climate change. For this reason, they are a high priority.

Caveats

Permanence

Permanence is a caveat for emissions avoidance through grassland protection that is not addressed in this analysis. Protected grasslands could be converted to agricultural uses or other development if legal protections are reversed or inadequately enforced, resulting in the loss of stored carbon. Many PAs allow for some human uses, and PA management that is not tailored to grazing needs, fire dependency, or woody plant encroachment can reduce carbon stocks within PAs (Barger et al., 2011; Chang et al., 2021; Conant et al, 2017; Jackson et al., 2002; Kemp et al., 2013; Popleau et al., 2011). Climate change is also causing widespread degradation of grasslands, including reductions in vegetation productivity that may reduce carbon storage over the long term even in the absence of additional disturbance (Chang et al., 2021; Gang et al., 2014; Li et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2016). Climate change and aridification may also cause expansion of grassland extent (Berg & McColl, 2021; Feng & Fu, 2014; Huang et al., 2016), with mixed but overall negative impacts on terrestrial carbon uptake (Yao et al., 2020).

Additionality

Additionality is another important caveat for emissions avoidance through ecosystem protection (Ahlering et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2023). In this analysis, additionality was addressed by using baseline rates of grassland conversion in calculating effectiveness. Evaluating additionality is challenging and remains an active area of research.

Current Adoption

A total of 555 Mha of grasslands (excluding grasslands on peat soils, grasslands that are also coastal wetlands, and grasslands created through deforestation) are currently located within PAs, and an additional 832 Mha are located on IPLs not classified as PAs (Table 3e). That means that ~48% of grasslands are under some form of protection globally, with 6% in strict PAs, 13% in non-strict PAs, and 29% on IPLs that are not also PAs. As of 2023, tropical regions had the largest extent of protected grasslands (583 Mha), followed by boreal regions (339 Mha), and subtropical regions (293 Mha). In temperate regions, only 24% of grasslands (172 Mha) were under any form of protection (Table 3a–d).

Table 3a–e. Grassland under protection by biome (circa 2023). Estimates are provided for three different forms of protection: “strict” protection, including IUCN classes I and II; “non-strict” protection, including all other IUCN categories; and IPLs outside of PAs. Regional values may not sum to global totals due to rounding.

Unit: ha protected

Strict PAs 52,564,000
Non-strict PAs 82,447,000
IPLs 203,579,000

Unit: ha protected

Strict PAs 30,242,000
Non-strict PAs 51,033,000
IPLs 90,973,000

Unit: ha protected

Strict PAs 31,949,000
Non-strict PAs 83,745,000
IPLs 177,301,000

Unit: ha protected

Strict PAs 56,233,000
Non-strict PAs 166,356,000
IPLs 359,997,000

Unit: ha protected

Strict PAs 170,988,000
Non-strict PAs 383,581,000
IPLs 831,850,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

We calculated the annual rate of new grassland protection based on the year of PA establishment for areas established in 2000–2020. The median annual increase in grassland protection was 8.1 Mha (mean 11.4 Mha; Table 4e). This represents a roughly 1.5%/yr increase in grasslands within PAs, or protection of an additional 0.3%/yr of total global grasslands. Grassland protection has proceeded more quickly in tropical regions (median increase of 4.0 Mha/yr) than in other climate zones (median increases of 1.2–1.6 Mha/yr) (Table 4a–d). 

Table 4a–e. Adoption trend for grassland protection in PAs of any IUCN class (2000–2020). The 25th and 75th percentiles reflect only interannual variance (ha grassland protected/yr). IPLs are not included in this analysis due to a lack of data.

Unit: ha grassland protected/yr

25th percentile 659,000
Median (50th percentile) 1,338,000
Mean 2,152,000
75th percentile 3,007,000

Unit: ha grassland protected/yr

25th percentile 692,000
Median (50th percentile) 1,178,000
Mean 1,728,000
75th percentile 1,715,000

Unit: ha grassland protected/yr

25th percentile 940,000
Median (50th percentile) 1,580,000
Mean 2,791,000
75th percentile 3,226,000

Unit: ha grassland protected/yr

25th percentile 2,628,000
Median (50th percentile) 4,044,000
Mean 4,711,000
75th percentile 5,774,000

Unit: ha grassland protected/yr

25th percentile 4,919,000
Median (50th percentile) 8,140,000
Mean 11,382,000
75th percentile 13,722,000
Left Text Column Width

Figure 1. Trend in grassland protection by climate zone (2000-2020) in terms of total hectares protected (left) and the percent of the current adoption ceiling protected (right). These values reflect only the area located within PA. Grasslands located in IPLs, which were not included in the calculation of the adoption trend due to a lack of data, are excluded. Data from Project Drawdown.

Enable Download
On
Adoption Ceiling

Including grasslands that are currently protected, we estimated that there are approximately 2,891 Mha of natural grasslands that are not counted in a different solution (Table 5e). This ceiling includes 1,505 Mha that are not currently under any form of protection. This includes 533 Mha of eligible grasslands in boreal regions, 723 Mha in temperate regions, 626 Mha in the subtropics, and 1,008 Mha in the tropics (Table 5a–d). 

To develop these estimates, we relied on the global grassland map from Parente et al. (2024), excluded areas that were included in the Protect Forests, Protect Peatlands, and Protect Coastal Wetlands solutions, and excluded areas that were historically forested according to the Terrestrial Ecoregions of The World dataset (Olson et al., 2001; Appendix). While it is not socially, politically, or economically realistic that all remaining grasslands could be protected, these values represent the technical upper limit to adoption of this solution.

Table 5a–e. Adoption ceiling: upper limit for adoption of legal protection of grasslands by biome. Values may not sum to global totals due to rounding. 

Unit: ha protected

Estimate 533,033,000

Unit: ha protected

Estimate 723,429,000

Unit: ha protected

Estimate 626,474,000

Unit: ha protected

Estimate 1,008,375,000

Unit: ha protected

Estimate 2,891,311,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We assigned a low achievable level of a minimum of 50% of grasslands in each climate zone (Table 6a–e). For boreal and tropical regions, in which 64% and 58%, respectively, of grasslands are already protected, we assumed no change in the area under protection (Table 6a, d). For temperate areas, the low achievable target reflects an increase of 189 Mha, or more than a doubling of the current PA extent (Table 6b). In subtropical zones, this target reflects an additional 20 Mha under protection (Table 6c). We assigned a high achievable level of 70% of grasslands in each climate zone, reflecting an additional 637 Mha of protected grasslands globally, or a 46% increase in the current PA extent (Table 6a–e).

Table 6a–e. Range of achievable adoption of grassland protection by biome.

Unit: ha protected

Current adoption 338,590,000
Achievable – low 338,590,000
Achievable – high 373,123,000
Adoption ceiling 533,033,000

Unit: ha protected

Current adoption 172,248,000
Achievable – low 361,715,000
Achievable – high 506,400,000
Adoption ceiling 723,429,000

Unit: ha protected

Current adoption 292,995,000
Achievable – low 313,237,000
Achievable – high 438,532,000
Adoption ceiling 626,474,000

Unit: ha protected

Current adoption 582,586,000
Achievable – low 582,586,000
Achievable – high 705,863,000
Adoption ceiling 1,008,375,000

Unit: ha protected

Current adoption 1,386,419,000
Achievable – low 1,596,128,000
Achievable – high 2,023,918,000
Adoption ceiling 2,891,311,000
Left Text Column Width

We estimated that PAs currently reduce GHG emissions from grassland conversion by 0.468 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Table 7a–e). Achievable levels of grassland protection have the potential to reduce emissions 0.572–0.704 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, with a technical upper bound of 1.006 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Table 7a–e). This indicates that further emissions reductions of 0.105–0.237 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr are achievable. For these benefits to be realized, grazing, fire, and woody plant management must be responsive to local grassland needs and compatible with the maintenance of carbon stocks. The solutions Improve Livestock Grazing and Deploy Silvopasture address the climate impacts of some aspects of grassland management.

Few other sources explicitly quantify the climate impacts of grassland protection, but the available data are roughly aligned with our estimates of additional mitigation potential. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that avoided conversion of grasslands to croplands could reduce emissions by 0.03–0.7 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Nabuurs et al., 2022). Griscom et al. (2017) estimated that avoided grassland conversion could save 0.12 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr emissions from soil carbon only (not counting loss of vegetation, sequestration potential, or nitrous oxide), though their analysis did not account for current protection and relied on older estimates of grassland conversion. 

Table 7a–e. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.305
Achievable – low 0.305
Achievable – high 0.336
Adoption ceiling 0.481

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.093
Achievable – low 0.195
Achievable – high 0.273
Adoption ceiling 0.390

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.037
Achievable – low 0.039
Achievable – high 0.055
Adoption ceiling 0.078

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.033
Achievable – low 0.033
Achievable – high 0.040
Adoption ceiling 0.057

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.468
Achievable – low 0.572
Achievable – high 0.704
Adoption ceiling 1.006
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Floods

Grassland plants often have deep root systems, leading to high soil carbon stocks (Sloat et al., 2025). These roots can absorb water and reduce discharge into surrounding water bodies during periods of excessive rain (GRaSS, 2024).

Droughts

Different grassland plant species respond differently to drought. Variations in precipitation seasonality due to drought may allow some grass species to dominate over others (Knapp et al., 2020). Evidence suggests that higher species diversity can enhance grassland resilience to drought (Smith et al., 2024; Yu et al., 2025).  Additionally, the deep root systems of grassland plants contribute to the drought resilience of these ecosystems (Sloat et al., 2025). More resilient, biodiverse grasslands are associated with greater ecosystem stability and productivity, and can maintain ecosystem services during periods of extreme weather, such as drought (Isbell et al, 2015; Lefcheck et al., 2015).

Income and Work

Grasslands are an important source of income for surrounding communities through tourism and other ecosystem services (Bengtsson et al., 2019). Protecting grasslands sustains the long-term health of the ecosystem, which is especially important for subsistence livelihoods that depend on intact landscapes for incomes (Pelser, 2015). Sources of income that are directly generated from grasslands include: meat, milk, wool, and leather and thatching materials to make brooms, hats, and baskets (GRaSS, 2024; Pelser, 2015). People living near grasslands often rely on grazing livestock for food and income (GRaSS, 2024, Kemp 2013, Su et al., 2019). Grasslands in China support the livelihoods of about 16 million people, many of whom live in poverty (Kemp et al., 2013). The Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau is especially important for grazing livestock (Su et al., 2019). Evidence has shown that declines in grassland productivity are also linked to declines in income (Kemp et al., 2013).

Food Security

Grasslands can contribute to food security by providing food for livestock and supporting pollinators for nearby agriculture (Sloat et al., 2025). Grassland-based grazing systems are important sources of food for populations in low and middle-income countries, particularly in Oceania, Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East, North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa (Resare Sahlin et al., 2023). Grasslands can support the food security of smallholder farmers and pastoralists in these regions by providing meat and milk (GRaSS, 2024; Michalk, 2018). 

Equality

Grasslands are central to many cultures, and grassland protection can support shared cultural and spiritual values for many populations. They can be sources of identity for people living in or near grassland ecosystems who have strong connections with the land (Bengtsson et al., 2019, GRaSS, 2024). In Mongolia, for example, grasslands sustain horses, which are central to the cultural identities and livelihoods of communities, particularly nomadic populations (Kemp et al., 2014). Grasslands can also be an important source of shared identity for pastoralists who move herds to graze based on seasonal cycles during the year (Liechti & Biber, 2016).

Nature Protection

Many grasslands are biodiversity hot spots (Petermann & Buzhdygan, 2021; Su et al., 2019). Numerous plant and animal species are endemic to grasslands, meaning they have limited habitat ranges and can easily become endangered with habitat degradation (Sloat et al., 2025). In Germany, grasslands in PAs were found to have higher plant diversity than in non-PAs (Kachler et al., 2023). Grasslands are important habitats for bird species that rely on them for breeding grounds (GRaSS, 2024; Nugent et al., 2022).

Land Resources

The unique, deep root structures of some grassland plants can improve soil stability and reduce soil erosion (Bengtsson et al., 2019; GRaSS, 2024; Kemp et al., 2013).

Water Resources

Grasslands can regulate water flows and water storage. The root systems can help rainwater reach deep underground, recharging groundwater stores (Bengtsson et al., 2019; GRaSS, 2024).

Risks

Relying on grassland protection as an emissions reduction strategy can be undermined if ecosystem conversion that is not allowed inside a PA simply takes place outside of it instead (Aherling et al., 2016; Asamoah et al., 2021). If such leakage leads to conversion of ecosystems that have higher carbon stocks, such as forests, peatlands, or coastal wetlands, total emissions may increase. Combining grassland protection with policies to reduce incentives for ecosystem conversion can help avoid leakage.

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

PAs often include multiple ecosystems. Grassland protection will likely lead to protection of other ecosystems within the same areas, and the health of nearby ecosystems is improved by the services provided by intact grasslands. 

Restored grasslands need protection to reduce the risk of future disturbance, and the health of protected grasslands can be improved through the restoration of adjacent degraded grasslands.

Competing

Protecting grasslands & savannas could limit land availability for renewable energy technologies and raw material and food production and therefore competes with the following solutions for land:

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha of grassland or savanna protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
0.9
units
Current 3.386×10⁸ 03.386×10⁸3.731×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.305 0.3050.336
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-2
Emergency Brake

CO₂,  N₂O

Solution Basics

ha of grassland or savanna protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
0.54
units
Current 1.722×10⁸ 03.617×10⁸5.064×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.093 0.1950.273
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-2
Emergency Brake

CO₂,  N₂O

Solution Basics

ha of grassland or savanna protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
0.13
units
Current 2.93×10⁸ 03.132×10⁸4.385×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.037 0.0390.055
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-2
Emergency Brake

CO₂,  N₂O

Solution Basics

ha of grassland or savanna protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
0.06
units
Current 5.826×10⁸ 05.826×10⁸7.059×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.033 0.0330.04
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-2
Emergency Brake

CO₂,  N₂O

Trade-offs

Establishment of PAs may limit local access to grasslands for grazing or other forms of income generation, although effective management plans should account for the grazing needs of the protected grassland. Second, allocation of budgetary resources to PA establishment may divert resources from maintenance and enforcement of existing PAs. Finally, protection of grasslands may reduce land availability for renewable energy infrastructure, such as solar and wind power.

Action Word
Protect
Solution Title
Grasslands & Savannas
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Set scalable targets (across both biogeographic and administrative levels) for grassland protections, including outcomes-based reporting, indicators for the rate of progress, goals for inclusivity, and measurements for enforcement efficacy; incorporate these targets into national climate plans and multilateral agreements.
  • Ensure public procurement uses products and supply chains that do not disrupt PAs and grasslands; ensure public development projects do not disturb PAs and grasslands.
  • Grant Indigenous communities full property rights and autonomy and support them in monitoring, managing, and enforcing PAs; adhere to principles of free, prior, and informed consent when engaging with Indigenous communities and lands.
  • Manage fire, biodiversity, and grazing in protected grasslands in accordance with ecological needs, learning from and working with Indigenous communities.
  • Ensure PAs don’t displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Expand regulatory, legal, and technical support for privately protected grasslands.
  • When expanding PAs, acquire relevant adjacent properties first, if possible, to increase connectivity and reduce costs; grant restored grasslands protected status.
  • Invest in PA infrastructure, monitoring, management, and enforcement mechanisms.
  • Ban or restrict overgrazing and extractive harvesting while allowing for sustainable use of PAs from Indigenous and local communities; compensate herders for lost grazing lands, if necessary.
  • Ensure PAs are adequately financed and, if applicable, provide financing for low- and middle-income countries and communities for grassland protections.
  • Ensure incentives and/or compensation for reducing livestock or protecting grasslands are evenly distributed with particular attention to low- and middle-income farmers and communities.
  • Use financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, payments for ecosystem services (PES), and debt-for-nature swaps to protect grasslands from development.
  • Remove harmful subsidies for agricultural, grazing, mining, and other resource extraction.
  • Use comanagement, community-governed, land-trust, and/or privately protected models to expand PAs, increase connectivity, and engage communities; ensure a participatory approach to designating and managing PAs.
  • Use real-time monitoring, ground-level sensors, and satellite data to enforce protections, ensuring adequate baseline data are gathered if possible.
  • Ensure budgets adequately split financing between expanding PAs and managing PAs; prioritize quality management of existing PAs before expanding new designations except in cases where nonprotected land conversion presents the most serious risks to people, the climate, or biodiversity.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid roads and other development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize development.
  • Create processes for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution.
  • Create programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use grassland resources sustainably.
  • Join, support, or create certification and independent audit schemes to monitor effectiveness and identify necessary improvements in management.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Set scalable targets (across both biogeographic and administrative levels) for grassland protection, including outcomes-based reporting, indicators for the rate of progress, goals for inclusivity, and measurements for enforcement efficacy; advocate to incorporate these targets into national climate plans and multilateral agreements.
  • Improve monitoring and evaluation standards for grassland ecologies and the impacts from animal agriculture.
  • Ensure incentives and/or compensation for reducing livestock or protecting grasslands are evenly distributed with particular attention to low- and middle-income farmers and communities.
  • Ensure PAs are adequately financed and, if applicable, provide financing for low- and middle-income countries and communities for grassland protections.
  • When expanding PAs, acquire relevant adjacent properties first, if possible, to increase connectivity and reduce costs.
  • Use financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, PES, and debt-for-nature swaps to protect grasslands from development.
  • Empower local communities to manage grasslands and ensure a participatory approach to designating and managing PAs.
  • Use comanagement, community-governed, land-trust, and/or privately-protected models to expand PAs, increase connectivity, and engage communities.
  • Ban or restrict overgrazing and extractive harvesting while allowing sustainable use of PAs by Indigenous and local communities; compensate herders for lost grazing lands if necessary.
  • Use real-time monitoring, ground-level sensors, and satellite data to enforce protections, ensuring adequate baseline data are gathered if possible.
  • Ensure budgets adequately split financing between expanding PAs and managing PAs; prioritize quality management of existing PAs before expanding new designations - except in cases where non-protected land conversion presents the most serious risk to people, the climate, or biodiversity.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use grassland resources sustainably.
  • Join, support, or create certification and independent audit schemes to monitor effectiveness and identify necessary improvements in management.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Ensure operations, development, and supply chains are not degrading grasslands or interfering with PA management.
  • Integrate grassland protection into net-zero strategies, if relevant.
  • Commit and adhere to minimizing irrecoverable carbon loss through development projects, supply-chain management, and general operations.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Only purchase carbon credits from high-integrity, verifiable carbon markets, and do not use them as replacements for decarbonizing operations or claim them as “offsets.”
  • Consider donating to established grassland protection funds in place of carbon credits.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to grasslands from development.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Leverage political influence to advocate for stronger grassland protection policies at national and international levels.
  • Conduct proactive land use planning to avoid roads and other development projects that may interfere with PAs.
  • Join, support, or create certification and independent audit schemes to monitor effectiveness and identify necessary improvements in management.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing PAs and IPLs, expansion of new PAs and IPLs, and for more public investments.
  • Advocate for scalable targets (across both biogeographic and administrative levels) for grassland protections, including outcomes-based reporting, indicators for the rate of progress, goals for inclusivity, and measurements for enforcement efficacy; advocate for these goals to be incorporated into national climate plans and multilateral agreements.
  • Help manage and monitor protected grasslands using real-time monitoring, ground-based sensors, and satellite data.
  • Provide financial support for monitoring and enforcement of PAs and IPLs.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with protected grasslands or incentivize destruction.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or IPLs.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support the capacity of Indigenous and local communities for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Use or advocate for financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to protect grasslands from development.
  • Improve monitoring and evaluation standards for grassland ecologies and the impacts from animal agriculture.
  • Help classify and map grasslands, carbon stocks, and biodiversity data and create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain grasslands.
  • Create and manage a global database of protected grasslands, grassland loss, restoration, and management initiatives.
  • Join, support, or create certification and independent audit schemes to monitor effectiveness and identify necessary improvements in management.
  • Create programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use grassland resources sustainably.

Further information:

Investors
  • Ensure investment portfolios do not degrade grasslands or interfere with PAs or IPLs, using data, information, and the latest technology to inform investments.
  • Consider any project that releases irrecoverable carbon loss through the destruction of ecosystems like grasslands to be high risk, avoid investments in these projects as much as possible, and divest from any companies violating this principle.
  • Invest in grassland protection, monitoring, management, and enforcement mechanisms.
  • Use financial mechanisms such as credible biodiversity offsets, payments for ecosystem services, voluntary high-integrity carbon markets, and debt-for-nature swaps to fund grassland protection.
  • Invest in and support the capacity of Indigenous and local communities for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Share with other investors and nongovernmental organizations data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid investments that drive grassland destruction.
  • Provide favorable loans to Indigenous communities and entrepreneurs and businesses protecting grasslands.
  • Join, support, or create certification and independent audit schemes to monitor effectiveness and identify necessary improvements in management.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing PAs and IPLs, expansion of new PAs and IPLs, and more public investments.
  • Advocate for scalable targets (across both biogeographic and administrative levels) for grassland protections, including outcomes-based reporting, indicators for the rate of progress, goals for inclusivity, and measurements for enforcement efficacy; advocate for these goals to be incorporated into national climate plans and multilateral agreements.
  • Use or advocate for financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to protect grasslands from development.
  • Help manage and monitor protected grassland, using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Provide technical assistance to low- and middle-income countries and communities for grasslands protection.
  • Provide financial assistance to low- and middle-income countries and communities for grasslands protection.
  • Provide financial support to organizations and institutions developing and deploying monitoring technology and conducting grassland research.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with protected grasslands or incentivize destruction.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or IPLs.
  • Help classify and map grasslands, carbon stocks, and biodiversity data and create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain grasslands.
  • Create and manage a global database of protected grasslands, grassland loss, restoration, and management initiatives.
  • Join, support, or create certification and independent audit schemes to monitor effectiveness and identify necessary improvements in management.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use grassland resources sustainably.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Help change the narrative around grasslands by highlighting their value and benefits such as supporting human life, biodiversity, ecosystem resilience, and climate regulation.
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing PAs and IPLs, expansion of new PAs and IPLs, and public investments.
  • Advocate for scalable targets (across both biogeographic and administrative levels) for grassland protections, including outcomes-based reporting, indicators for the rate of progress, goals for inclusivity, and measurements for enforcement efficacy; advocate for these to be incorporated into national climate plans and multilateral agreements.
  • Advocate for or use financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, PES, and debt-for-nature swaps to protect grasslands from development.
  • Help manage and monitor protected grasslands using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with protected grasslands or incentivize conversion.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or IPLs.
  • Help improve monitoring and evaluation standards for grassland ecologies and impacts from animal agriculture.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon and biodiversity markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for legal protection, management, and public relations.
  • Help classify and map grasslands, carbon stocks, and biodiversity data and create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Create and manage a global database of protected grasslands, grassland loss, restoration, and management initiatives.
  • Join, support, or create certification and independent audit schemes to monitor effectiveness and identify necessary improvements in management.
  • Create programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use grassland resources sustainably.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop standardized indicators of grassland degradation.
  • Research the ecological interactions of grasslands with other ecosystems; share data widely and include recommendations for coordinated action.
  • Assess and publish costs of PA designation, management, and evaluation.
  • Conduct comparative analysis on different types of governance models for PAs to determine impacts on climate, biodiversity, and human well-being.
  • Examine the relationship between geography and governance structures of private PAs, looking for spatial patterns and roles of various stakeholders such NGOs, businesses, and private landowners.
  • Study behavioral change mechanisms that can increase effectiveness and enforcement of PAs.
  • Improve monitoring methods using field measurements, models, satellite imagery, and GIS tools.
  • Create or improve on existing software tools that allow for dynamic planning and management of PAs by monitoring impacts on local communities, the climate, and biodiversity.
  • Create local research sites to support PAs and provide technical assistance.
  • Create tools for local communities to monitor grasslands, such as mobile apps, e-learning platforms, and mapping tools.
  • Develop supply chain tracking software for investors and businesses seeking to create sustainable portfolios and products.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Avoid developing intact grasslands and adhere to sustainable use guidelines of PAs.
  • Participate or volunteer in local grassland protection efforts; use or advocate for comanagement, community-governed, land-trust, and/or privately protected models to expand PAs, increase connectivity, and allow for continued community engagement.
  • Help manage and monitor protected grasslands using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Establish coordinating bodies for farmers, herders, developers, landowners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to holistically manage PAs.
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing PAs and IPLs, expansion of new PAs and IPLs, and public investments.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with protected grasslands or incentivize destruction.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or IPLs.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon and biodiversity markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Support Indigenous communities' capacity for management, legal protection and public relations.
  • Use or advocate for financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to protect grasslands from development.
  • Help classify and map grasslands and create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Ensure PAs don’t displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain grasslands.
  • Plant native species to help improve the local ecological balance and stabilize the soil, especially on property adjacent to PAs.
  • Use nontoxic cleaning and gardening supplies, purchase unbleached paper products, and recycle to help keep pollution and debris out of grasslands.
  • Join, support, or create certification and independent audit schemes to monitor effectiveness and identify necessary improvements in management.
  • Create programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use grassland resources sustainably.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing emissions and maintaining carbon removal: High

There is high scientific consensus that grassland protection reduces emissions by reducing conversion of grasslands. Grasslands have been extensively converted globally because of their utility for agricultural use, and many extant grasslands are at high risk of conversion (Carbutt et al., 2017; Gang et al., 2014). Li et al. (2024) found that PAs prevent conversion of approximately 0.35% of global grasslands per year. Although grasslands remain understudied relative to some other ecosystems, there is robust evidence that PAs and IPLs reduce forest conversion, with estimates in different regions ranging from 17–75% reductions in forest loss relative to unprotected areas (Baragwanth & Bayi, 2020; Graham et al., 2021; McNichol et al., 2023; Sze et al., 2022; Wolf et al., 2022). Additional research specific to grasslands on the effectiveness of PAs and IPLs at preventing land use change would be valuable. 

Conversion of grasslands to croplands produces emissions through the loss of soil carbon and biomass (IPCC, 2019). A recent meta-analysis based on 5,980 soil carbon measurements found that grassland conversion to croplands reduces soil carbon stocks by a global average of 23%, or almost 30 t CO₂ /ha (Huang et al., 2024), before accounting for nitrous oxide emissions (IPCC, 2019), loss of biomass carbon stocks (Spawn et al., 2020), and loss of sequestration potential (Chang et al., 2021).

Regional studies also find that grassland protection provides emissions savings. For instance, a study of grasslands in Argentina and the United States found that conversion to croplands reduced total carbon stocks, including soil and biomass, by 117 t CO₂‑eq /ha (Kim et al., 2016). Ahlering et al. (2016) conclude that protecting just 210,000 ha of unprotected grasslands in the U.S. Northern Great Plains would avoid 11.7 Mt CO₂‑eq over 20 years, with emissions savings of 51.6 t CO₂‑eq /ha protected, or 35.6 t CO₂‑eq /ha after accounting for leakage and uncertainty. 

The quantitative results presented in this assessment synthesize findings from 13 global datasets supplemented by three meta-analyses with global scopes. We recognize that geographic bias in the information underlying global data products creates bias and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Appendix

This analysis quantifies the emissions avoidable through legal protection of grasslands via establishment of PAs or land tenure for Indigenous peoples. We leveraged a global grassland distribution map alongside other ecosystem distribution maps, shapefiles of PAs and IPLs, available data on rates of avoided ecosystem loss attributable to PA establishment, maps of grassland carbon stocks in above- and below-ground biomass, and biome-level estimates of soil carbon loss for grasslands converted to croplands. This appendix describes the source data products and how they were integrated. 

Grassland Extent

We relied on the 30-m resolution global map of grassland extent developed by Parente et al. (2024), which classifies both “natural and semi-natural grasslands” and “managed grasslands.” This solution considers only the “natural and semi-natural grasslands” class. We first resampled the data to 1 km resolution by calculating the percent of the pixel occupied by grasslands. To avoid double counting land considered in other ecosystem protection solutions (Protect Forests, Protect Peatlands, and Protect Coastal Wetlands), we then adjusted the grassland map so that no pixel contained a value greater than 100% after summing all ecosystem types. These other ecosystems can overlap with grasslands either because they are non-exclusive (e.g., peatland soils can have grassland vegetation), or because of variable definitions (e.g., the grassland map allows up to 50% tree cover, which could be classified as a forest by other land cover maps). After adjusting for other ecosystems, we used the Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World data (Olson et al., 2001) to exclude areas of natural forest, because these areas are eligible for other solutions. 

The resultant raster of proportionate grassland coverage was converted to absolute areas, and used to calculate the total grassland area for each of four latitude bands (tropical: –23.4° to 23.4°; subtropical: –35° to –23.4° and 23.4° to 35°; temperate: –50° to –35° and 35° to 50°; boreal: <–50° and >50°). The analysis was conducted by latitude bands in order to retain some spatial variability in emissions factors and degradation rates. 

Protected Grassland Areas

We identified protected grassland areas using the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2024), which contains boundaries for each PA and additional information, including their establishment year and IUCN management category (Ia–VI, not applicable, not reported, and not assigned). The PA boundary data were converted to a raster and used to calculate the grassland area within PA boundaries for each latitude band and each PA category. To evaluate trends in adoption over time, we also aggregated protected areas by establishment year as reported in the WDPA. 

We used the maps of IPLs from Garnett et al. (2018) to identify IPLs that were not inside of established PAs. The total grassland area within IPLs was calculated according to the same process as for PAs.

Avoided Grassland Conversion

Broadly, we estimated annual, per-hectare emissions savings from grassland protection as the difference between net carbon exchange in a protected grassland and an unprotected grassland. This calculation followed Equation A1, in which the annual grassland loss avoided due to protection (%/yr) is multiplied by the 30-yr cumulative sum of emissions per hectare of grassland converted to cropland (CO₂‑eq /ha over 30 yr). 

Equation A1.

\[ Effectiveness = Grassland\text{ }loss_{avoided} \times \sum_{t=1}^{30}{Emissions} \]

The avoided grassland loss attributable to PAs was calculated from the source data for Figure 7 of Li et al. (2024), which provides the difference in habitat loss between protected areas and unprotected control areas between 2003 and 2019 by ecoregion. These data were filtered to only include grasslands, aggregated to latitude bands, and used to calculate annual linear rates of avoided habitat loss. Tropical and subtropical regions were not clearly distinguished, so the same rate was used for both.

Grassland Conversion Emissions

The emissions associated with grassland conversion to cropland include loss of above- and below-ground biomass carbon stocks, loss of soil carbon stocks, and loss of carbon sequestration potential. We used data on above- and below-ground biomass carbon stocks from Spawn et al. (2020) to calculate the average carbon stocks by latitude band for grassland pixels and cropland pixels. We used the 2010 European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative (ESA CCI, 2019) land cover dataset for this calculation because it was the base map used to generate the biomass carbon stock dataset. The per-hectare difference between biomass carbon stocks in grasslands and croplands represents the emissions from biomass carbon stocks following grassland conversion.

We aggregated soil carbon stocks from SoilGrids 2.0 (0–30 cm depth) to latitude bands for grassland pixels from the 2015 ESA CCI land cover dataset, which was the base map used for the SoilGrids dataset (Poggio et al., 2021). To avoid capturing peatlands, which have higher carbon stocks, we excluded pixels with soil carbon contents >15% by mass (a slightly conservative cutoff for organic soils) prior to aggregation. We took the percent loss of soil carbon following grassland-to-cropland conversion from Table S8 of the meta-analysis by Huang et al. (2024), who also conducted their analysis by latitude band. Soil carbon losses are also associated with nitrous oxide emissions, which were calculated per the IPCC Tier 1 equations as follows using the default carbon-to-nitrogen ratio of 15:1. 

We calculated the loss of carbon sequestration potential based on estimates of grassland annual net CO₂ flux, extracted from Table S2 from Chang et al. (2021). These data include field- and model-based measurements of grassland net CO₂ flux and were used to calculate median values by latitude band.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Reduce Food Loss & Waste

Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean (FALO)
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Curb Growing Demands
Image
Apples in crates with worker on tablet
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

More than one-third of all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted before it can be eaten. This means that the GHGs emitted during the production and distribution of that particular food – including emissions from agriculture-related deforestation and soil management, methane emissions from livestock and rice production, and nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer management – are also wasted. This solution reduces emissions by lowering the amount of food and its associated emissions that are lost or wasted across the supply chain, from production through consumption.

Extreme weather events
Income & work,Food security,Health
Land resources,Water resources
Description for Social and Search
Reduce Food Loss and Waste is a Highly Recommended climate solution. It avoids the GHG emissions embodied in produced but uneaten food.
Overview

The global food system, including land use, production, storage, and distribution, generates more than 25% of global GHG emissions (Poore and Nemecek, 2018). More than one-third of this food is lost or wasted before it can be eaten, with estimated associated emissions being recorded at 4.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (our own calculation). FLW emissions arise from supply chain embodied emissions (i.e., the emissions generated from producing food and delivering to consumers). Reducing food loss and waste avoids the embodied emissions while simultaneously increasing food supply and reducing pressure to expand agricultural land use and intensity.

FLW occurs at each stage of the food supply chain (Figure 1). Food loss refers to the stages of production, handling, storage, and processing within the supply chain. Food waste occurs at the distribution, retail, and consumer stages of the supply chain.

Figure 1. GHG emissions occur at each stage of the food supply chain. Food loss occurs at the pre-consumer stages of the supply chain, whereas food waste occurs at the distribution, market, and consumption stages. Credit: Project Drawdown

Diagram showing five stages: Production, Handling and Storage, Processing, Distribution and Market, and Consumption, with Loss occurring in the first three stages, and waste occurring in the last two stages.

Food loss can be reduced through improved post-harvest management practices, such as increasing the number and storage capacity of warehouses, optimizing processes and equipment, and improving packaging to increase shelf life. Retailers can reduce food waste by improving inventory management, forecasting demand, donating unsold food to food banks, and standardizing date labeling. Consumers can reduce food waste by educating themselves, making informed purchasing decisions, and effectively planning meals. The type of interventions to reduce FLW will depend on the type(s) of food product, the supply chain stage(s), and the location(s). 

When FLW cannot be prevented, organic waste can be managed in ways that limit its GHG emissions. Waste management is not included in this solution but is addressed in other Drawdown Explorer solutions (see Deploy Methane Digesters, Improve Landfill Management, and Increase Centralized Composting).

References

Almaraz, M., Houlton, B. Z., Clark, M., Holzer, I., Zhou, Y., Rasmussen, L., Moberg, E., Manaigo, E., Halpern, B. S., Scarborough, C., Lei, X. G., Ho, M., Allison, E., Sibanda, L., & Salter, A. (2023). Model-based scenarios for achieving net negative emissions in the food system. PLOS Climate 2(9), Article e0000181. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000181

Amicarelli, V., Lagioia, G., & Bux, C. (2021). Global warming potential of food waste through the life cycle assessment: An analytical review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 91, Article 106677. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106677

Anríquez, G., Foster, W., Santos Rocha, J., Ortega, J., Smolak, J., & Jansen, S. (2023). Reducing food loss and waste in the Near East and North Africa – Producers, intermediaries and consumers as key decision-makers. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc3409en

Babiker, M., Berndes, G., Blok, K., Cohen, B., Cowie, A., Geden, O., Ginzburg, V., Leip, A., Smith, P., Sugiyama, M., & Yamba, F. (2022). Cross-sectoral perspectives. In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, & J. Malley (Eds.), Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 1245–1354). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.014

Byrne, F., Medina, M. K., Mosqueda, E., Salinas, E., Suarez Peña, A. C., Suarez, J. D., Raimondi, G., & Molina, M. (2024). Sustainability impacts of food recovery & redistribution organizations. The Global FoodBanking Network. Link to source: https://www.foodbanking.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FRAME-Methodology_Food-Recovery-to-Avoid-Methane-Emissions_GFN.pdf

Cattaneo, A., Federighi, G., & Vaz, S. (2021). The environmental impact of reducing food loss and waste: A critical assessment. Food Policy, 98, Article 101890. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101890

Cattaneo, A., Sánchez, M. V., Torero, M., & Vos, R. (2021). Reducing food loss and waste: Five challenges for policy and research. Food Policy, 98, Article 101974. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101974

Chen, C., Chaudhary, A., & Mathys, A. (2020). Nutritional and environmental losses embedded in global food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 160, Article 104912. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104912

Creutzig, F., Niamir, L., Bai, X., Callaghan, M., Cullen, J., Díaz-José, J, Figueroa, M., Grubler, A., Lamb, W.F., Leip, A., Masanet, E., Mata, É., Mattauch, L., Minx, J., Mirasgedis, S., Mulugetta, Y., Nugroho, S.B., Pathak, M., Perkins, P., Roy, J., de la Rue du Can, S., Saheb, Y., Some, S., Steg, L., Steinberger, J., & Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2021). Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of well-being. Nature Climate Change, 12(1), 36-46. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01219-y 

Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N., & Leip, A. (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2(3), 198-209. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9

Davidenko, V., & Sweitzer, M. (2024, November 19). U.S. households that earn less spend a higher share of income on food. USDA Economic Research Service. Link to source: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=110391#:~:text=U.S.%20households%20were%20divided%20into,32.6%20percent%20of%20their%20income

de Gorter, H., Drabik, D., Just, D. R., Reynolds, C., & Sethi, G. (2021). Analyzing the economics of food loss and waste reductions in a food supply chain. Food Policy, 98, Article 101953. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101953

Delgado, L., Schuster, M., & Torero, M. (2021). Quantity and quality food losses across the value chain: A comparative analysis. Food Policy, 98, Article 101958. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101958

Eurostat (2024). Food waste and food waste prevention by NACE Rev. 2 activity [Dataset]. Link to source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_wasfw/default/table?lang=en&category=env.env_was.env_wasst 

European Commission Knowledge Center for Bioeconomy (2024). EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System [Dataset]. Link to source: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/bioeconomy/monitoring_en 

Fabi, C., Cachia, F., Conforti, P., English, A., & Rosero Moncayo, J. (2021). Improving data on food losses and waste: From theory to practice. Food Policy, 98, Article 101934. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101934

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2014). Food wastage footprint: Full-cost accounting. Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/6a266c4f-8493-471c-ab49-30f2e51eec8c/content

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2019). The state of food and agriculture 2019: Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/11f9288f-dc78-4171-8d02-92235b8d7dc7/content

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2023). Tracking progress on food and agriculture-related SDG indicators 2023. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7088en

Food Waste Coalition of Action. (2024). Driving emissions down and profit up by reducing food waste. The Consumer Goods Forum and AlixPartners. Link to source: https://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Driving-Emissions-Down-Profit-Up-By-Reducing-Food-Waste-FWReport2024-1.pdf

Gatto, A., & Chepeliev, M. (2024). Reducing global food loss and waste could improve air quality and lower the risk of premature mortality. Environmental Research Letters, 19, Article 014080. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad19ee

Goossens, Y., Wegner, A., & Schmidt, T. (2019). Sustainability assessment of food waste prevention measures: Review of existing evaluation practices. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3(90). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00090

Guo, X., Broeze, J., Groot, J. J., Axmann, H., & Vollebregt, M. (2020). A worldwide hotspot analysis on food loss and waste, associated greenhouse gas emissions, and protein losses. Sustainability, 12(18), Article 7488. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187488

Hanson, C., & Mitchell, P. (2017). The Business Case for Reducing Food Loss and Waste. Link to source: https://champions123.org/sites/default/files/2020-08/business-case-for-reducing-food-loss-and-waste.pdf

Hegnsholt, E., Unnikrishnan, S., Pollmann-Larsen, M., Askelsdottir, B., & Gerard, M. (2018). Tackling the 1.6-billion-ton food loss and waste crisis. The Boston Consulting Group, Food Nation, State of Green. Link to source: https://web-assets.bcg.com/img-src/BCG-Tackling-the-1.6-Billion-Ton-Food-Waste-Crisis-Aug-2018%20%281%29_tcm9-200324.pdf

Hegwood, M., Burgess, M. G., Costigliolo, E. M., Smith, P., Bajzelj, B., Saunders, H., & Davis, S. J. (2023). Rebound effects could offset more than half of avoided food loss and waste. Nature Food, 4(7), 585-595. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00792-z

Jaglo, K., Kelly, S., & Stephenson, J. (2021). From farm to kitchen: The environmental impacts of U.S. food waste (Report No. EPA 600-R21 171). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/land-research/farm-kitchen-environmental-impacts-us-food-waste

Karl, K., Tubiello, F. N., Crippa, M., Poore, J., Hayek, M. N., Benoit, P., Chen, M., Corbeels, M., Flammini, A., Garland, S., Leip, A., McClelland, S., Mencos Contreras, E., Sandalow, D., Quadrelli, R., Sapkota, T., and Rosenzweig, C. (2024). Harmonizing food systems emissions accounting for more effective climate action. Environmental Research: Food Systems, 2(1), Article 015001. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/2976-601X/ad8fb3

Kaza, Silpa, Lisa Yao, Perinaz Bhada-Tata, and Frank Van Woerden (2018). What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. Urban Development Series. World Bank. Link to source: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/30317

Kenny, S. (2025). Estimating the Cost of Food Waste to American Consumers. (No. EPA/600/R25-048). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-04/costoffoodwastereport_508.pdf 

Kenny, S., Stephenson, J., Stern, A., Beecher, J., Morelli, B., Henderson, A., Chiang, E., Beck, A., Cashman, S., Wexler, E., McGaughy, K., & Martell, A. (2023). From Field to Bin: The Environmental Impact of U.S. Food Waste Management Pathways (No. EPA/600/R-23/065). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/land-research/field-bin-environmental-impacts-us-food-waste-management-pathways

Kummu, M., De Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., & Ward, P. J. (2012). Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Science of The Total Environment, 438, 447-489. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.092

Lipinski, B. (2024). SDG target 12.3 on food loss and waste: 2024 progress report. Champions 12.3. Link to source: https://champions123.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/champions-12-3-2024-progress-report.pdf

Mbow, C., Rosenzweig, C., Barioni, L. G., Benton, T. G., Herrero, M., Krishnapillai, M., Liwenga, E., Pradhan, P., Rivera-Ferre, M. G., Sapkota, T., Tubiello, F. N., & Xu, Y. (2019). Food security. In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, & J. Malley (Eds.), Climate change and land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems (pp. 437–550). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157988.007

Marston, L. T., Read, Q. D., Brown, S. P., & Muth, M. K. (2021). Reducing water scarcity by reducing food loss and waste. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.651476

Moraes, N. V., Lermen, F. H., & Echeveste, M. E. S. (2021). A systematic literature review on food waste/loss prevention and minimization methods. Journal of Environmental Management, 286. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112268

Nabuurs, G.-J., Mrabet, R., Hatab, A. A., Bustamante, M., Clark, H., Havlík, P., House, J. I., Mbow, C., Ninan, K. N., Popp, A., Roe, S., Sohngen, B., & Towprayoon, S. (2022). Agriculture, forestry and other land uses (AFOLU). In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, & J. Malley (Eds.), Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 747–860). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.009

Neff, R. A., Kanter, R., & Vandevijvere, S. (2015). Reducing food loss and waste while improving the public’s health. Health Affairs, 34(11), 1821-1829. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0647

Nutrition Connect. (2023). Reducing waste from farm to plate: A multi-stakeholder recipe to reduce food loss and waste. Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN). Link to source: https://nutritionconnect.org/news-events/reducing-food-loss-waste-farm-plate-stakeholder-recipe-compendium

Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216

Porter, S. D., Reay, D. S., Higgins, P., & Bomberg, E. (2016). A half-century of production-phase greenhouse gas emissions from food loss & waste in the global food supply chain. Science of the Total Environment, 571, 721-729. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.041

Read, Q. D., Brown, S., Cuellar, A. D., Finn, S. M., Gephart, J. A., Marston, L. T., Meyer, E., Weitz, K.A., & Muth, M. K. (2020). Assessing the environmental impacts of halving food loss and waste along the food supply chain. Science of the Total Environment, 712, Article 136255. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136255

Read, Q. D., & Muth, M. K. (2021). Cost-effectiveness of four food waste interventions: Is food waste reduction a “win–win?”. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 168. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105448 

ReFED. (2024). The methane impact of food loss and waste in the United States. Link to source: https://refed.org/uploads/refed-methane-report-final.pdf

Reynolds, C., Goucher, L., Quested, T., Bromley, S., Gillick, S., Wells, V. K., Evans, D., Koh, L., Carlsson Kanyama, A., Katzeff, C., Svenfelt, A., & Jackson, P. (2019). Review: Consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions – What works and how to design better interventions. Food Policy, 83, 7-27. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.01.009

Rolker, H., Eisler, M., Cardenas, L., Deeney, M., & Takahashi, T. (2022). Food waste interventions in low-and-middle-income countries: A systematic literature review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 186. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106534 

Searchinger, T., Waite, R., Hanson, C., & Ranganathan, J. (2019). Creating a sustainable food future. World Resources Institute. Link to source: https://research.wri.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/WRR_Food_Full_Report_0.pdf

Sheahan, M., & Barrett, C. B. (2017). Review: Food loss and waste in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy, 70, 1-12. Link to source: https://doi.rog/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.03.012

Swannell, R., Falconer Hall, M., Tay, R., & Quested, T. (2019). The food waste atlas: An important tool to track food loss and waste and support the creation of a sustainable global food system. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 534-545. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.02.006

Thi, N. B. D., Kumar, G., & Lin, C.-Y. (2015). An overview of food waste management in developing countries: Current status and future perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 157, 220-229. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.022

Tubiello, F. N., Karl, K., Flammini, A., Gütschow, J., Obli-Laryea, G., Conchedda, G., Pan, X., Qi, S. Y., Halldórudóttir Heiðarsdóttir, H., Wanner, N., Quadrelli, R., Rocha Souza, L., Benoit, P., Hayek, M., Sandalow, D., Mencos Contreras, E., Rosenzweig, C., Rosero Moncayo, J., Conforti, P., & Torero, M. (2022). Pre- and post-production processes increasingly dominate greenhouse gas emissions from agri-food systems. Earth System Science Data, 14(4), 1795-1809. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1795-2022

United Nations Environment Programme. (2024). Food waste index report 2024. Think eat save: Tracking progress to halve global food waste. Link to source: https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/handle/20.500.11822/45230

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2019). Food facts: How to cut food waste and maintain food safety. Link to source: https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/how-cut-food-waste-and-maintain-food-safety

Wilson, N. L. W., Rickard, B. J., Saputo, R., & Ho, S.-T. (2017). Food waste: The role of date labels, package size, and product category. Food Quality and Preference, 55, 35-44. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.08.004 

World Bank. (2020). Addressing food loss and waste: A global problem with local solutions. Link to source: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/1564bf5c-ed24-5224-b5d8-93cd62aa3611

WRAP (2023). UK Food System Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Progress towards the Courtauld 2030 target. Link to source: https://www.wrap.ngo/sites/default/files/2024-05/WRAP-MIANZW-Annual-Progress-Summary-report-22-23-Variation-1-2024-04-30.pdf

WRAP (2024). UK food system greenhouse gas emissions: Progress towards the Courtauld 2030 target. Link to source: https://www.wrap.ngo/sites/default/files/2024-12/WRAP-Courtauld-2030-GHG-2324.pdf

WWF-UK. (2021). Driven to waste: The global impact of food loss and waste on farms. :Link to source: https://files.worldwildlife.org/wwfcmsprod/files/Publication/file/5p58sxloyr_technical_report_wwf_farm_stage_food_loss_and_waste.pdf

WWF-WRAP. (2020). Halving food loss and waste in the EU by 2030: The major steps needed to accelerate progress. Link to source: https://www.wrap.ngo/resources/report/halving-food-loss-and-waste-eu-2030-major-steps-needed-accelerate-progress

Xue, L., Liu, G., Parfitt, J., Liu, X., Herpen, E. V., O’Connor, C., Östergren, K., & Cheng, S. 2017. Missing food, missing data? A critical review of global food losses and food waste data. Env Sci Technol. 51, 6618-6633. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00401 

Ziervogel, G., & Ericksen, P. J. (2010). Adapting to climate change to sustain food security. WIREs Climate Change, 1(4), 525-540. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.56

Zhu, J., Luo, Z., Sun, T., Li, W., Zhou, W., Wang, X., Fei, X., Tong, H., & Yin, K. (2023). Cradle-to-grave emissions from food loss and waste represent half of total greenhouse gas emissions from food systems. Nature Food, 4(3), 247-256. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00710-3

Credits

Lead Fellows

  • Erika Luna

  • Aishwarya Venkat, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • Emily Cassidy, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

  • Eric Toensmeier

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Our analysis estimates that reducing FLW reduces emissions 2.82 t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis) for every metric ton of food saved (Table 1). This estimate is based on selected country and global assessments from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), public agencies, and development banks (ReFED, 2024; World Bank, 2020; WRAP, 2024). All studies included in this estimate reported a reduction in both volumes of FLW and GHG emissions. However, it is important to recognize that the range of embodied emissions varies widely across foods (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). For example, reducing meat waste can be more effective than reducing fruit waste because the embodied emissions are much higher.

Effectiveness is only reported on a 100-yr time frame here because our data sources did not include enough information to separate out the contribution of different GHGs and calculate the effectiveness on a 20-yr time frame.

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /t reduced FLW, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 2.75
Mean 3.11
Median (50th percentile) 2.82
75th percentile 3.30
Left Text Column Width
Cost

The net cost of baseline FLW is US$932.56/t waste, based on values from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2014) and Hegensholt et al. (2018). The median net cost of implementing strategies and practices that reduce FLW is US$385.5/t waste reduced, based on values from ReFED (2024) and Hanson and Mitchell (2017). These costs include, but are not limited to, improvements to inventory tracking, storage, and diversion to food banks. Therefore, the net cost of the solution compared to baseline is a total savings of US$547.0/t waste reduced. 

Therefore, reducing emissions for FLW is cost-effective, saving US$194.0/t avoided CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis (Table 2).

Table 2. Net cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: US$/t CO₂‑eq , 2023

Median (100-yr basis) -194.0
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

Learning curve data were not yet available for this solution.

Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Reduce Food Loss and Waste is an EMERGENCY BRAKE climate solution. It has the potential to deliver a more rapid impact than nominal and delayed solutions. Because emergency brake solutions can deliver their climate benefits quickly, they can help accelerate our efforts to address dangerous levels of climate change. For this reason, they are a high priority.

Caveats

Reducing FLW through consumer behavior, supply chain efficiencies, or other means can lead to lower food prices, creating a rebound effect that leads to increased consumption and GHG emissions (Hegwood et al., 2023). This rebound effect could offset around 53–71% of the mitigation benefits (Hegwood et al., 2023). Population and economic growth also increase FLW. The question remains however, who should bear the cost of implementing FLW solutions. A combination of value chain investments by governments and waste taxes for consumers may be required for optimal FLW reduction (Gatto, 2023; Hegwood, 2023; The World Bank, 2020). 

Strategies for managing post-consumer waste through composting and landfills are captured in other Project Drawdown solutions (see Improve Landfill Management, Increase Centralized Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters).

Current Adoption

Due to a lack of data we were not able to quantify current adoption for this solution.

Adoption Trend

Data on adoption trends were not available.

Adoption Ceiling

We assumed an adoption ceiling of 1.75 Gt of FLW reduction in 2023, which reflects a 100% reduction in FLW (Table 3). While reducing FLW by 100% is unrealistic because some losses and waste are inevitable (e.g., trimmings, fruit pits and peels) and some surplus food is needed to ensure a stable food supply (HLPE, 2014), we kept that simple assumption because there wasn’t sufficient information on the amount of inevitable waste, and it is consistent with other research used in this assessment.

Table 3. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: t reduced FLW/yr

Median 1,750,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

Studies consider that halving the reduction in FLW by 2050 is extremely ambitious and would require “breakthrough technologies,” whereas a 25% reduction is classified as highly ambitious, and a 10% reduction is more realistic based on coordinated efforts (Searchinger, 2019; Springmann et al., 2018). With our estimate of 1.75 Gt of FLW per year, a 25% reduction equals 0.48 Gt, while a 50% reduction would represent 0.95 Gt of reduced FLW.

It is important to acknowledge that, 10 years after the 50% reduction target was set in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs, Goal 12.3), the world has not made sufficient progress. The challenge has therefore become larger as the amounts of FLW keep increasing at a rate of 2.2%/yr (Gatto & Chepeliev, 2023; Hegnsholt, et al. 2018; Porter et al., 2016).

As a result of these outcomes, we have selected a 25% reduction in FLW as our Achievable – Low and 50% as our Achievable – High. Reductions in FLW are 437.5, 875.0, and 1,750 Mt FLW/year for Achievable – Low, Achievable – High, and Adoption Ceiling, respectively (Table 4).

Table 4. Adoption levels.

Unit: t reduced FLW/yr

Current adoption (baseline) Not determined
Achievable – low (25% of total FLW) 437,500,000
Achievable – high (50% of total FLW) 875,000,000
Adoption ceiling (100% of total FLW) 1,750,000,000
Left Text Column Width

An Achievable – Low (25% FLW reduction) could represent 1.23 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) of reduced emissions, whereas an Achievable – High (50% FLW reduction) could represent up to 2.47 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. The adoption potential (100% FLW reduction) would result in 4.94 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Table 5). We only report emissions outcomes on a 100-yr basis here because most data sources did not separate the percentage of type of food wasted or disaggregate their associated emissions factors by GHG type. Estimated impacts would be higher on a 20-yr basis due to the higher GWP of methane associated with meat and rice production. 

Table 5. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption (1.5% of total FLW) Not determined
Achievable – low (25% of total FLW) 1.23
Achievable – high (50% of total FLW) 2.47
Adoption ceiling (100% of total FLW) 4.94
Left Text Column Width

We also compiled studies that have modeled the climate impacts of different FLW reduction scenarios, from 10% to 75%. For an achievable 25% reduction, Scheringer (2019) estimated a climate impact of 1.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Studies that modeled the climate impact of a 50% reduction by 2050 estimated between 0.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (excluding emissions from agricultural production and land use change; Roe at al., 2021) to 3.1–4.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (including emissions from agricultural production and land use change; Roe at al., 2021; Searchinger et al., 2019).

Multiple studies stated that climate impacts from FLW reduction would be greater when combined with the implementation of dietary changes (see the Improve Diets solution; Almaraz et al., 2023; Babiker et al.; 2022; Roe et al., 2021; Springmann et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2023).

Additional Benefits

Extreme Weather Events

Households and communities can strengthen adaptation to climate change by improving food storage, which helps reduce food loss (Ziervogel & Ericksen, 2010). Better food storage infrastructure improves food security from extreme weather events such as drought or floods which make it more difficult to grow food and can disrupt food distribution (Mbow et al., 2019). 

Income and Work

FLW accounts for a loss of about US$1 trillion annually (World Bank, 2020). In the United States, a four-person household spends about US$2,913 on food that is wasted (Kenny, 2025). These household-level savings are particularly important for low-income families because they commonly spend a higher proportion of their income on food (Davidenko & Sweitzer, 2024). Reducing FLW can improve economic efficiency (Jaglo et al., 2021). In fact, a report by Champions 12.3 found efforts to reduce food waste produced positive returns on investments in cities, businesses, and households in the United Kingdom (Hanson & Mitchell, 2017). FLW in low- and middle-income countries mostly occurs during the pre-consumer stages, such as storage, processing, and transport (Kaza et al., 2018). Preventive measures to reduce these losses have been linked to improved incomes and profits (Rolker et al., 2022). 

Food Security

Reducing FLW increases the amount of available food, thereby improving food security without requiring increased production (Neff et al., 2015). The World Resources Institute estimated that halving the rate of FLW could reduce the projected global need for food approximately 20% by 2050 (Searchinger et al., 2019). In the United States, about 30–40% of food is wasted (U.S. Food and Drug Administration [U.S. FDA], 2019) with this uneaten food accounting for enough calories to feed more than 150 million people annually (Jaglo et al., 2021). These studies demonstrate that reducing FLW can simultaneously decrease the demand for food production while improving food security.

Health

Policies that reduce food waste at the consumer level, such as those that improve food packaging and require clearer information on shelf life and date labels, can reduce the number of foodborne illnesses (Neff et al., 2015; U.S. FDA, 2019). Additionally, efforts to improve food storage and food handling can further reduce illnesses and improve working conditions for food-supply-chain workers (Neff et al., 2015). Reducing FLW can lower air pollution from food production, processing, and transportation and from disposal of wasted food (Nutrition Connect, 2023). Gatto and Chepeliev (2024) found that reducing FLW can improve air quality (primarily through reductions in carbon monoxide, ammonia, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter), which lowers premature mortality from respiratory infections. These benefits were primarily observed in China, India, and Indonesia, where high FLW-embedded air pollution is prevalent across all stages of the food supply chain (Gatto & Chepeliev, 2024).

Land Resources

For a description of the land resources benefits, please refer to the “water resources” subsection below. 

Water Resources

Reducing FLW can conserve resources and improve biodiversity (Cattaneo, Federighi, & Vaz, 2021). A reduction in FLW reflects improvements in resource efficiency of freshwater, synthetic fertilizers, and cropland used for agriculture (Kummu et al., 2012). Reducing the strain on freshwater resources is particularly relevant in water-scarce areas such as North Africa and West-Central Asia (Kummu et al., 2012). In the United States, halving the amount of FLW could reduce approximately 290,000 metric tons of nitrogen from fertilizers, thereby reducing runoff, improving water quality, and decreasing algal blooms (Jaglo et al., 2021).

Risks

Interventions to address FLW risk ignoring economic factors such as price transmission mechanisms and cascading effects, both upstream and downstream in the supply chain. The results of a FLW reduction policy or program depend greatly on the commodity, initial FLW rates, and market integration (Cattaneo, 2021; de Gorter, 2021).

On the consumer side, there is a risk of a rebound effect: Avoiding FLW can lower food prices, leading to increased consumption and net increase in GHG emissions (Hegwood et al., 2023). Available evidence is highly contextual and often difficult to scale, so relevant dynamics must be studied with care (Goossens, 2019).

The production site is a critical loss point, and farm incomes, scale of operations, and expected returns to investment affect loss reduction interventions (Anriquez, 2021; Fabi, 2021; Sheahan and Barrett, 2017).

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reducing FLW can lower new demand for high-emissions foods, like ruminant meat.

Reducing FLW can lower demand for new production of livestock and crops, reducing the use of fertilizers or manure and therefore associated emissions.

Reducing FLW can reduce the demand to expand agriculture, support land conservation and restoration, and benefit water quality.

Reducing food loss and waste can reduce the demand for wild-harvested macroalgae.

(mixed) Reducing FLW can increase demand for cold storage, more efficient appliances, and optimized transport, which could reinforce the adoption of solutions targeting these improvements. However, reducing FLW could compete with other solutions if loss reductions are achieved mainly from producing less food, which could lead to lower refrigeration demand.

Competing

Food waste is used as raw material for methane digestors and composting. Reducing FLW may reduce the impact of those solutions as a result of decreased feedstock availability.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

t reduced FLW

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
02.752.82median
units/yr
Current Not Determined 04.375×10⁸8.75×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 1.232.47
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-194
Emergency Brake

CO₂ , CH₄ , N₂O

Trade-offs

Some FLW reduction strategies have trade-offs for emission reductions (Cattaneo, 2021; de Gorter et al., 2021). For example, improved cold storage and packaging are important interventions for reducing food loss, yet they require additional electricity and refrigerants, which can increase GHG emissions (Babiker et al., 2022; FAO, 2019).

Action Word
Reduce
Solution Title
Food Loss & Waste
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Ensure public procurement uses strategies to reduce FLW at all stages of the supply chain; consider using the Food Loss and Waste Protocol.
  • Use financial incentives and regulations to promote efficient growing practices, harvesting methods, and storage technologies.
  • Utilize financial instruments such as taxes, subsidies, or exemptions to support infrastructure, technology, and enforcement.
  • Implement bans on food waste in landfills.
  • Standardize food date labels.
  • Mandate FLW reporting and reduction targets for major food businesses.
  • Prioritize policies that divert FLW toward human consumption first, then prioritize animal feed or compost.
  • Fund research to improve monitoring technologies, food storage, and resilient crop varieties.
  • Invest or expand extension services to work with major food businesses to reduce FLW.
  • Invest in and improve supportive infrastructure including electricity, public storage facilities, and roads to facilitate compost supply chains.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate stakeholder discussions.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Ensure operations reduce FLW at all stages of the supply chain; consider using the Food Loss and Waste Protocol.
  • Set ambitious targets to reduce FLW, reevaluate them regularly, and use thorough measurements that capture FLW, associated GHG emissions, and financial data.
  • Take advantage of extension services and financial incentives such as tax rebates and subsidies that promote FLW reduction strategies.
  • Work with policymakers, peers, and industry leaders to standardize date labeling.
  • Promote cosmetically imperfect food through marketing, discounts, or offtake agreements.
  • Utilize behavior change mechanisms such as signage saying “eat what you take,” offer smaller portion sizes, use smaller plates for servings, and visibly post information on the impact of FLW and best practices for prevention.
  • Engage with frontline workers to identify and remedy FLW.
  • Institute warehouse receipt systems and tracking techniques.
  • Use tested storage devices and facilities such as hermetic bags and metal silos.
  • Utilize Integrated pest management (IPM) during both pre- and post-harvest stages.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate stakeholder discussions.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Ensure procurement uses strategies to reduce FLW at all stages of the supply chain; consider using the Food Loss and Waste Protocol.
  • Set ambitious targets to reduce FLW, reevaluate them regularly, and use thorough measurements that capture FLW, associated GHG emissions, and financial data.
  • Utilize or work with companies that utilize efficient growing practices, harvesting methods, and storage technologies that reduce FLW.
  • Enter into offtake agreements for diverted food initiatives.
  • Promote cosmetically imperfect food through marketing, discounts, or offtake agreements.
  • Work with policymakers and industry peers to standardize date labeling and advocate for bans on food waste in landfills.
  • Appoint a senior executive responsible for FLW goals and ensure they have the resources and authority for effective implementation.
  • Utilize behavior change mechanisms such as signage saying, “eat what you take,” offer smaller portion sizes, use smaller plates for servings, and visibly post information on the impact of FLW and best practices for prevention.
  • Engage with frontline workers to identify and remedy FLW.
  • Institute warehouse receipt systems and tracking techniques.
  • Fund research or startups that aim to improve monitoring technologies, food storage, packaging materials, stocking practices, and resilient crop varieties.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate stakeholder discussions.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Ensure procurement uses strategies to reduce FLW at all stages of the supply chain; consider using the Food Loss and Waste Protocol.
  • Advocate for bans on food waste in landfills.
  • Work with policymakers and industry leaders to standardize date labeling.
  • Help food and agricultural companies use efficient growing practices, harvesting methods, and storage technologies that reduce FLW.
  • Advocate for financial instruments such as taxes, subsidies, or exemptions to support infrastructure, technology, and enforcement.
  • Use cosmetically imperfect and diverted food for food banks.
  • Help companies track and report FLW and monitor goals, and offer input for improvement.
  • Help transfer capacity, knowledge, and infrastructure to support FLW management in low- and middle-income communities.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate stakeholder discussions.

Further information:

Investors
  • Ensure portfolio companies and company procurement use strategies to reduce FLW at all stages of the supply chain; consider using the Food Loss and Waste Protocol.
  • Require portfolio companies to measure and report on FLW GHG emissions.
  • Fund startups which aim to improve monitoring technologies, food storage, packaging materials, stocking practices, and resilient crop varieties.
  • Offer financial services, notably rural financial market development, including low-interest loans, micro-financing, and grants to support FLW prevention initiatives.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships, such as the Food Waste Funder Circle, that facilitate stakeholder discussions.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Ensure procurement uses strategies to reduce FLW at all stages of the supply chain; consider using the Food Loss and Waste Protocol.
  • Advocate for bans on food waste in landfills.
  • Work with policymakers and industry leaders to standardize date labeling.
  • Help food and agricultural companies use efficient growing practices, harvesting methods, and storage technologies that reduce FLW.
  • Advocate for financial instruments such as taxes, subsidies, or exemptions to support infrastructure, technology, and enforcement.
  • Use cosmetically imperfect and diverted food for food banks.
  • Help companies tracking and report FLW and monitor goals, and offer input for improvement.
  • Help transfer capacity, knowledge, and infrastructure to support FLW management in low- and middle-income communities.
  • Fund startups that aim to improve monitoring technologies, food storage, packaging materials, stocking practices, and resilient crop varieties.
  • Offer financial services, especially for rural financial market development, including low-interest loans, micro-financing, and grants to support FLW initiatives.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships, such as the Food Waste Funder Circle, that facilitate stakeholder discussions.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Adopt behaviors to reduce FLW, including portion control, “eating what you take,” and reducing meat consumption.
  • Advocate for bans on food waste in landfills.
  • Help food and agricultural companies use efficient growing practices, harvesting methods, and storage technologies that reduce FLW.
  • Work with policymakers and industry leaders to standardize date labeling.
  • Advocate for financial instruments such as taxes, subsidies, or exemptions to support infrastructure, technology, and enforcement.
  • Help companies or independent track and report FLW data and emissions.
  • Help transfer capacity, knowledge, and infrastructure to support FLW management in low- and middle-income communities.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate stakeholder discussions.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Research and develop more efficient growing and harvesting practices.
  • Develop new crop varieties to increase land productivity, shelf life, durability during transportation, and resistance to contamination.
  • Improve the efficiency of cold chains for transportation and storage.
  • Design software that can optimize the harvesting, storage, transportation, stocking, and shelf life of produce.
  • Improve data collection on FLW, associated GHG emissions, and financial data across the supply chain.
  • Develop new non-plastic, biodegradable, low-carbon packaging materials.
  • Improve storage devices and facilities such as hermetic bags and metal silos.
  • Research technologies, practices, or nonharmful substances to prolong the lifespan of food.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Adopt behaviors to reduce FLW, including portion control, “eating what you take,” and reducing meat consumption.
  • Donate food that won’t be used or, if that’s not possible, use the food for animals or compost.
  • Advocate for bans on food waste in landfills.
  • Advocate for financial instruments such as taxes, subsidies, or exemptions to support infrastructure, technology, and enforcement.
  • Demand transparency around FLW from public and private organizations.
  • Educate yourself and those around you about the impacts and solutions.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate stakeholder discussions.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

A large volume of scientific research exists regarding reducing emissions of FLW effectively. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) estimates the mitigation potential of FLW reduction (through multiple reduction strategies) to be 2.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (with a range of 0.1–5.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ) (Nabuurs et al., 2022). This accounts for savings along the whole value chain.

Following the 2011 FAO report – which estimated that around one-third (1.3 Gt) of food is lost and wasted worldwide per year – global coordination has prioritized the measurement of the FLW problem. This statistic has served as a baseline for multiple FLW reduction strategies. However, more recent studies suggest that the percentage of FLW may be closer to 40% (WWF, 2021). The median of the studies included in our analysis is 1.75 Gt/yr of FLW (FAO, 2024; Gatto & Chepeliev, 2024; Guo et al., 2020; Porter et al., 2016; UNEP, 2024; WWF, 2021; Zhu et al., 2023), with an annual increasing trend of 2.2%.

Only one study included in our analysis calculated food embodied emissions from all stages of the supply chain, while the rest focused on the primary production stages. Zhu et al. (2023) estimated 6.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr arising from the supply chain side, representing 35% of total food system emissions.

When referring to food types, meat and animal products were estimated to emit 3.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr compared to 0.12 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr from fruits and vegetables (Zhu et al., 2023). Although meat is emissions-intensive, fruits and vegetables are the most wasted types of food by volume, making up 37% of total FLW by mass (Chen et al., 2020). The consumer stage is associated with the highest share of global emissions at 36% of total supply-embodied emissions from FLW, compared to 10.9% and 11.5% at the retail and wholesale levels, respectively (Zhu et al., 2023). 

While efforts to measure the FLW problem are invaluable, critical gaps exist regarding evidence of the effectiveness of different reduction strategies across supply chain stages ( Cattaneo, 2021; Goossens, 2019; Karl et al., 2025). To facilitate impact assessments and cost-effectiveness, standardized metrics are required to report actual quantities of FLW reduced as well as resulting GHG emissions savings (Food Loss and Waste Protocol, 2024).

The results presented in this document summarize findings across 22 studies. These studies are made up of eight academic reviews and original studies, eight reports from NGOs, and six reports from public and multilateral organizations. This reflects current evidence from five countries, primarily the United States and the United Kingdom. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research for meta-analyses and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions and stages of the supply chain.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Improve Diets

Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean (FALO)
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Curb Growing Demands
Image
Plates of food
Coming Soon
Off

Key Takeaways

  • Reducing beef consumption to one serving per week could reduce GHG emissions and improve health outcomes. 
  • Beef and lamb are especially emissions-intensive because ruminant animals emit methane, a powerful GHG, during digestion.
  • Producing beef and other red meat generates 30% of food-related GHG emissions but provides only 5% of global dietary calories. 
  • If everyone in high and middle-income countries reduced beef to one serving a week – and ate any other protein-rich food instead – up to 2.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr of GHG emissions could be avoided.
Summary

Agriculture produces about 12 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, or 21% of total human-caused GHG emissions (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2023). Animal agriculture contributes more than half of these emissions (Halpern et al., 2022; Poore and Nemecek, 2018). 

Ruminant animals, such as cattle, sheep, and goats produce methane – a GHG with 80 times the warming potential of CO₂ in the near term – in their digestive system (Jackson et al., 2024). Since agriculture is the leading driver of tropical deforestation, particularly for cattle and animal feed production, reducing ruminant meat consumption can avoid additional forest loss and associated GHG emissions.

We define improved diets as a reduction in ruminant meat consumption and a replacement with other protein-rich foods. Such a diet shift can be adopted incrementally through small behavioral changes that together lead to globally significant reductions in GHG emissions.

Food security,Health,Equality
Nature protection,Land resources,Water resources,Water quality,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Improve Diets is a Highly Recommended climate solution. Reducing ruminant meat consumption reduces methane production and pressure to destroy tropical forests.
Overview

Reducing ruminant meat consumption, especially in high-consuming regions, has a globally significant potential for climate change mitigation. Red meat production (including beef, lamb, and pork) contributes 30% of food-related emissions but generates only 5% of global dietary calories (Li et al., 2024). 

Ruminant animals have digestive systems with multiple chambers that allow them to ferment grass and leaves. However, this digestion generates methane emissions through a process called enteric fermentation. In addition, clearing forests and grasslands for pastures and cropland to feed livestock emits CO₂, and livestock manure emits methane and nitrous oxide. 

In 2019, an international team of scientists called the EAT-Lancet Commission developed benchmarks for a healthy, sustainable diet based on peer-reviewed information on human health and environmental sustainability (Willett et al., 2019). The commission estimated that red meat (beef, lamb, and pork) should be limited to 14 grams (30 calories) per day per person, or 5.1 kg/person/yr. Although the EAT-Lancet diet includes pork, our analysis looked specifically at limiting ruminant meat to 5.1 kg/person/yr because it has much higher GHG emissions than pork (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of protein-rich foods. Beef has the highest emissions per kilogram. These emissions data are from Poore & Nemecek (2018), with the exception of  "Ruminant meat," which was calculated based on the amount of beef and lamb consumed in 2022. 

Poore, J., &  Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992.

In this solution, we explored reducing ruminant meat consumption in middle- and high-income countries in which consumption exceeds 5.1 kg/person/yr. Furthermore, our analysis assumed ruminant meat is replaced with approximately the same amount of protein-rich plant- or animal-based foods, which are estimated to be about 20% protein by weight (Poore and Nemecek, 2018).

References

Bai, Y., Alemu, R., Block, S. A., Headey, D., & Masters, W. A. (2021). Cost and affordability of nutritious diets at retail prices: Evidence from 177 countries. Food policy, 99, Article 101983. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101983

Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K. Z., Grosse, Y., Ghissassi, F. E., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., Guha, N., Mattock, H., & Straif, K. (2015). Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. The Lancet Oncology, 16(16), 1599–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1 

Bradbury, K. E., Murphy, N., & Key, T. J. (2020). Diet and colorectal cancer in UK Biobank: A prospective study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 49(1), 246–258. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz064 

Casey, J. A., Curriero, F. C., Cosgrove, S. E., Nachman, K. E., & Schwartz, B. S. (2013). High-density livestock operations, crop field application of manure, and risk of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in Pennsylvania. JAMA Internal Medicine, 173(21), 1980–1990. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.10408

Domingo, N. G. G., Balasubramanian, S., Thakrar, S. K., Clark, M. A., Adams, P. J., Marshall, J. D., Muller, N. Z., Pandis, S. N., Polasky, S., Robinson, A. L., Tessum, C. W., & Hill, J. D. (2021). Air quality–related health damages of food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(20), Article e2013637118. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013637118

Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N. D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D. K., West, P. C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E. M., Carpenter, S. R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., ... Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337–342. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2025). FAO‑FAOSTAT: Food balances (2010-) [Data set]. Food balances for individual countries for the year 2022 (most recent year available). Retrieved March 25, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2023). Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) - List updated June 2023. Retrieved March 25, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.fao.org/member-countries/lifdc/en 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2017). Livestock solutions for climate change [Technical paper]. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1634679/

Gerber, P. J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A., & Tempio, G. (2013). Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities [Report]. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/4/i3437e/i3437e00.htm 

Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., Pierrehumbert, R. T., Scarborough, P., Springmann, M., & Jebb, S. A. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science, 361(6399), Article eaam5324. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324

Gupta, S., Vemireddy, V., Singh, D. K., & Pingali, P. (2021). Ground truthing the cost of achieving the EAT lancet recommended diets: Evidence from rural India. Global Food Security, 28, Article 100498. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100498

Halpern, B. S., Frazier, M., Verstaen, J., Rayner, P.-E., Clawson, G., Blanchard, J. L., Cottrell, R. S., Froehlich, H. E., Gephart, J. A., Jacobsen, N. S., Kuempel, C. D., McIntyre, P. B., Metian, M., Moran, D., Nash, K. L., Többen, J., & Williams, D. R. (2022). The environmental footprint of global food production. Nature Sustainability, 5, 1027–1039. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00965-x 

Harter, T., Lund, J. R., Darby, J., Fogg, G. E., Howitt, R., Jessoe, K. K., Pettygrove, G. S., Quinn, J. F., Viers, J. H., Boyle, D. B., Canada, H. E., De La Mora, N., Dzurella, K. N., Fryjoff-Hung, A., Hollander, A. D., Honeycutt, K. L., Jenkins, M. W., Jensen, V. B., King, A. M., ... Rosenstock, T. S. (2012). Addressing nitrate in California’s drinking water with a focus on Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley groundwater [Report]. Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California. Link to source: https://ucanr.edu/sites/default/files/2012-03/138956.pdf 

Heederik, D., Sigsgaard, T., Thorne, P. S., Kline, J. N., Avery, R., Bønløkke, J. H., Chrischilles, E. A., Dosman, J. A., Duchaine, C., Kirkhorn, S. R., Kulhanková, K., & Merchant, J. A. (2007). Health effects of airborne exposures from concentrated animal feeding operations. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2), 298–302. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8835

Herrero, M., Henderson, B., Havlík, P., Thornton, P. K., Conant, R. T., Smith, P., Wirsenius, S., Hristov, A. N., Gerber, P., Gill, M., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Valin, H., Garnett, T., & Stehfest, E. (2016). Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nature Climate Change, 6(5), 452–461. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2925 

Hirvonen, K., Bai, Y., Headey, D., & Masters, W. A. (2020). Affordability of the EAT–Lancet reference diet: A global analysis. The Lancet Global Health, 8(1), e59–e66. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30447-4 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee, & J. Romero (Eds.)]. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647 

Jackson, R. B., Saunois, M., Martinez, A., Canadell, J. G., Yu, X., Li, M., Poulter, B., Raymond, P. A., Regnier, P., Ciais, P., Davis, S. J., & Patra, P. K. (2024). Human activities now fuel two-thirds of global methane emissions. Environmental Research Letters, 19(10), Article 101002. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad6463

Kaluza, J., Wolk, A., & Larsson, S. C. (2012). Red meat consumption and risk of stroke: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Stroke, 43(10), 2556–2560. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.663286

Katare, B., Wang, H. H., Lawing, J., Hao, N., Park, T., & Wetzstein, M. (2020). Toward optimal meat consumption. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 102(2), 662–680. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajae.12016 

Kim, B. F., Santo, R. E., Scatterday, A. P., Fry, J. P., Synk, C. M., Cebron, S. R., Mekonnen, M. M., Hoekstra, A. Y., de Pee, S., Bloem, M. W., Neff, R. A., & Nachman, K. E. (2020). Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises. Global Environmental Change, 62, Article 101926. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.010 

Li, M., Wang, Y., Zhao, S., Chen, W., Liu, Y., Zheng, H., Sun, Z., He, P., Li, R., Zhang, S., Xing, P., & Li., Q. (2024). Improving the affordability and reducing greenhouse gas emissions of the EAT-Lancet diet in China. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 52, 445–457. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.11.014

Li, Y., He, P., Shan, Y., Li, Y., Hang, Y., Shao, S., Ruzzenenti, F., & Hubacek, K. (2024). Reducing climate change impacts from the global food system through diet shifts. Nature Climate Change, 14(9), 943–953. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02084-1

Mariotti, F., & Gardner, C. D. (2019). Dietary protein and amino acids in vegetarian diets—A review. Nutrients, 11(11), Article 2661. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11112661

Mbow, C., Rosenzweig, C., Barioni, L. G., Benton, T. G., Herrero, M., Krishnapillai, M., Liwenga, E., Pradhan, P., Rivera-Ferre, M. G., Sapkota, T., Tubiello, F. N., & Xu, Y. (2019). Food security. In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, & J. Malley (Eds.), Climate change and land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems (pp. 437–550). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157988.007

Meier, T., & Christen, O. (2013). Environmental impacts of dietary recommendations and dietary styles: Germany as an example. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(2), 877–888. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/es302152v

Nelson, M. E., Hamm, M. W., Hu, F. B., Abrams, S. A., & Griffin, T. S. (2016). Alignment of healthy dietary patterns and environmental sustainability: A systematic review. Advances in Nutrition, 7(6), 1005–1025. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3945/an.116.012567

Nijdam, D., Rood, T., & Westhoek, H. (2012). The price of protein: Review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes. Food Policy, 37(6), 760–770. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.08.002

Norwood, F. B., & Lusk, J. L. (2011). Compassion, by the pound: The economics of farm animal welfare. Oxford University Press. Link to source: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/compassion-by-the-pound-9780199551163?cc=ca&lang=en& 

Pan, A., Sun, Q., Bernstein, A. M., Schulze, M. B., Manson, J. E., Willett, W. C., & Hu, F. B. (2011). Red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: 3 cohorts of US adults and an updated meta-analysis. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 94(4), 1088–1096. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.111.018978

Pan, A., Sun, Q., Bernstein, A. M., Schulze, M. B., Manson, J. E., Stampher, M. J., Willett, W. C., & Hu, F. B. (2012). Red meat consumption and mortality: Results from 2 prospective cohort studies. Archives of Internal Medicine, 172(7), 555–563. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.2287

Pimentel, D., & Pimentel, M. (2003). Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78(3), 660S–663S. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/78.3.660S

Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018) Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216

Porter, S., & Cox, C. (2020, May 28). Manure overload: Manure plus fertilizer overwhelms Minnesota’s land and water. Environmental Working Group. Link to source: https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2020-manure-overload/

Ripple, W. J., Smith, P., Haberl, H., Montzka, S. A., McAlpine, C., & Boucher, D. H. (2014a). Ruminants, climate change and climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 4(1), 2–5. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2081

Ripple, W. J., Estes, J. A., Beschta, R. L., Wilmers, C. C., Ritchie, E. G., Hebblewhite, M., Berger, J., Elmhagen, B., Letnic, M., Nelson, M. P., Schmitz, O. J., Smith, D. W., Wallach, A. D., & Wirsing, A. J. (2014b). Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science, 343(6167), Article 1241484. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241484

Ripple, W. J., Newsome, T. M., Wolf, C., Dirzo, R., Everatt, K. T., Galetti, M., Hayward, M. W., Kerley, G. I. H., Levi, T., Lindsey, P. A., Macdonald, D. W., Malhi, Y., Painter, L. E., Sandom, C. J., Terborgh, J., & Van Valkenburgh, B. (2015). Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. Science Advances, 1(4), Article e1400103. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400103

Searchinger, T., Waite, R., Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., Dumas, P., Matthews, E., & Klirs, C. (2019). Creating a sustainable food future: A menu of solutions to feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050 [Report]. World Resources Institute. Link to source: https://research.wri.org/wrr-food

Sinha, R., Cross, A. J., Graubard, B. I., Leitzmann, M. F., & Schatzkin, A. (2009). Meat intake and mortality: A prospective study of over half a million people. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169(6), 562–571. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.6

Springmann, M., Clark, M. A., Rayner, M., Scarborough, P., & Webb, P. (2021). The global and regional costs of healthy and sustainable dietary patterns: A modelling study. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(11), e797–e807. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00251-5 

Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options [Report]. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/4/a0701e/a0701e00.htm 

Sun, J., Liao, X.-P., D’Souza, A. W., Boolchandani, M., Li, S.-H., Cheng, K., Luis Martínez, J., Li, L., Feng, Y.-J., Fang, L.-X., Huang, T., Xia, J., Yu, Y., Zhou, Y.-F., Sun, Y.-X., Deng, X.-B., Zeng, Z.-L., Jiang, H.-X., Fang, B.-H., … Liu, Y.-H. (2020). Environmental remodeling of human gut microbiota and antibiotic resistome in livestock farms. Nature Communications, 11(1), Article 1427. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15222-y

Tang, K. L., Caffrey, N. P., Nóbrega, D. B., Cork, S. C., Ronksley, P. E., Barkema, H. W., Polachek, A. J., Ganshorn, H., Sharma, N., Kellner, J. D., & Ghali, W. A. (2017). Restricting the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals and its associations with antibiotic resistance in food-producing animals and human beings: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(8), e316–e327. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30141-9

Toumpanakis, A., Turnbull, T., & Alba-Barba, I. (2018). Effectiveness of plant-based diets in promoting well-being in the management of type 2 diabetes: A systematic review. BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care, 6(1), Article e000534. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2018-000534

Van Boeckel, T. P., Brower, C., Gilbert, M., Grenfell, B. T., Levin, S. A., Robinson, T. P., Teillant, A., & Laxminarayan, R. (2015). Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(18), 5649–5654. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503141112 

Vergnaud, A.-C., Norat, T., Romaguera, D., Mouw, T., May, A. M., Travier, N., Luan, J., Wareham, N., Slimani, N., Rinaldi, S., Couto, E., Clavel-Chapelon, F., Boutron-Ruault, M.-C., Cottet, V., Palli, D., Agnoli, C., Panico, S., Tumino, R., Vineis, P., … Peeters, P. H. M. (2010). Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92(2), 398–407. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2009.28713

Westhoek, H., Lesschen, J. P., Rood, T., Wagner, S., De Marco, A., Murphy-Bokern, D., Leip, A., van Grinsven, H., Sutton, M. A., & Oenema, O. (2014). Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe’s meat and dairy intake. Global Environmental Change, 26, 196–205. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.004

Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., Jonell, M., Clark, M., Gordon, L. J., Fanzo, J., Hawkes, C., Zurayk, R., Rivera, J. A., De Vries, W., Majele Sibanda, L., ... Murray, C. J. L. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447–492. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31788-4

Willits-Smith, A., Odinga, H., O’Malley, K., & Rose, D. (2023). Demographic and socioeconomic correlates of disproportionate beef consumption among US adults in an age of global warming. Nutrients, 15(17), Article 3795. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15173795 

Credits

Lead Fellows

  • Emily Cassidy

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.
  • James Gerber, Ph.D.
  • Daniel Jasper
  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.
  • James Gerber, Ph.D.
  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D
  • Ted Otte
Effectiveness

We estimated that replacing 1 kg of ruminant meat with the same weight of other meat or protein-rich food reduces emissions by about 0.065 t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis). 

We derived GHG emissions from 1 kg of ruminant meat, 0.075 t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis), from Poore and Nemecek’s (2018) database and modeling from Kim et al. (2020). Our calculation was based on the GHG footprint of a kg of meat from beef cattle, dairy cattle, and sheep. We weighted the average GHG footprint based on the fact that beef makes up the majority (83%) of ruminant meat consumption, with sheep meat making up a smaller proportion (17%), according to data from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Food Balances (FAO, 2025).

From Poore and Nemecek’s database, we also derived the average GHG emissions from consuming 1 kg of other protein-rich foods in place of ruminant meat. These foods were: pig meat (pork), poultry meat, eggs, fish (farmed), crustaceans (farmed), peas, other pulses, groundnuts, nuts, and tofu, which are all around 20% protein by weight. Using FAO data on food availability in 2022 as a proxy for consumption, we calculated that the weighted average of these substitutes is 0.01 t CO₂‑eq /kg. 

We subtracted the weighted average emissions of these protein-rich foods (0.01 t CO₂‑eq /kg) from the weighted average emissions from ruminant meat production (0.075 t CO₂‑eq /kg) to calculate the emissions savings (0.065 t CO₂‑eq /kg) (Table 1). Our analysis assumed that substituting a serving of plant- or animal-based protein for ruminant meat reduces the production of that meat (see Caveats). 

Kim et al. (2020) did not provide species-specific emissions, but we assumed that for ruminant meat, the breakdown of CO₂, nitrous oxide, and methane was the same as in Poore and Nemecek (2018) – 43% methane and 57% CO₂ and nitrous oxide. 

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /kg avoided ruminant meat

Mean (weighted average) 0.065

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /kg avoided ruminant meat

Mean (weighted average) 0.13
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Based on our analysis, the average cost of 1 kg of ruminant meat was US$21.29 compared with the weighted average US$20.73 for other protein-rich foods. This resulted in a savings of US$0.56/kg of food. This translates to an estimated savings of US$8.54/t CO₂ eq (Table 2).

Since the publication of the EAT-Lancet Commission's dietary benchmarks, several studies have been published on the affordability of shifting to the diet (Gupta et al., 2021; Hirvonen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2024; Springmann et al., 2021). Research findings have been mixed on whether this diet shift reduces costs for consumers. One modeling study found that while the diet may cost less in upper-middle-income to high-income countries, on average, it may be more expensive in lower-middle-income to low-income countries (Springmann et al., 2021). 

As opposed to the EAT-Lancet commission, our analysis focused solely on the shift from ruminant meat toward other protein-rich foods, which doesn’t include other dietary shifts, such as reducing other kinds of meat, reducing dairy, or increasing fruits and vegetables. We found no published evidence on the economic impacts of the shift away from ruminant meat alone. However, we used data from Bai et al. (2020), which used food price data from the World Bank’s International Comparison Program (ICP) (2011), to estimate cost differences between ruminant meat and substitutes.

We converted these prices into 2023 US$ and calculated a weighted average cost of food substitutes, based on food availability from the FAO Food Balances (2025). 

The limited information used for this estimate can create bias, and we hope this work inspires research and data sharing on the economic impact of reduced ruminant consumption.

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact. Negative values reflect cost savings.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-year basis

Mean -8.54
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

Improve Diets does not have a learning curve associated with falling costs of adoption. This solution does not address synthetically derived animal products, such as lab-grown meat, which could serve as replacements for ruminant meat. See Advance Cultivated Meat for more information

Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Improve Diets is an EMERGENCY BRAKE climate solution. It has the potential to deliver a more rapid impact than nominal and delayed solutions. The impact of this solution is two-fold: first, it reduces methane from enteric fermentation and manure management. Second, the solution reduces pressure on natural ecosystems, reducing deforestation and other land use changes, which create a large, sudden “pulse” of CO₂ emissions.

Because emergency brake solutions can deliver their climate benefits quickly, they can help accelerate our efforts to address dangerous levels of climate change. For this reason, they are a high priority.

Caveats

We did not include Low-Income Food-Deficit countries (FAO, 2023) in this analysis because the solution does not apply to people who do not have access to affordable and healthy alternatives to ruminant meat or those with micronutrient deficiencies. 

Although some amino acids, which are building blocks of protein, are present in lower-than-optimal proportions for human needs in some plant-based foods, mixing plant protein sources, as is typically done in vegetarian diets, can address deficiencies (Mariotti & Gardner, 2019).

Additionality is a concern for this solution. While ruminant meat consumption in middle- to high-income countries remained fairly stable between 2010 and 2022, some high-income countries have recently started reducing their ruminant consumption (see Adoption Trends). However, it’s difficult to determine current adoption and trends from national-level statistics, which average out low and high consumers within a country.

Another consideration is that the decision to eat less ruminant meat will ultimately lead farmers to produce fewer ruminant animals, but the substitution may not be one-to-one. For example, one modeling study found that cutting beef consumption by 1 kg may only reduce beef production by 0.7 kg (Norwood & Lusk, 2011).

Humans use more land for animal agriculture than for any other activity. However, the potential to remove and store carbon from the atmosphere by freeing up the land used in food production, as estimated by Mbow et al. (2019), was not included in this analysis.

Current Adoption

Household-level data on food consumption are limited and not often comparable. In this analysis, we summarized current levels of food consumption on a national level, based on data on food availability from FAO Food Balances (2025). Because the data are averaged at a country level, we couldn’t estimate the current level of adoption for individuals of reduced ruminant meat consumption or the EAT-Lancet diet. 

The EAT-Lancet recommended threshold of 5.1 kg of ruminant meat per person per year is in edible, retail weight. However, available data on per capita food availability from the FAO Food Balances is measured in carcass weight, which, for beef cattle, is about 1.4 times larger than a retail cut of meat. Therefore, in this analysis, we set the threshold of excess consumption in the Food Balances as greater than 7.2 kg carcass weight per person per year, which is 5.1 kg of retail ruminant meat per person per year.

In 110 of the 146 countries tracked by FAO, average annual consumption was more than 5.1 kg of ruminant meat per person per year. Some of the highest consuming nations include Mongolia (70.1 kg/person/yr), Argentina (33.3 kg/person/yr), the United States (27.5 kg/person/yr), Australia (25.3 kg/person/yr), and Brazil (25 kg/person/yr). 

The 36 high- and middle-income countries with low (<5.1 kg/person/year) ruminant meat consumption include India (2 kg/person/yr), Peru (3.6 kg/person/yr), Poland (0.2 kg/person/yr), Vietnam (3.9 kg/person/yr), and Indonesia (2.4 kg/person/yr). 

Adoption Trend

Ruminant meat consumption in high- and middle-income countries remained fairly stable between 2010 and 2022, according to data from FAO’s Food Balances, increasing only 3% overall from 8.2 to 8.5 kg/person/yr.

However, per capita ruminant meat consumption across high-consuming regions (the Americas, Europe, and Oceania) decreased. Consumption in South America and North America declined by 13% and 2%, respectively. Europe and Oceania saw the greatest declines, at 18% and 38%, respectively.

Adoption Ceiling

The adoption ceiling for this solution is the amount of total ruminant meat consumption across all 146 high- and middle-income countries tracked by the FAO. In 2022, the consumption of ruminant meat totaled 81.2 billion kg (Table 3).

Table 3. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: kg avoided ruminant meat/yr

Estimate 81,200,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

If all of the 110 countries consuming more than the EAT-Lancet recommendation cut consumption to 5.1 kg/person/yr (which is about an 85 g serving of ruminant meat every six days), that would lower annual global ruminant meat consumption by about half (53%), or 42.9 billion kg/yr. We used this as the estimated high achievable adoption value. The low achievable adoption value we estimated to be half of this reduction (26%), or 21.4 billion kg/yr (Table 4). 

Table 4. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: kg avoided ruminant meat/yr

Current adoption Not Determined
Achievable – low 21,400,000,000
Achievable – high 42,900,000,000
Adoption ceiling 81,200,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Improving diets by reducing ruminant meat consumption globally could mitigate emissions by 1.4–5.3 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Table 5). 

Therefore, reducing ruminant meat consumption and replacing it with any other form of plant or animal protein can have a substantial impact on GHG emissions. Such a diet shift can be adopted incrementally with small behavioral changes that together lead to globally significant reductions in GHG emissions.

Table 5. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr

Current adoption Not Determined
Achievable – low 1.40
Achievable – high 2.80
Adoption ceiling 5.30

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr

Current adoption Not Determined
Achievable – low 2.88
Achievable – high 5.76
Adoption ceiling 10.90
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Food Security

Reducing ruminant meat in diets of high-income countries can improve food security (Searchinger et al., 2019). Productive cropland that is used to grow animal feed could instead be used to produce food for human consumption (Ripple et al., 2014a).

Health

Reducing ruminant meat consumption has multiple health benefits. Diets high in red meat have been linked to increased risk of overall mortality and mortality from cancer (Pan et al., 2012; Sinha et al., 2009). Excess red meat consumption is also associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer, and weight gain (Bouvard et al., 2015; Bradbury et al., 2020; Kaluza et al., 2012; Pan et al., 2011; Vergnaud et al., 2010). Diets that incorporate other sources of protein such as fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy, and whole grains are associated with a lower risk of mortality and a reduction in dietary saturated fat, and can improve the management of diabetes (Pan et al., 2012; Nelson et al., 2016; Toumpanakis et al., 2018). 

Reducing demand for meat also has implications for health outcomes associated with livestock production. Animal agriculture, especially industrial and confined feeding operations, commonly uses antibiotics to prevent and treat infections in livestock (Casey et al., 2013). Consistent direct contact with livestock exposes people, especially farmworkers, to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which can lead to antibiotic-resistant health outcomes (Sun et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2017). Moreover, these exposures are not limited to farmworkers. In fact, a study in Pennsylvania found that people living near dairy/veal and swine industrial agriculture had a higher risk of developing methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections (Casey et al., 2013).

Equality

A lower demand for ruminant meat could promote environmental justice by reducing the amount of industrial animal agriculture operations. This may benefit communities near these operations by reducing exposure to air and water pollution, pathogens, and odors (Casey et al., 2013; Heederik et al., 2007; Steinfeld et al., 2006).

Nature Protection

Agricultural expansion for livestock production is a major driver of deforestation (Ripple et al., 2014b). Deforestation is associated with biodiversity loss through habitat degradation and destruction, as well as forest fragmentation (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Livestock farming can reduce the diversity of landscapes and can contribute to the loss of large carnivore, herbivore, and bird species (Ripple et al., 2015; Steinfeld et al., 2006). The clearing of forests for animal agriculture is especially prevalent in the tropics, and a lower demand for meat, particularly ruminant meat, could reduce tropical deforestation (Ripple et al., 2014b).

Land Resources

Animal agriculture, especially ruminants such as cattle, requires a lot of land (Nijdam et al., 2012). Life-cycle analyses have found that beef consistently requires the most land use among animal-based proteins (Nijdam et al., 2012; Meier & Christen, 2013; Searchinger et al., 2019). This high land use is mostly due to the amount of land needed to grow crops that eventually feed livestock (Ripple et al., 2014a). In the European Union, Westhoek et al. (2014) estimated that halving consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs would result in a 23% reduction in per capita cropland use.

Water Resources

While livestock is directly responsible for a small proportion of global water usage, a significant amount of water is required to produce forage and grain for animal feed (Steinfeld et al., 2006). In the United States, livestock production is the largest source of freshwater consumption, and producing 1 kg of animal protein uses 100 times more water than 1 kg of grain protein (Pimentel & Pimentel, 2003). Ruminant meats have some of the highest water usage rates of all animal protein sources (Kim et al., 2020; Searchinger et al., 2019; Steinfed et al., 2006).

Water Quality

Livestock production can contribute to water pollution directly and indirectly through feed production and processing (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Manure contains nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as drug residues, heavy metals, and pathogens (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Manure can pollute water directly from feedlots and can also leach into water sources when used as a fertilizer on croplands (Porter & Cox, 2020). For example, animal agriculture is one of the top polluters of water basins in central California (Harter et al., 2012) 

Air Quality

In addition to CO₂, ruminant agriculture is a source of air pollutants such as methane, nitrous oxides, ammonia, and volatile organic compounds (Gerber et al., 2013). Fertilization of feed crops and deposition of manure on crops are the primary sources of nitrogen emissions from ruminant agriculture (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Air pollution in nearby communities can lead to poor odors and respiratory issues, which may affect stress levels and quality of life (Domingo et al., 2021; Heederik et al., 2007).

Risks

A total replacement of ruminant meat with other food may reduce food availability in arid climates, where ruminants graze on land not suitable for crop production. 

While the shift from ruminant meat consumption to chicken and pork would curtail some of the demand for animal feed, it would not be reduced as much as a shift from ruminants to plant-based foods. 

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Pastures for grazing ruminants occupy 3400 million ha of land, more than any other human activity (Foley et al., 2011). Curtailing ruminant consumption can significantly reduce demand for land and facilitate the protection of carbon-rich ecosystems. If the adoption of this solution is aggressive, it could open up opportunities for the restoration of land-based ecosystems and some coastal wetlands.

This solution increases the supply of food. This makes more raw material available to increase the adoption potential of the following solutions:

(mixed) Reducing ruminant consumption could lead to less manure production and, therefore, nutrient pollution in proximal and downstream receiving ecosystems. However, if ruminant meat is replaced with food sources that generate more manure or require more fertilizer/pesticides, pollution could increase in proximal or downgradient receiving ecosystems.

Reducing ruminant meat consumption can reduce the amount of nutrients and manure available to manage, depending on whether it is substituted with plant-based foods or other meat.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

kg avoided ruminant meat

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
0.065
units/yr
Current Not Determined 02.14×10¹⁰4.29×10¹⁰
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 1.42.8
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-9
Emergency Brake

CO₂, CH₄ , N₂O

Trade-offs

There are climate and environmental trade-offs associated with the production of different kinds of protein. Producing ruminant meat is land-intensive and contributes to the conversion of natural ecosystems to pasture and animal feed. However, ruminants can live on land that is too dry for crop production and graze on plants not suitable for human consumption. In some low-income food-insecure countries (not included in this analysis), grazing animals may be an important source of protein. 

Substituting ruminant meat with chicken, fish, or other meat can substantially reduce methane emissions, but comes with some environmental and animal welfare trade-offs. 

kg/person/yr
0-10
10–20
20–30
30–40
> 40

Per capita ruminant meat consumption

Per capita ruminant meat consumption varies greatly around the world. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Mongolia had the highest per-person ruminant meat consumption (99 kg/person/yr) in 2022, followed by Argentina (47 kg/person/yr) and Turkmenistan (46 kg/person/yr).

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2025). FAO‑FAOSTAT: Food balances (2010–) [Data set, food balances for individual countries for the year 2022]. Retrieved March 25, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS

kg/person/yr
0-10
10–20
20–30
30–40
> 40

Per capita ruminant meat consumption

Per capita ruminant meat consumption varies greatly around the world. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Mongolia had the highest per-person ruminant meat consumption (99 kg/person/yr) in 2022, followed by Argentina (47 kg/person/yr) and Turkmenistan (46 kg/person/yr).

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2025). FAO‑FAOSTAT: Food balances (2010–) [Data set, food balances for individual countries for the year 2022]. Retrieved March 25, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS

Maps Introduction

The emissions intensity of beef production varies considerably between countries, due to the contribution of regional deforestation and other land changes (Kim et al. 2020; Poore and Nemecek, 2018) and the intensity of different cattle raising systems, with extensive, pasture-based systems relatively less efficient (in terms of land and CO₂‑eq /kg beef) (Herrero et al. 2016). For example, GHG emissions per kilogram of bovine meat from Brazil and Paraguay were five and 17 times higher, respectively, than those of Danish bovine meat (Kim et al. 2020). These differences were attributable to higher deforestation for grazing lands and methane emissions from enteric fermentation.

Emissions from beef production are skewed by producers with particularly high impacts. About a quarter of beef producers contribute more than 56% (an estimated 1.3 Gt CO₂‑eq ) of all GHGs attributable to beef cattle production.

Beef consumption per person in Mongolia and North and South America is especially high, and reducing it can benefit human health (see Benefits to People & Nature). According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Mongolia had the highest per-person ruminant meat consumption (99 kg/person/yr) in 2022, followed by Argentina (47 kg/person/yr) and Turkmenistan (46 kg/person/yr). 

For this analysis, we examined high- and middle-income countries that consume more than 5.1 kg/person/yr of ruminant meat (what we define as “excess consumption”). The United States has more excess ruminant meat consumption than any other country. A 2023 assessment of health survey data found that in the United States, about 12% of the population ate about half of all beef supplies (Willits-Smith et al., 2023).

Maps are based on global average emissions per kg of ruminant meat, which keeps the focus on consumption.

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Diets
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Use a comprehensive approach to improving diets including both “hard” (e.g., regulations) and “soft” (e.g., educational programs) policies.
  • Ensure public procurement avoids ruminant meat and favors plant-rich diets as the default, especially in schools, hospitals, and cafeterias for public workers.
  • Require companies that sell food to the government to disclose Scope 3 supply-chain emissions and adopt science-based targets, including a no-deforestation commitment.
  • Develop national dietary guidelines based on health and environmental factors; ensure the guidelines are integrated throughout procurement policies, public education programs, and government food aid programs.
  • Establish coordination bodies with stakeholders, such as farmers, distributors, storage facilities, food processors, transportation companies, retail, and waste management services, to design the most optimal policy package.
  • Set ambitious local, national, and international goals and climate plans to improve diets and include the agricultural sector in emissions reduction targets.
  • Establish safety nets for growers, such as access to grants or low-interest capital, reliable access to price information, early warning systems for price fluctuations, and insurance programs.
  • Use financial instruments such as grants, subsidies, or tax exemptions to support farmers, producers, start-ups, infrastructure, and related technology.
  • Reallocate subsidies for ruminant animal agriculture to alternatives; provide extensive support to farmers and ranchers transitioning to more sustainable agriculture systems through financial assistance, buyout programs, and education programs.
  • Remove or reconfigure other subsidies that artificially deflate the price of meat, such as animal feed and manure storage facilities.
  • Require carbon footprint labels on food and produce.
  • Limit or prohibit the expansion of agricultural lands, especially for animal agriculture.
  • Restrict advertising for unhealthy foods and/or require disclosures for health and environmental impacts for adverts.
  • Work with the health-care industry to integrate plant-rich diets into public health programs, and educate the public on the benefits of plant-rich diets.
  • Expand extension services to help food retailers develop plant-based items, design menus, develop marketing materials, and provide other assistance to improve the profitability of plant-rich diets.
  • Implement a carbon tax on livestock or meat products in food-secure areas and ensure there is proper monitoring and enforcement capacity.
  • Use zoning laws to give plant-based and healthy food outlets better visibility or higher traffic locations; designate favorable spaces for plant-based food trucks and street vendors.
  • Create robust educational programs for schools and adults on plant-based and healthy cooking.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that teach the importance of plant-based diets and the environmental impacts of common foods.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Scale up production of nutrient-dense plant-based foods.
  • Create peer-to-peer networks to exchange best practices and local or industry troubleshooting tips.
  • Increase the visibility of plant-based diets through repetitive ad campaigns, product placement, and displays.
  • Design menus to avoid ruminant meat and center plant-based products.
  • Invest in R&D to improve plant-based products.
  • Develop culturally relevant plant-based products to support acceptance and uptake.
  • Develop mobile or web apps that help consumers plan and cook plant-based meals, find plant-based retailers, and learn about plant-rich diets.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as grants, subsidies, or tax exemptions.
  • Participate or help establish coordination bodies with stakeholders, such as farmers, distributors, storage facilities, food processors, transportation companies, retail, and waste management services, to design the most optimal food systems transformation.
  • Work with the health-care industry to integrate plant-rich diets into public health programs, and educate the public on the benefits of plant-rich diets.
  • Use labels to show the environmental and emissions impact of food and menu items.
  • Hold local plant-based culinary challenges to promote products and services.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that promote plant-rich diets.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Establish company goals for ruminant substitution and incorporate them into corporate net-zero strategies.
  • Ensure company procurement avoids ruminant meat and favors plant-rich diets as the default.
  • Participate in or help establish coordination bodies with stakeholders, such as farmers, distributors, storage facilities, food processors, transportation companies, retail, and waste management services, to design the most optimal food systems transformation.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as grants, subsidies, or tax exemptions.
  • Offer financial services, including low-interest loans, micro-financing, and grants, to support initiatives promoting plant-rich diets.
  • Use labels to show the environmental and emissions impact of food and menu items.
  • Increase the visibility of plant-based diets through repetitive ad campaigns, product placement, and displays.
  • Fund start-ups or existing companies that are improving plant-based proteins and alternatives to animal agriculture.
  • Develop mobile or web apps that help consumers plan and cook plant-based meals, find plant-based retailers, and learn about plant-rich diets.
  • Hold local plant-based culinary challenges to promote products and services.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that promote plant-rich diets.
  • Include ruminant-free and plant-rich dietary support in employee wellness and benefits programs.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Ensure organization procurement avoids ruminant meat and favors plant-rich diets.
  • Help develop and advocate for ambitious local, national, and international goals and climate plans to improve diets.
  • Participate or help establish coordination bodies with stakeholders, such as farmers, distributors, storage facilities, food processors, transportation companies, retail, and waste management services, to design the most optimal food systems transformation.
  • Advocate to reallocate subsidies for ruminant agriculture to plant-based alternatives.
  • Advocate for financial instruments such as taxes, subsidies, or exemptions to support farmers, producers, start-ups, infrastructure, and related technology.
  • Advocate for standardized and mandatory carbon footprint labels on food and produce.
  • Advocate for a carbon tax on livestock or meat products in food-secure areas and ensure there is proper monitoring and enforcement capacity.
  • Offer comprehensive training and technical assistance programs for farmers and producers supporting plant-rich diets.
  • Implement campaigns promoting divestment from major animal agriculture polluters and challenge misleading claims on high-emissions meat products.
  • Work with the health-care industry to integrate plant-rich diets into public health programs, and educate the public on the benefits of plant-rich diets.
  • Create demonstration farms to show local examples, strategies to generate income, and how to use government programs.
  • Create robust educational programs for schools and adults on plant-based and healthy cooking.
  • Hold local plant-based culinary challenges to promote plant-rich diets.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that promote plant-rich diets.

Further information:

Investors
  • Ensure relevant portfolio companies avoid ruminant meat production and support plant-rich diets; avoid investing in animal agriculture in high-income countries or work with them to transition to plant-rich alternatives.
  • Invest in companies developing plant-based foods or technologies that support processing, such as equipment, transportation, and storage.
  • Fund start-ups or existing companies that are improving plant-based proteins and alternatives to animal agriculture.
  • Offer financial services, including low-interest loans, micro-financing, and grants, for plant-based food initiatives.
  • Participate or help establish coordination bodies with stakeholders, such as farmers, distributors, storage facilities, food processors, transportation companies, retail, and waste management services, to design the most optimal food systems transformation.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that promote plant-rich diets.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Ensure organization procurement avoids ruminant meat and favors plant-rich diets.
  • Help develop and advocate for ambitious local, national, and international goals and climate plans to improve diets.
  • Participate or help establish coordination bodies with stakeholders, such as farmers, distributors, storage facilities, food processors, transportation companies, retail, and waste management services, to design the most optimal food systems transformation.
  • Invest in companies developing plant-based foods or technologies that support processing, such as equipment, transportation, and storage.
  • Fund start-ups or existing companies that are improving plant-based proteins and alternatives to ruminant animal agriculture.
  • Offer financial services, including low-interest loans, micro-financing, and grants, for plant-based food initiatives.
  • Advocate to reallocate subsidies for animal agriculture to plant-based alternatives.
  • Advocate for financial instruments such as taxes, subsidies, or exemptions to support plant-based farmers, producers, start-ups, infrastructure, and related technology.
  • Advocate for standardized and mandatory environmental impact labels on food and produce.
  • Advocate for a carbon tax on livestock or meat products in food-secure areas and ensure there is proper monitoring and enforcement capacity.
  • Offer comprehensive training and technical assistance programs for farmers and producers supporting plant-rich diets.
  • Create demonstration farms to show local examples, strategies to generate income, and how to use government programs.
  • Create robust educational programs for schools and adults on plant-based and healthy cooking.
  • Work with the health-care industry to integrate plant-rich diets into public health programs and educate the public on the benefits of plant-rich diets.
  • Integrate plant-rich diets with ecosystem protection and restoration efforts such as education campaigns, national plans, and international agreements, when relevant.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that promote plant-rich diets.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Help develop and advocate for ambitious local, national, and international goals and climate plans to improve diets.
  • Participate or help establish coordination bodies with stakeholders, such as farmers, distributors, storage facilities, food processors, transportation companies, retail, and waste management services, to design the most optimal local food systems transformation.
  • Help shift policy and academic goals around agriculture from quantity of outputs to nutritional quality of outputs.
  • Help market and brand plant-based items appealing to average and/or conventional tastes.
  • Find new ways to appeal to high-red-meat consumers and new markets – particularly, men and athletic communities.
  • Highlight the social and environmental impacts of animal-based products in high-income countries.
  • Design and implement robust educational programs for schools and adults on plant-based and healthy cooking.
  • Advocate to reallocate subsidies for animal agriculture to plant-based alternatives.
  • Advocate for financial instruments such as taxes, subsidies, or exemptions to support plant-based farmers, producers, start-ups, infrastructure, and related technology.
  • Advocate for standardized and mandatory carbon footprint labels on food and produce.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that promote plant-rich diets.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Research connections between plant-based agriculture and human well-being indicators such as nutrition, income, and human rights.
  • Develop new or improve existing plant-based or lab-grown alternatives to ruminant meat and other animal-based proteins.
  • Develop plant-based proteins that account for local supply chains and cultural preferences.
  • Analyze the full suite of interventions that encourage plant-based diets and offer recommendations to policy and lawmakers on the most effective options.
  • Use market data on food purchases and preferences to improve marketing and attractiveness of plant-based options.
  • Develop mobile or web apps that help consumers plan and cook plant-based meals, find plant-based retailers, and learn about plant-rich diets.
  • Research connections between plant-rich diets, food security, cultural cuisine preferences, and health indicators.
  • Help develop national dietary guidelines based on health and environmental factors.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Eat plant-rich diets and avoid ruminant meat as much as possible.
  • Offer alternatives to ruminant meat at social gatherings and request plant-based options at public events.
  • Talk to family, friends, and coworkers about avoiding beef; recommend your favorite restaurants, recipes, and cooking tips.
  • Support educational programs for schools and adults on plant-based and healthy cooking.
  • Advocate to reallocate subsidies for animal agriculture to plant-based alternatives.
  • Advocate for financial instruments such as taxes, subsidies, or exemptions to support plant-based farmers, producers, start-ups, infrastructure, and related technology.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that promote plant-rich diets.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing ruminant meat: High

There is a high level of consensus in the scientific literature that shifting diets away from ruminant meat mitigates GHG emissions. An IPCC special report on land found “broad agreement” that meat – particularly ruminant meat – was the single food with the greatest impact on the environment on a global basis, especially in terms of GHG emissions and land use (Mbow et al., 2019). The IPCC found that the range of cumulative emissions mitigation from diet shifts by 2050, depending on the type of shift, was as much as 2.7–6.4 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. This estimate included shifts away from all meat, whereas our analysis focused on shifting away from ruminant meat alone.

The emissions associated with the production of different food products in this solution came from Poore and Nemecek (2018) and Kim et al. (2020). Poore and Nemecek developed a database of emissions footprints for different foods based on a meta-analysis of 570 studies with a median reference year of 2010 (Figure 1). It covers ~38,700 commercially viable farms in 119 countries and 40 products representing ~90% of global protein and calorie consumption. 

According to Poore and Nemecek (2018), producing 1 kg of beef emits 33 times the GHGs emitted by producing protein-rich plant-based foods, such as beans, nuts, and lentils. But beef can also be replaced with any other non-ruminant meat (poultry, pork, or fish) to cut emissions. Substituting ruminant meat with any other kind of meat reduces average emissions by roughly 85%.

A 2024 study on dietary emissions from 140 food products in 139 countries found that shifting consumption toward the EAT-Lancet guidelines could reduce emissions from the food system 17%, or about 1.94 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Li, Y. et al., 2024). 

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 42 studies (34 academic reviews and original studies, three reports from NGOs, and five reports from public and multilateral organizations). The results reflect current evidence from 119 countries, but observations are concentrated in Europe, North America, Oceania, Brazil, and China, and limited in Africa and parts of Asia. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Increase Recycling

Sector
Industry, Materials & Waste
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Use Waste as a Resource
Image
Metal items
Coming Soon
Off

Key Takeaways

  • Postconsumer waste contributes ~5% to global GHG emissions. Increasing recycling cuts emissions by lowering raw material extraction and energy use and reducing methane emissions from decomposing paper in landfills.
  • Metals recycling has the highest potential impact in avoiding emissions (2.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ), followed by recycling paper and cardboard (0.26 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ) and plastics (0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ). Glass recycling is worthwhile.
  • Increasing recycling improves air quality, reduces deforestation, and benefits human health.
  • Recycling rates vary globally, with the greatest potential for future uptake in middle-income regions with expanding waste infrastructure.
Summary

Recycling is a mechanical process that repurposes waste into new products without altering their chemical structure. This solution focuses on four common waste types: metals, paper and cardboard, plastics, and glass. It reduces GHG emissions by minimizing reliance on energy-intensive primary material production, reducing demand for raw materials, and diverting paper from landfills, where decomposition can produce methane.

Our focus is on postconsumer municipal solid waste (MSW) collected through residential and commercial recycling programs. Textiles, rubber, wood, and e-waste are also important waste streams but are excluded in our scope due to limited availability of global data. Organic waste is addressed separately in other Drawdown Explorer solutions, including Increase Centralized Composting, Increase Decentralized Composting, and Produce Biochar.

Income & work,Health,Equality
Land resources,Water resources,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Increase Recycling is a Highly Recommended climate solution, with paper, cardboard, and metals delivering the most greenhouse gas savings.
Overview

Mechanical recycling mitigates GHG emissions by reducing the need for more energy-intensive and pollutant-emitting raw material extraction and processing (Stegmann et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2018; Zier et al., 2021) and reducing production of methane from decomposing paper in landfills (Demetrious & Crossin, 2019; Lee et al., 2017). 

Recyclable materials constitute a significant portion of global MSW, with average compositions of approximately 14% paper and cardboard, 10% plastics, 4% glass, and 3.5% metals (Kaza et al., 2018; United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2024). Recycling reprocesses postconsumer materials into secondary raw materials or products without altering their chemical composition.

Figure 1 illustrates a typical single-stream recycling system at a materials recovery facility (MRF), where mechanical and optical sorting technologies separate materials by type (Gundupalli et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2022). The sorted materials then undergo cleaning, crushing or shredding, and remelting or repulping in preparation for use in manufacturing new products.

Figure 1. Overview of the separation steps in a materials recycling facility to separate metal, paper and cardboard, plastic, and glass waste. Modified from Waldrop (2020).

Diagram of a recycling facility

Source: Waldrop, M. M. (2020, October 1). Recycling meets reality. Knowable Magazine.

Metals recycling provides ferrous and non-ferrous inputs for the metal production sector, which globally emits an estimated 3.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for 2–3 Gt of primary metal output (Azadi et al., 2020). Virgin (primary) metals are extracted from nonrenewable ores; as higher-grade ores are consumed, mining shifts to lower-grade ore deposits, which require more energy-intensive extraction and processing (Norgate & Jahanshahi, 2011). Using recycled metals in place of virgin metals reduces energy requirements for smelting and refining (Daehn et al., 2022) and water use during production. 

Virgin ore processing primarily emits CO₂, with smaller contributions of methane and nitrous oxide. Some primary metal production, particularly aluminum production, emits fluorinated gases (F-gases) (Raabe et al., 2019; Raabe et al., 2022). Recycling emits significantly less CO₂ than primary material production.

Paper and cardboard recycling involves hydropulping, deinking, and reforming recovered fibers into new paper products. Conventional paper is produced from virgin tree pulp and involves harvesting, debarking, chipping, and mechanical or chemical pulping. Pulp-making alone accounts for 62% of energy use and 45% of emissions in paper production (Sun et al., 2018), contributing significantly to the 1.3–2% of global GHG emissions from virgin pulp and paper manufacturing (Furszyfer Del Rio et al., 2022). Recycling uses less energy and produces fewer GHG emissions. Recycling 1 t of paper saves ~17 mature trees (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 2016a), lessening deforestation from harvesting and reducing the energy and water required for pulping. Recovering used paper from landfills further avoids decomposition-related methane release.

Plastics recycling involves melting plastic waste into resin, forming it into granules or pellets, and using it to manufacture new products. The primary material production of plastics represents 4.5–5.3% of total global GHG emissions (Cabernard et al., 2022; Karali et al., 2024), with ~75% occurring in the early life-cycle stages. More than 99% of plastics are derived from fossil fuels. Recycling plastics reduces CO₂ and methane emissions by replacing petroleum-based feedstock with recycled plastic. 

Glass recycling crushes glass waste into cullet, which can then be melted and reintroduced as a raw material in glass manufacturing. Virgin glass production requires melting raw materials such as silica sand, soda ash, and limestone at ~1,500 °C (Baek et al., 2025; Westbroek et al., 2021) and releases CO₂ from decomposition of carbonates. Cullet use releases no CO₂ from carbonate decomposition and lowers the melting temperature, reducing furnace fuel combustion. 

This assessment evaluates metal, paper and cardboard, plastic, and glass recycling separately to better capture the distinct emissions profiles and cost requirements of each material, providing a clearer understanding of the climate benefits and trade-offs. 

References

Allwood, J. M., Music, O., Loukaides, E. G., & Bambach, M. (2025). Cut the scrap: Making more use of less metal. CIRP Annals, 74(2), 895–919. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2025.04.013 

Aparcana, S., & Salhofer, S. (2013). Development of a social impact assessment methodology for recycling systems in low-income countries. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18(5), 1106–1115. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0546-8

Awino, F. B., & Apitz, S. E. (2024). Solid waste management in the context of the waste hierarchy and circular economy frameworks: An international critical review. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 20(1), 9–35. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4774

Ayodele, T. R., Alao, M. A., & Ogunjuyigbe, A. S. O. (2018). Recyclable resources from municipal solid waste: Assessment of its energy, economic and environmental benefits in Nigeria. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 134, 165–173. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.03.017

Azadi, M., Northey, S. A., Ali, S. H., & Edraki, M. (2020). Transparency on greenhouse gas emissions from mining to enable climate change mitigation. Nature Geoscience, 13(2), 100–104. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-0531-3

Baek, C. R., Kim, H. D., & Jang, Y.-C. (2025). Exploring glass recycling: Trends, technologies, and future trajectories. Environmental Engineering Research, 30(3), Article 240241. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2024.241

Bajpai, P. (2014). Introduction. In Recycling and deinking of recovered paper (pp. 1–18). Elsevier. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-416998-2.00001-5

Barbato, P. M., Olsson, E., & Rigamonti, L. (2024). Quality degradation in glass recycling: Substitutability model proposal. Waste Management, 182, 124–131. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2024.04.027

Barford, A., & Beales, A. (2025, April 3). Decent work opportunities and challenges in recycling [ILO Technical brief]. International Labour Organization. Link to source: https://www.ilo.org/publications/decent-work-opportunities-and-challenges-recycling 

Bauer, F., Nielsen, T. D., Nilsson, L. J., Palm, E., Ericsson, K., Fråne, A., & Cullen, J. (2022). Plastics and climate change—Breaking carbon lock-ins through three mitigation pathways. One Earth, 5(4), 361–376. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.03.007

Berardocco, C., Delawter, H., Putzu, T., Wolfe, L. C., & Zhang, H. (2022). Life cycle sustainability assessment of single stream and multi-stream waste recycling systems. Sustainability, 14(24), Article 16747. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416747 

BioCubes. (n.d.). BioCubes: An inventory of biomass and technomass [Interactive infographic]. Retrieved August 8, 2025, from Link to source: https://biocubes.net/ 

Bogner, J., Abdelrafie Ahmed, M., Díaz, C., Faaij, A., Gao, Q., Hashimoto, S., Marecková, K., Pipatti, R., & Zhang, T. (2007). Waste management. In B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Working group III contribution to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 585–618). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg3-chapter10-1.pdf

Burinskienė, A., Lingaitienė, O., & Byčenkaitė, G. (2025). Dynamics of trade of recycled raw materials and the connection with the circular economy. Discover Sustainability, 6, Article  680. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-01502-4

Cabernard, L., Pfister, S., Oberschelp, C., & Hellweg, S. (2022). Growing environmental footprint of plastics driven by coal combustion. Nature Sustainability, 5(2), 139–148. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00807-2

Campbell, R., Bond, D. E., Connellan, C., Mohen, P., & Foo, J. (2022, May 5). From trash to treasure: Green metals from recycling [Insight]. White & Case. Link to source: https://www.whitecase.com/insight-our-thinking/trash-treasure-green-metals-recycling 

Chamas, A., Moon, H., Zheng, J., Qiu, Y., Tabassum, T., Jang, J. H., Abu-Omar, M., Scott, S. L., & Suh, S. (2020). Degradation rates of plastics in the environment. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 8(9), 3494–3511. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b06635

Charpentier Poncelet, A., Helbig, C., Loubet, P., Beylot, A., Muller, S., Villeneuve, J., Laratte, B., Thorenz, A., Tuma, A., & Sonnemann, G. (2022). Losses and lifetimes of metals in the economy. Nature Sustainability, 5(8), 717–726. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00895-8

Chen, D. M.-C., Bodirsky, B. L., Krueger, T., Mishra, A., & Popp, A. (2020). The world’s growing municipal solid waste: Trends and impacts. Environmental Research Letters, 15(7), Article 074021. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8659

Ciacci, L., Harper, E. M., Nassar, N. T., Reck, B. K., & Graedel, T. E. (2016). Metal dissipation and inefficient recycling intensify climate forcing. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(20), 11394–11402. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02714 

Close the Glass Loop. (2025, July 1). Overview of glass packaging collection systems in Europe. Link to source: https://closetheglassloop.eu/overview-of-glass-packaging-collection-systems-in-europe/

Colangelo, S. (2024). Reducing the environmental footprint of glass manufacturing. International Journal of Applied Glass Science, 15(4), 350–366. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijag.16674

Cudjoe, D., Zhu, B., Nketiah, E., Wang, H., Chen, W., & Qianqian, Y. (2021). The potential energy and environmental benefits of global recyclable resources. Science of The Total Environment, 798, Article 149258. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149258

Daehn, K., Basuhi, R., Gregory, J., Berlinger, M., Somjit, V., & Olivetti, E. A. (2022). Innovations to decarbonize materials industries. Nature Reviews Materials, 7(4), 275–294. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-00376-y

Damgaard, A., Larsen, A. W., & Christensen, T. H. (2009). Recycling of metals: Accounting of greenhouse gases and global warming contributions. Waste Management & Research, 27(8), 773–780. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X09346838

Das, S. K., Green, J. A. S., & Kaufman, J. G. (2010, February). Aluminum recycling: Economic and environmental benefits. Light Metal Age, 22–24. Link to source: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5fecb6479b54c51485875e10/t/60ac1db2e0db640cb17e0eef/1621892530735/Aluminum+Recycling_+Economic+and+Environmental+...+-+Phinix%2C+LLC.pdf 

DebRoy, T., & Elmer, J. W. (2024). Metals beyond tomorrow: Balancing supply, demand, sustainability, substitution, and innovations. Materials Today, 80, 737–757. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2024.09.007

Deer, R. (2021, May 5). Why is glass recycling going away? Roadrunner Waste & Recycling. Link to source: https://www.roadrunnerwm.com/blog/why-is-glass-recycling-going-away

Delbari, S. A., & Hof, L. A. (2024). Glass waste circular economy—Advancing to high-value glass sheets recovery using industry 4.0 and 5.0 technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 462, Article 142629. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142629

Demetrious, A., & Crossin, E. (2019). Life cycle assessment of paper and plastic packaging waste in landfill, incineration, and gasification-pyrolysis. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 21(4), 850–860. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-019-00842-4

de Sa, P., & Korinek, J. (2021, March 1). Resource efficiency, the circular economy, sustainable materials management and trade in metals and minerals (OECD Trade Policy Paper No. 245). OECD Publishing. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1787/69abc1bd-en

Diaz, R., & Warith, M. (2006). Life-cycle assessment of municipal solid wastes: Development of the WASTED model. Waste Management, 26(8), 886–901. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2005.05.007

Dokl, M., Copot, A., Krajnc, D., Fan, Y. V., Vujanović, A., Aviso, K. B., Tan, R. R., Kravanja, Z., & Čuček, L. (2024). Global projections of plastic use, end-of-life fate and potential changes in consumption, reduction, recycling and replacement with bioplastics to 2050. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 51, 498–518. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.09.025

Dong, X., Song, J., & Duan, H. (2022). Prioritizing countries for implementing waste recycling under socioeconomic support. Journal of Environmental Management, 322, Article  116158. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116158

Dussaux, D., & Glachant, M. (2019). How much does recycling reduce imports? Evidence from metallic raw materials. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 8(2), 128–146. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2018.1520650

Egger, P. H., & Keuschnigg, C. (2024). Resource dependence, recycling, and trade. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 128, Article 103064. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2024.103064

European Paper Recycling Council. (2024). European declaration on paper recycling 2021-2030: Monitoring report 2023. Confederation of European Paper Industries. Link to source: https://www.cepi.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/24-4378_EPRC_2023_Singlepages.pdf

Ferdous, W., Manalo, A., Siddique, R., Mendis, P., Zhuge, Y., Wong, H. S., Lokuge, W., Aravinthan, T., & Schubel, P. (2021). Recycling of landfill wastes (tyres, plastics and glass) in construction – A review on global waste generation, performance, application and future opportunities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 173, Article 105745. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105745

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.). FAO‑FAOSTAT: Forestry production and trade [Data set]. Retrieved April 25, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO/visualize 

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2009). Global demand for wood products. In State of the world’s forests 2009 (pp. 62–73). Link to source: https://www.fao.org/4/i0350e/i0350e02a.pdf 

Furszyfer Del Rio, D. D., Sovacool, B. K., Griffiths, S., Bazilian, M., Kim, J., Foley, A. M., & Rooney, D. (2022). Decarbonizing the pulp and paper industry: A critical and systematic review of sociotechnical developments and policy options. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 167, Article 112706. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112706

Gailani, A., Cooper, S., Allen, S., Pimm, A., Taylor, P., & Gross, R. (2024). Assessing the potential of decarbonization options for industrial sectors. Joule, 8(3), 576–603. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2024.01.007

Geyer, R., Kuczenski, B., Zink, T., & Henderson, A. (2016). Common misconceptions about recycling. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(5), 1010–1017. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12355

Glass Packaging Institute. (n.d.). Facts about glass recycling. Retrieved March 24, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.gpi.org/facts-about-glass-recycling 

Gorman, M. R., Dzombak, D. A., & Frischmann, C. (2022). Potential global GHG emissions reduction from increased adoption of metals recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 184, Article 106424. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106424

Gundupalli, S. P., Hait, S., & Thakur, A. (2017). A review on automated sorting of source-separated municipal solid waste for recycling. Waste Management, 60, 56–74. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.015

Guo, J., Ali, S., & Xu, M. (2023). Recycling is not enough to make the world a greener place: Prospects for the circular economy. Green Carbon, 1(2), 150–153. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.greenca.2023.10.006 

Halog, A., & Anieke, S. (2021). A review of circular economy studies in developed countries and its potential adoption in developing countries. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 1(1), 209–230. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00017-0

Hendrickson, T. P., Bose, B., Vora, N., Huntington, T., Nordahl, S. L., Helms, B. A., & Scown, C. D. (2024). Paths to circularity for plastics in the United States. One Earth, 7(3), 520–531. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.02.005

Houssini, K., Li, J., & Tan, Q. (2025). Complexities of the global plastics supply chain revealed in a trade-linked material flow analysis. Communications Earth & Environment, 6(1), Article 257. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02169-5

International Paper. (n.d.). Paper’s life cycle: The recycling process [Infographic]. Retrieved June 10, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.internationalpaper.com/resources/infographic/papers-life-cycle-recycling-process

Karali, N., Khanna, N., & Shah, N. (2024). Climate impact of primary plastic production. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Link to source: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6cc1g99q

Kaza, S., Yao, L. C., Bhada-Tata, P., & Van Woerden, F. (2018). What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. Urban Development Series. Washington, DC: World Bank. Link to source: https://hdl.handle.net/10986/30317 

Klotz, M., Haupt, M., & Hellweg, S. (2022). Limited utilization options for secondary plastics may restrict their circularity. Waste Management, 141, 251–270. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.01.002

Klotz, M., Haupt, M., & Hellweg, S. (2023). Potentials and limits of mechanical plastic recycling. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 27(4), 1043–1059. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13393

Lee, U., Han, J., & Wang, M. (2017). Evaluation of landfill gas emissions from municipal solid waste landfills for the life-cycle analysis of waste-to-energy pathways. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 335–342. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.016

Li, H., Aguirre-Villegas, H. A., Allen, R. D., Bai, X., Benson, C. H., Beckham, G. T., Bradshaw, S. L., Brown, J. L., Brown, R. C., Cecon, V. S., Curley, J. B., Curtzwiler, G. W., Dong, S., Gaddameedi, S., García, J. E., Hermans, I., Kim, M. S., Ma, J., Mark, L. O., … Huber, G. W. (2022). Expanding plastics recycling technologies: Chemical aspects, technology status and challenges. Green Chemistry, 24(23), 8899–9002. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1039/D2GC02588D

Liu, Y., Park, S., Yi, H., & Feiock, R. (2020). Evaluating the employment impact of recycling performance in Florida. Waste Management, 101, 283–290. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.10.025

Maximize Market Research Private Limited. (2025). Glass recycling market – Global market forecast and growth opportunities: Forecast 2025–2032 [Report summary]. Link to source: https://www.maximizemarketresearch.com/market-report/glass-recycling-market/22548/ 

McGinty, D. B. (2021, February 3). 5 opportunities of a circular economy. World Resources Institute. Link to source: https://www.wri.org/insights/5-opportunities-circular-economy 

Miserocchi, L., Franco, A., & Testi, D. (2024). Status and prospects of energy efficiency in the glass industry: Measuring, assessing and improving energy performance. Energy Conversion and Management: X, 24, Article 100720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2024.100720

Monclús, L., Arp, H. P. H., Groh, K. J., Faltynkova, A., Løseth, M. E., Muncke, J., Wang, Z., Wolf, R., Zimmermann, L., & Wagner, M. (2025). Mapping the chemical complexity of plastics. Nature, 643(8071), 349–355. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09184-8

Nayanathara Thathsarani Pilapitiya, P. G. C., & Ratnayake, A. S. (2024). The world of plastic waste: A review. Cleaner Materials, 11, Article 100220. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clema.2024.100220

Ng, K. S., & Phan, A. N. (2021). Evaluating the techno-economic potential of an integrated material recovery and waste-to-hydrogen system. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 167, Article 105392. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105392

NIH Environmental Management System. (n.d.). Benefits of recycling. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health. Retrieved August 26, 2025, from Link to source: https://nems.nih.gov/environmental-programs/pages/benefits-of-recycling.aspx 

Nordahl, S. L., & Scown, C. D. (2024). Recommendations for life‑cycle assessment of recyclable plastics in a circular economy. Chemical Science, 15, 9397–9407. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1039/D4SC01340A

Norgate, T., & Jahanshahi, S. (2011). Reducing the greenhouse gas footprint of primary metal production: Where should the focus be? Minerals Engineering, 24(14), 1563–1570. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2011.08.007

Obradovic, D., & Mishra, L. N. (2020). Mechanical properties of recycled paper and cardboard. The Journal of Engineering and Exact Sciences, 6(3), 0429–0434. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.18540/jcecvl6iss3pp0429-0434

Olafasakin, O., Ma, J., Bradshaw, S. L., Aguirre-Villegas, H. A., Benson, C., Huber, G. W., Zavala, V. M., & Mba-Wright, M. (2023). Techno-economic and life cycle assessment of standalone single-stream material recovery facilities in the United States. Waste Management, 166, 368–376. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2023.05.011

Oo, P. Z., Prapaspongsa, T., Strezov, V., Huda, N., Oshita, K., Takaoka, M., Ren, J., Halog, A., & Gheewala, S. H. (2024). The role of global waste management and circular economy towards carbon neutrality. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 52, 498–510. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.11.021

Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development. (2022a). Global plastics outlook database [Data set]. Link to source: https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?tm=recycled%20plastics&pg=0&hc[Measure]=&hc[Plastic%20end-of-life%20fate]=&snb=13&df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_PW%40DF_PW&df[ag]=OECD.ENV.EEI&df[vs]=1.0&dq=..A.REC.&pd=1990%2C2019&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false&vw=tb 

Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development. (2022b). Global plastics outlook: Economic drivers, environmental impacts and policy options [Report]. OECD Publishing. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1787/de747aef-en 

Pivnenko, K., Laner, D., & Astrup, T. F. (2016). Material cycles and chemicals: Dynamic material flow analysis of contaminants in paper recycling. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(22), 12302–12311. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01791

Plastics Europe. (2022). Plastics – the facts 2022 [Report]. Link to source: https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-facts-2022/ 

Plastics Europe. (2023). Plastics – the fast facts 2023 [Infographic]. Link to source: https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-fast-facts-2023/ 

Plastics Europe. (2024a). Plastics – the fast facts 2024 [Infographic]. Link to source: https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/plastics-the-fast-facts-2024/ 

Plastics Europe. (2024b). The circular economy for plastics – A European analysis 2024 [Report]. Link to source: https://plasticseurope.org/knowledge-hub/the-circular-economy-for-plastics-a-european-analysis-2024/ 

Raabe, D., Tasan, C. C., & Olivetti, E. A. (2019). Strategies for improving the sustainability of structural metals. Nature, 575(7781), 64–74. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1702-5

Raabe, D., Ponge, D., Uggowitzer, P. J., Roscher, M., Paolantonio, M., Liu, C., Antrekowitsch, H., Kozeschnik, E., Seidmann, D., Gault, B., De Geuser, F., Deschamps, A., Hutchinson, C., Liu, C., Li, Z., Prangnell, P., Robson, J., Shanthraj, P., Vakili, S., … Pogatscher, S. (2022). Making sustainable aluminum by recycling scrap: The science of “dirty” alloys. Progress in Materials Science, 128, Article 100947. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2022.100947

Rajmohan, K. V. S., Ramya, C., Raja Viswanathan, M., & Varjani, S. (2019). Plastic pollutants: Effective waste management for pollution control and abatement. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 12, 72–84. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2019.08.006

Rigamonti, L., Taelman, S. E., Huysveld, S., Sfez, S., Ragaert, K., & Dewulf, J. (2020). A step forward in quantifying the substitutability of secondary materials in waste management life cycle assessment studies. Waste Management, 114, 331–340. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.07.015

Rissman, J., Bataille, C., Masanet, E., Aden, N., Morrow, W. R., Zhou, N., Elliott, N., Dell, R., Heeren, N., Huckestein, B., Cresko, J., Miller, S. A., Roy, J., Fennell, P., Cremmins, B., Koch Blank, T., Hone, D., Williams, E. D., de la Rue du Can, S., … Helseth, J. (2020). Technologies and policies to decarbonize global industry: Review and assessment of mitigation drivers through 2070. Applied Energy, 266, Article 114848. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114848

Singh, N., & Walker, T. R. (2024). Plastic recycling: A panacea or environmental pollution problem. npj Materials Sustainability, 2, Article 17. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44296-024-00024-w

Sobhani, Z., & Palanisami, T. (2025). Emerging contaminants in organic recycling: Role of paper and pulp packaging. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 215, Article 108070. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.108070

Stegmann, P., Daioglou, V., Londo, M., van Vuuren, D. P., & Junginger, M. (2022). Plastic futures and their CO2 emissions. Nature, 612(7939), 272–276. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05422-5

Sun, M., Wang, Y., Shi, L., & Klemeš, J. J. (2018). Uncovering energy use, carbon emissions and environmental burdens of pulp and paper industry: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 92, 823–833. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.036 

Uekert, T., Singh, A., DesVeaux, J. S., Ghosh, T., Bhatt, A., Yadav, G., Afzal, S., Walzberg, J., Knauer, K. M., Nicholson, S. R., Beckham, G. T., & Carpenter, A. C. (2023). Technical, economic, and environmental comparison of closed-loop recycling technologies for common plastics. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 11(3), 965–978. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c05497

United Nations Environment Programme. (2024). Global waste management outlook 2024: Beyond an age of waste – Turning rubbish into a resource [Report]. United Nations Environment Programme & International Solid Waste Association. Link to source: https://www.unep.org/resources/global-waste-management-outlook-2024

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2023, April 4). Unwaste trendspotting alert no. 4: Paper and cardboard waste [Bulletin]. Link to source: https://www.unodc.org/res/environment-climate/asia-pacific/unwaste_html/Unwaste_Trendspotting_Alert_No.4.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey. (2021) Mineral commodity summaries 2021. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2021 

U.S. Geological Survey. (2022). Iron and steel scrap. In Mineral commodity summaries 2022 (pp. 90–91). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2022 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016a). Environmental factoids [Archived]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency WasteWise Program. Retrieved March 24, 2025, from Link to source: https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/smm/wastewise/web/html/factoid.html 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016b). Greenhouse gas inventory guidance: Direct emissions from stationary combustion sources. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/stationaryemissions_3_2016.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). Recycling basics and benefits. Retrieved September 2, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/recycle/recycling-basics-and-benefits 

Valenzuela-Levi, N., Araya-Córdova, P. J., Dávila, S., & Vásquez, Ó. C. (2021). Promoting adoption of recycling by municipalities in developing countries: Increasing or redistributing existing resources? Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 164, Article 105173. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105173

van Ewijk, S., Stegemann, J. A., & Ekins, P. (2021). Limited climate benefits of global recycling of pulp and paper. Nature Sustainability, 4(2), 180–187. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00624-z

van Ewijk, S., & Stegemann, J. A. (2023). Waste recycling. In An introduction to waste management and circular economy (pp. 217–254). UCL Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781800084650

Waldrop, M. M. (2020, October 1). Recycling meets reality. Knowable Magazine. Link to source: https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/food-environment/2020/recycling-meets-reality-feature

Watari, T., Fishman, T., Wieland, H., & Wiedenhofer, D. (2025). Global stagnation and regional variations in steel recycling. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 220, Article 108363. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108363

Westbroek, C. D., Bitting, J., Craglia, M., Azevedo, J. M. C., & Cullen, J. M. (2021). Global material flow analysis of glass: From raw materials to end of life. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 25(2), 333–343. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13112

World Bank. (2018). What a waste global database: Country-level dataset (Last updated: 2024, June 4) [Data set]. Link to source: https://datacatalogfiles.worldbank.org/ddh-published/0039597/3/DR0049199/country_level_data.csv 

World Wildlife Fund. (2023). Who pays for plastic pollution? [Report]. Link to source: https://www.worldwildlife.org/documents/671/6lohrny0o2_ENGLISH_WWF_ENABLING_GLOBAL_EQUITY_WEBV.pdf 

Yang, H., Ma, M., Thompson, J. R., & Flower, R. J. (2018). Waste management, informal recycling, environmental pollution and public health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 72(3), 237–243. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2016-208597

Yokoi, R., Watari, T., & Motoshita, M. (2022). Future greenhouse gas emissions from metal production: Gaps and opportunities towards climate goals. Energy & Environmental Science, 15(1), 146–157. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EE02165F

Yuan, X., Wang, J., Song, Q., & Xu, Z. (2024). Integrated assessment of economic benefits and environmental impact in waste glass closed‑loop recycling for promoting glass circularity. Journal of Cleaner Production, 444, Article 141155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141155

Zhang, X., Liu, C., Chen, Y., Zheng, G., & Chen, Y. (2022). Source separation, transportation, pretreatment, and valorization of municipal solid waste: A critical review. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(10), 11471–11513. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01932-w

Zheng, J., & Suh, S. (2019). Strategies to reduce the global carbon footprint of plastics. Nature Climate Change, 9(5), 374–378. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0459-z

Zhou, X., Zhang, H., Zheng, S., & Xing, W. (2022). The global recycling trade for twelve critical metals: Based on trade pattern and trade quality analysis. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 33, 831–845. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.08.011

Zhu, X., Konik, J., & Kaufman, H. (2025). The knowns and unknowns in our understanding of how plastics impact climate change: A systematic review. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 13, Article 1563488. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1563488 

Zier, M., Stenzel, P., Kotzur, L., & Stolten, D. (2021). A review of decarbonization options for the glass industry. Energy Conversion and Management: X, 10, Article 100083. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2021.100083

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Nina-Francesca Farac, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Emily Cassidy

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

We estimated recycling effectiveness as the net emissions savings from avoided primary manufacturing and landfilling, minus the emissions associated with recycling, as outlined in Equation 1 (see Climate Impact for more information on technical substitutability ratios [TSRs]). We included landfilling emissions only for materials that generate meaningful end-of-life GHG impacts. Paper and cardboard emit both biogenic CO₂ and methane emissions from anaerobic decomposition (Lee et al., 2017), and plastics contribute minor emissions from landfill handling due to their inert nature (Chamas et al., 2020; Zheng & Suh, 2019). Metals and glass are also considered inert and do not biodegrade. Their landfilling emissions are primarily from collection and transport, which fall outside the scope of this analysis.

Equation 1.

$$Effectiveness = ([Primary\ manufacturing_{emissions} \times TSR]\ + \ Landfilling_{emissions})\ - \ Recycling_{emissions}$$

Metals recycling has a high carbon abatement potential of 1,480,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt metal waste recycled (1,650,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt metal waste recycled, 20-year basis) (Table 1a). In our analysis, metal recycling emissions were about one-third of those from primary metal production. 

Paper and cardboard recycling has a similar carbon abatement potential of 1,000,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt paper and cardboard waste recycled (1,000,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt paper and cardboard waste recycled, 20-year basis) (Table 1b). Although recycling lowers fossil fuel use in pulping, our estimates showed only slightly lower emissions than primary manufacturing. In contrast, preventing CO₂ and methane release from decomposing paper in landfills have comparable emissions to primary paper production, making landfill diversion the larger climate impact.

Plastics recycling is the most effective of the four materials at reducing emissions, eliminating approximately 2,000,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt plastic waste recycled (3,000,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt plastic waste recycled, 20-year basis) (Table 1c). This is largely due to the high emissions intensity of virgin plastic production, which reached global production volumes of 374 Mt in 2023 (Plastics Europe, 2024a) and relies heavily on fossil fuels both as feedstocks and as energy sources for heat generation. While pellet-to-product conversion contributes to overall emissions, plastic pellet manufacturing accounts for most GHGs emitted in the plastic supply chain (Zhu et al., 2025). For studies without clearly defined boundaries, we assumed the reported emissions primarily reflected pellet production.

Glass recycling is the least effective at reducing emissions but still abates a meaningful amount at 79,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt glass waste recycled (84,000 t CO₂‑eq /Mt glass waste recycled) (Table 1d). Emissions savings come from reduced fuel use in high-temperature melting furnaces and avoiding CO₂ release during the processing of raw materials (Baek et al., 2025).

While nitrous oxide is also released from fuel combustion during recycling of metals, paper and cardboard, plastics, and glass, it represents a small share of total CO₂‑eq emissions, so we considered it negligible (Diaz & Warith, 2006; U.S. EPA, 2016b).

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /Mt metal waste recycled, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 1,410,000
Mean 1,480,000
Median (50th percentile) 1,480,000
75th percentile 1,550,000

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /Mt paper and cardboard waste recycled, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 600,000
Mean 1,000,000
Median (50th percentile) 1,000,000
75th percentile 2,000,000

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /Mt plastic waste recycled, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 2,000,000
Mean 2,000,000
Median (50th percentile) 2,000,000
75th percentile 2,000,000

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /Mt glass waste recycled, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 58,000
Mean 79,000
Median (50th percentile) 79,000
75th percentile 100,000
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Emissions mitigation from recycling metals and paper and cardboard results in net cost savings, while plastics break even and glass remains cost-intensive. Initial capital costs for all four material recycling systems are higher than for landfilling, but operating costs are lower. Net landfilling costs are overall profitable for all four materials (see Increase Centralized Composting and Improve Landfill Management for more information on landfilling costs). While operational costs for recycling can vary based on the design and efficiency of MRFs, overall savings can result from reduced landfill tipping fees, lower disposal volume, and revenue from selling recovered materials. These economic factors are determined by energy savings, market demand, and materials-specific recovery efficiencies.

Metals recycling generates net net savings of US$200 million/Mt metal waste recycled, or US$100/t CO₂‑eq mitigated (Table 2a). In addition to significantly reduced energy use and raw material costs (DebRoy & Elmer, 2024), metals recycling delivers high-quality materials comparable to newly mined metals (Damgaard et al., 2009). This drives strong market demand, with revenues often covering – and in some cases exceeding – the costs of separation and/or reprocessing alone.

Paper and cardboard recycling has the highest net savings of the four recycling streams compared to landfilling, with US$400 million/Mt paper and cardboard waste recycled. Combining effectiveness with the net costs presented here, we estimated a savings per unit climate impact of US$400/t CO₂‑eq (Table 2b). This reflects the energy and resource efficiency of paper recycling, along with revenue generation from recovered paper sales (Bajpai, 2014).

Plastics recycling costs US$8 million/Mt less than landfilling, yielding a cost saving of US$4/t CO₂‑eq (Table 2c). However, plastics recycling shows the most variability, ranging from modest savings to higher costs than primary material production. Inexpensive virgin plastics, high contamination risk, complex sorting and reprocessing, and weak or volatile market value (Li et al., 2022) make recycling plastics economically challenging without supportive policies or subsidies.

Glass recycling has a net cost of US$700 million/Mt glass waste recycled and the highest cost per unit of climate impact (US$9,000/t CO₂‑eq , Table 2d). This is due to high processing costs, low market value for cullet (e.g., selling for a fraction of the recycling cost; Figure A1), and contamination that limits resale or reuse (Bogner et al., 2007; Ng & Phan, 2021; Olafasakin et al., 2023). Although glass recycling is costly, the societal and environmental benefits are far higher than those of landfilling (Colangelo, 2024).

Financial data were geographically limited. We based cost estimates on global reports with selected studies from India, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, and the United States for landfilling and Canada, the European Union, Germany, Philippines, and the United States for recycling. Transportation and collection of recyclables can add notable costs to waste management, but we did not include them in this analysis. We calculated amortized net cost for landfilling and recycling by subtracting revenues from operating costs and amortized initial costs over a 30-year facility lifetime. Furthermore, revenues reflect market-based prices, which are subject to change based primarily on demand for recyclables.

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Median -100

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Median -400

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Median -4

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Median 9,000
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

We did not consider a learning curve for the Increase Recycling solution due to a lack of global data quantifying cost reductions specific to mechanical recycling technologies. Recycling systems use well-established processes that are already mature and widely deployed.

Recycling costs depend largely on regional factors, including material availability, market prices, infrastructure, and transportation distances. Consumer sorting habits and contamination rates also influence recycling performance and often outweigh potential learning-based cost decreases from technological improvements. Additionally, many mechanical recycling facilities operate near or at peak process efficiency, leaving little room for the technological upgrades that typically lower costs over time.

Speed of Action

Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.

Increase Recycling is a GRADUAL climate solution. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere.

Caveats

Manufacturing emissions reductions due to recycling of metals, paper and cardboard, plastics, and glass are generally both permanent and additional, depending on local regulations and recycling practices. While recycling reduces the need for virgin production of raw materials and associated emissions, several caveats affect the extent of its climate benefits. 

Permanence

There is a low risk that the avoided emissions from increased recycling will be reversed in the next 100 years. Using recycled materials in place of newly extracted (virgin) resources avoids emissions from extraction, refining, and manufacturing. These reductions are considered permanent because the avoided activities occur to a lesser extent and fewer associated emissions are released. Recycling uses less energy and therefore reduces burning of fossil fuels and emits less GHGs. Avoided methane emissions from landfilled paper waste also has high permanence.

Additionality

Emissions reductions from increasing recycling are additional when improvements go beyond what would happen anyway under existing law or infrastructure. Increases in recycled rates, expansion to underdeveloped areas, and improvements in recycled material quality can result in additional climate benefits (Awino & Apitz, 2024; Halog & Anieke, 2021; Oo et al., 2024; Valenzuela-Levi et al., 2021). Efforts to enable or expand closed-loop recycling are also considered additional, especially for glass bottle recycling and in regions without this infrastructure.

Other Caveats

Material-specific limitations also apply. Material losses during product use and end-of-life processing limit metals recycling. Many metals are locked in products with long lifespans, difficult-to-separate designs, or technically unrecoverable applications, reducing availability for recycling (Ciacci et al., 2016; Guo et al., 2023). While improved recycling can decrease losses (Charpentier Poncelet et al., 2022), stagnant recycled metal inputs do not match growing metal demand (Watari et al., 2025).

Paper and cardboard can be recycled only five to seven times before fibers degrade beyond usability (Bajpai, 2014; Obradovic & Mishra, 2020), limiting long-term recyclability. Plastic recycling faces similar limits because many plastics degrade after a few cycles and mechanical processes are highly sensitive to contamination (Klotz et al., 2022; Klotz et al., 2023). For glass, downcycling is common due to quality control issues and variable regional demand for high-purity cullet. Van Ewijk et al. (2021) also emphasized that the benefits of paper recycling depend substantially on the carbon intensity of the energy used, highlighting the need to power recycling with low-carbon electricity.

Current Adoption

Worldwide, we estimated that metals are recycled at a rate of 740 Mt/yr (Table 3a). We based this on a study by Gorman et al. (2022), which reported that approximately 1,277 Mt of metals were produced globally in 2018 using recycled feedstocks. This value included all types of scrap metals: postconsumer, pre-consumer, and home scrap reused within factories. To isolate postconsumer recycling, we applied a 58% share based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, 2022), which gives a typical breakdown of scrap types across major metals. While this ratio is U.S.-based, we used it as a global proxy due to limited international data. Our current adoption estimate accounts for processing losses, contamination, and quality limits that prevent a full 1:1 replacement of virgin metals (Gorman et al., 2022).

We estimated current paper and cardboard recycling at 160 Mt/yr, the median among two global datasets and one report (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], 2023; Table 3b). The most recent global data were compiled in 2023 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ([FAO], n.d.), and an earlier dataset from a World Bank analysis from 174 countries in 2018 (World Bank, 2018). To estimate postconsumer recycled paper, we assumed a 75% share of total paper waste based on industry averages (European Paper Recycling Council, 2024).

Plastics are currently recycled at a rate of 35.9 Mt/yr, based on one global dataset (173 countries; World Bank, 2018), two reports, and one study (Table 3c). Plastics Europe (2024a, 2024b) provides data on global mechanically recycled (postconsumer) plastics production, derived from estimations and statistical projections. We assumed the share of postconsumer plastics from Houssini et al. (2025) and World Bank (2018) to be 100% because the vast majority of plastic waste appears to originate from postconsumer sources.

Glass has the lowest current recycling rate at 27 Mt/yr, calculated as the midpoint among one global dataset (168 countries; World Bank, 2018), two reviews (Delbari & Hof, 2024; Ferdous et al., 2021), and one report (Maximize Market Research Private Limited, 2025) (Table 3d). For values based on total waste generation, we used a global production-based recycling rate, which may underestimate actual glass waste recycling due to limited data on postconsumer glass waste.

Since the World Bank (2018) provided data on waste generation in metric tons per year, we applied global recycling rates of 59.3%, 9%, and 21% to the total waste generated for paper and cardboard, plastics, and glass, respectively (see Appendix for details).

Table 3. Current adoption level.

Unit: Mt recycled/yr, 2018

Estimate (Gorman et al., 2022) 740

Unit: Mt recycled/yr, 2023

25th percentile 150
Mean 160
Median (50th percentile) 160
75th percentile 180

Unit: Mt recycled/yr, 2023

25th percentile 31.2
Mean 32.0
Median (50th percentile) 35.9
75th percentile 36.6

Unit: Mt recycled/yr, 2020

25th percentile 24
Mean 24
Median (50th percentile) 27
75th percentile 27
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Postconsumer metals recycling has grown steadily in recent years (Table 4a, Figure 2). We used global data on secondary metals production from Gorman et al. (2022), a 39.1% share of recycled metals from the total addressable market (Gorman et al., 2022), and a 58% postconsumer scrap factor (USGS, 2022) to estimate the metals recycling adoption trend from 2014 to 2018. Annual adoption varies across this period. Taking the median annual change, we estimate a global adoption trend of 12 Mt/yr/yr, or 1.6% growth year-over-year (YoY). The mean annual change is estimated as 11 Mt/yr/yr, indicating consistent growth in the recovery of metals from end-of-life products.

Paper and cardboard recycling has gradually but inconsistently grown over the past two decades (Table 4b, Figure 2). Using worldwide recovered paper production data from the FAO (n.d.), we estimated the annual change in paper and cardboard waste recycled from 2003 to 2023. We applied a 75% factor to restrict this to postconsumer collection. While early years (2003–2016) in the data generally showed positive adoption, albeit with some fluctuations, more recent years (2017–2023) reflect declines, including noticeable drops in 2021–2022 (–1.9 Mt/yr/yr) and 2022–2023 (–5.4 Mt/yr/yr). The overall adoption trend is mixed despite a brief spike in 2020–2021. Taking the median annual change over the full 20-year period, we estimated a global trend of 2.2 Mt/yr/yr or a 1.3% YoY growth. The mean annual change is slightly higher at 2.8 Mt/yr/yr (2.0% YoY growth), indicating moderate but uneven progress in the recovery of paper and cardboard.

Plastics recycling is slowly increasing as a share of global plastic waste management, but the overall trend remains modest (Table 4c, Figure 2). We used data from the Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development ([OECD], 2022a) to estimate global adoption trends from 2000–2019 and supplemented this with 2019–2023 estimates from Plastics Europe (2022, 2023, 2024a). The adoption trend fluctuates from year to year, reflecting variability in collection rates, contamination levels, and recycling infrastructure. Taking the median annual change in recycled plastic waste across 23 years, we estimated a global adoption trend of 1.3 Mt/yr/yr, or 8.5% YoY growth. The mean annual change is slightly higher at 1.4 Mt/yr/yr, suggesting a slow growth in recycling capacity compared with plastic production volumes. However, this progress is uneven across geographies, with some countries expanding recycling systems while others face barriers, including limited infrastructure and low incentives for recovery.

Glass recycling showed a median annual change of 0 Mt/yr/yr and a mean of 0.8 Mt/yr/yr (3.7% growth YoY) from 2009–2019 (Table 4d, Figure 2). These estimates are based on Chen et al. (2020), who modeled World Bank data (Kaza et al., 2018) to generate a global dataset of waste treatment quantities across 217 countries. The apparent absence of change likely reflects limited availability of global data and inconsistent reporting rather than truly flat adoption. Although the dataset from Chen et al. (2020) is comprehensive, it is modeled rather than based on reported figures.

Table 4. Adoption trend.

Unit: Mt/yr/yr, 2014–2018

25th percentile 2.3
Mean 11
Median (50th percentile) 12
75th percentile 20

Unit: Mt/yr/yr, 2003–2023

25th percentile 0.15
Mean 2.8
Median (50th percentile) 2.2
75th percentile 5.9

Unit: Mt/yr/yr, 2000–2023

25th percentile 0.93
Mean 1.4
Median (50th percentile) 1.3
75th percentile 1.8

Unit: Mt/yr/yr, 2009–2019

25th percentile 0
Mean 0.8
Median (50th percentile) 0
75th percentile 0
Left Text Column Width

Figure 2. Trends in recycling adoption of metals (2014–2018), paper & cardboard (2003–2023), plastics (2000–2023), and glass (2009–2019). Adapted from Chen et al. (2020), FAO (n.d.), Gorman et al. (2022), OECD (2022a), and Plastics Europe (2022, 2023, 2024a).

Sources: Chen, D. M.-C., Bodirsky, B. L., Krueger, T., Mishra, A., & Popp, A. (2020). The world’s growing municipal solid waste: Trends and impacts. Environmental Research Letters, 15(7), Article 074021; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (n.d.). FAO‑FAOSTAT: Forestry production and trade [Data set]. Retrieved April 25, 2025; Gorman, M. R., Dzombak, D. A., & Frischmann, C. (2022). Potential global GHG emissions reduction from increased adoption of metals recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 184, Article 106424; Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development. (2022a). Global plastics outlook database [Data set]; Plastics Europe. (2022). Plastics – the facts 2022 [Report]; Plastics Europe. (2023). Plastics – the fast facts 2023 [Infographic]; Plastics Europe. (2024a). Plastics – the fast facts 2024 [Infographic].

Enable Download
On
Adoption Ceiling

Metals recycling adoption is expected to remain high, with the global ceiling estimated at 2,100 Mt/yr (Table 5a). This corresponds to 68.2% of total projected metals production by 2050, based on the “maximum scenario” in Gorman et al. (2022). The scenario reflects a best-case technical potential of recycled metals adoption under full utilization of scrap feedstocks (Gorman et al., 2022). It assumes that all available postconsumer, pre-consumer, and home scrap can be recovered and can fully replace as much virgin material as possible using current technologies. We isolated the postconsumer portion as a 58% share of available metal scrap, as outlined in USGS (2022) data. 

There is also a strong potential for increased paper and cardboard recycling, with an estimated adoption ceiling of 360 Mt/yr (Table 5b). We assumed a recovery rate of 85% of total global paper production, accounting for practical limits imposed by fiber degradation, contamination, and processing inefficiencies. According to UNODC (2023), about 48% of paper globally is produced from recycled materials, leaving considerable room for improvement. The 85% ceiling also assumes that not all types of paper can be recovered (e.g., sanitary paper or heavily coated grades). Because this value is based on production rather than discarded paper waste, it may slightly underestimate the ceiling based on postconsumer waste generation. 

We estimated the adoption ceiling for plastics recycling at 180 Mt/yr (Table 5c). Technical barriers such as contamination, material heterogeneity, and plastic degradation constrain large-scale adoption. We therefore assumed and applied a 70% recycling rate to postconsumer plastic waste streams. We obtained similar estimates across multiple sources reporting global plastic waste generation (Houssini et al., 2025; OECD, 2022b; Stegmann et al., 2022). 

We estimated a ceiling of 100 Mt/yr for glass recycling (Table 5d) based on a 90% recovery rate from global waste generation estimates (Chen et al., 2020; Ferdous et al., 2021). Although glass is considered infinitely recyclable, losses due to contamination, sorting inefficiencies, and market constraints limit complete recovery. We included modeled estimates from Chen et al. (2020) to provide a more comprehensive global ceiling due to the scarcity of global data on glass recycling. 

For metals and paper and cardboard, values are derived from single datasets; for plastics, rounding across multiple datasets produced identical values across percentiles. Therefore, only the median is shown for these three subsolutions.

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mt recycled/yr

Estimate (Gorman et al., 2022) 2,100

Unit: Mt recycled/yr

Estimate (UNODC, 2023) 360

Unit: Mt recycled/yr

Median (50th percentile) 180

Unit: Mt recycled/yr

25th percentile 94
Mean 100
Median (50th percentile) 100
75th percentile 110
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

For sources reporting global recycling rates or tonnage for all materials except metals, we define low and high achievable adoption as 25% or 50% increase in the most recently available material-specific recycle rate, respectively.

For metals recycling, achievable adoption is largely shaped by the dynamics of secondary metal production in global commodity markets, which in turn depends on the relative quantity of scrap available (Ciacci et al., 2016). We set achievable adoption at 1,300–1,400 Mt/yr by 2050 (Table 6a), based on the “plausible” and “ambitious” scenarios from Gorman et al. (2022), respectively. These estimates represent 41–48% of projected global metals production and incorporate both postconsumer and pre-consumer scrap, with the postconsumer share standardized at 58% across scenarios (USGS, 2022). Major commodity metals included in these estimates are steel, aluminum, copper, zinc, lead, iron, nickel, and manganese, which together represent more than 99% of all metal demand by mass from 2014–2018 (USGS, 2021). Material availability and infrastructure for downstream scrap processing remain key hurdles (Allwood et al., 2025), although industrial-scale recovery systems are already well established in many high-income countries (Campbell et al., 2022; de Sa & Korinek, 2021).

We estimated the achievable adoption range for paper and cardboard recycling at 220–260 Mt/yr (Table 6b), with an assumed postconsumer share of 75% applied to the total global recycling volumes reported by FAO (n.d.) and UNODC (2023). This range reflects expanded municipal collection, improvements in fiber separation technologies, and increased demand for recovered pulp in paper manufacturing. 

Plastics recycling has substantial opportunity for growth, given <10% global recycling rates and the exponential growth of plastic accumulation in the environment (Dokl et al., 2024; Nayanathara Thathsarani Pilapitiya & Ratnayake, 2024). A 25–50% increase in global mechanically recycled plastic volumes would bring the achievable range to 45–54 Mt/yr (Table 6c). While meaningful, these levels are 8–9 times smaller than the 414 Mt of plastic produced in 2023 (Plastics Europe, 2024a). Constraints include the complexity of sorting mixed plastic streams, limited market demand for lower-grade recycled pellets, and insufficient investment in complementary technologies such as chemical recycling, which remains below 0.5 Mt/yr.

For glass recycling, we set an achievable adoption range of 36–48 Mt/yr by 2050 (Table 6d), based on harmonized waste modeling and forward-looking estimates from Chen et al. (2020) and Delbari and Hof (2024). However, this scale-up depends substantially on reducing contamination at the collection stage, expanding color- and ceramic-sorting technologies, and improving closed-loop markets for container glass (Baek et al., 2025; Yuan et al., 2024).

Enable Download
Off

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption.

Unit: Mt recycled/yr

Current adoption 740
Achievable – low 1300
Achievable – high 1400
Adoption ceiling 2100

Unit: Mt recycled/yr

Current adoption 160
Achievable – low 220
Achievable – high 260
Adoption ceiling 360

Unit: Mt recycled/yr

Current adoption 36
Achievable – low 45
Achievable – high 54
Adoption ceiling 180

Unit: Mt recycled/yr

Current adoption 27
Achievable – low 36
Achievable – high 48
Adoption ceiling 100
Left Text Column Width

Increased recycling has strong potential for climate impact, especially in reducing emissions from virgin material production and landfilling waste (see Appendix for waste sector emissions). 

Metals recycling has the highest current and achievable GHG emissions savings of the four material categories (Table 7a). At a >500 Mt/yr current adoption rate, we estimate current metals recycling avoids 1.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (1.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis). Our low and high achievable adoption levels reduce 1.9 and 2.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (2.1 and 2.4 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis), respectively, with annual GHG reductions up to 3.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (3.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis) using the adoption ceiling. 

Paper and cardboard recycling currently avoids 0.16 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.16 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis) (Table 7b). Achievable GHG reduction is 0.22–0.26 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.22–0.26 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis), with a maximum potential of 0.36 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.36 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis).

Plastics recycling has a lower current climate impact of 0.07 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis), but it has the potential to increase to a ceiling matching that of recycling paper and cardboard (Table 7c). We estimated low and high achievable adoption levels avoid 0.09 and 0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.1 and 0.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis), respectively, with GHG emissions savings of 0.4 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis) at the adoption ceiling. The 20-year impacts highlight the mitigated methane emissions associated with oil refining for virgin plastic production, with recycling plastics reducing both the need for petrochemical feedstocks and the volume of waste sent to landfills.

Glass recycling has the lowest current and achievable emissions reductions, avoiding 0.0021 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.0023 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis) with the potential to increase to 0.0028–0.0038 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.0030–0.0041 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis) under higher adoption (Table 7d). We estimated a maximum impact ceiling of 0.0079 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.0084 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-year basis). Although emissions savings are relatively small, glass recycling is still worthwhile to benefit from cullet-driven energy reductions, conserve raw materials, and contribute to larger reductions when combined with other materials in municipal recycling programs.

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 1.1
Achievable – low 1.9
Achievable – high 2.1
Adoption ceiling 3.1

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.16
Achievable – low 0.22
Achievable – high 0.26
Adoption ceiling 0.36

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.07
Achievable – low 0.09
Achievable – high 0.1
Adoption ceiling 0.4

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.0021
Achievable – low 0.0028
Achievable – high 0.0038
Adoption ceiling 0.0079
Left Text Column Width

In our analysis, we adjusted emissions reductions from recycling using a TSR, since recycled materials often do not replace virgin materials on a 1:1 basis due to differences in quality, durability, or performance (Nordahl & Scown, 2024). To ensure we didn’t overestimate emissions savings, we applied an average material-specific ratio that adjusted the avoided emissions from primary material production. Recycled paper and cardboard and glass were assigned a ratio of 0.83; metals, 0.90; and plastics, 0.80 (Figure 3). These unitless ratios were based on technical literature (Barbato et al., 2024; Rigamonti et al., 2020; UNEP, 2024; Zheng & Suh, 2019) and were applied consistently across all emissions units for effectiveness.

Figure 3. Conceptual diagram of a general recycling loop for (a) metals, (b) paper & cardboard, (c) plastics, and (d) glass and how technical substitutability determines the maximum share of recycled content due to quality constraints. Graphics for (b), including the MRF and manufacturing plant for (a), (c), and (d), were modified from International Paper (n.d.). BioRender and Canva were used to make the remaining graphics.

Recycling cycle diagram.

Source: International Paper. (n.d.). Paper’s life cycle: The recycling process [Infographic]. Retrieved June 10, 2025.

Enable Download
On
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Recycling can create jobs and reduce energy costs. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) estimated that incinerating or landfilling 10 kt of waste creates one or six jobs respectively, while recycling the same amount of waste creates 36 jobs (NIH Environmental Management System [NEMS], n.d.). A case study in Florida found that increasing recycling rates can lead to small amounts of job growth, with most new jobs concentrated in the recycling processing sector (Liu et al., 2020). 

Using recycled materials can reduce the need for imports and support domestic manufacturing (Das et al., 2010; Dussaux & Glachant, 2019). The sale of products manufactured from recyclables instead of virgin materials can translate to economic benefits. A study of recycling systems in Nigeria found that the sale of recyclables could contribute about US$11.7 million to the country’s economy each year and create about 16,562 new jobs (Ayodele et al., 2018).  

Health

Materials in landfills can leach into the surrounding environment (McGinty, 2021). Plastics, along with associated additives such as bisphenol A and phthalates, can degrade into microplastics that enter the surrounding ecosystem and food chain, posing health risks to humans (Bauer et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022; Rajmohan et al., 2019; Zheng & Suh, 2019).

Equality

In low- and middle-income countries, informal recycling, which involves networks of individuals who sort through waste and sell or recycle it using informal methods, is a common form of waste management (Yang et al., 2018). Increasing recycling in these contexts could formalize this recycling method and improve some of the social and health equity concerns associated with informal recycling, such as exploitation, safety, child labor, and occupational health exposures, and may improve income-earning capabilities (Aparcana & Salhofer, 2013; Yang et al., 2018). Low- and middle-income countries typically face a disproportionate burden of plastic pollution, which could be improved by increasing recycling capacities globally (World Wildlife Fund [WWF], 2023). 

Land Resources

Recycling can benefit land resources and soil quality by reducing materials in landfills and incinerators and by reducing the need to extract virgin materials such as timber and minerals (Dussaux & Glachant, 2019; McGinty, 2021; U.S. EPA, 2025). Rajmohan et al. (2019) estimated that about 22–43% of plastic waste reaches landfills. Plastic waste can degrade into microplastics, leaching into surrounding ecosystems and reducing soil fertility (McGinty, 2021; Rajmohan et al., 2019). The environmental benefits of displacing the need for production using virgin materials through recycling may be more significant than reducing landfilling (Geyer et al., 2016). Recycling, along with the use of wood residues, is projected to reduce the demand for wood and fiber, easing pressures on land resources (FAO, 2009). 

Water Resources

Recycling can reduce the amount of water needed to produce new materials. For example, using recycled steel to make steel requires 40% less water than using virgin materials (NEMS, n.d.).

Air Quality

Increasing recycling reduces the amount of waste in landfills and incinerators and can reduce harmful pollution associated with landfilling and incineration (U.S. EPA, 2025). Additionally, recycling reduces the need to mine and process new materials, thereby reducing air pollution emitted during these processes (U.S. EPA, 2025).

Risks

Increasing metals recycling, paper and cardboard recycling, and plastics recycling can inadvertently increase environmental and human exposure to hazardous chemicals if not properly managed. Exposure to heavy metal fumes can occur while processing metal waste, and concealed pressurized or reactive items in scrap can cause fires or explosions. Chemical additives such as mineral oils and printing inks often persist throughout the paper life cycle and can migrate into the environment and food packaging, posing health risks such as chronic inflammation, endocrine disruption, and cancer (Pivnenko et al., 2016; Sobhani & Palanisami, 2025). Flame retardants, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, and other pollutants can leach from materials during and after plastics recycling. Microplastics accumulate at higher concentrations in recycled plastics and are released during all recycling stages (Monclús et al., 2025; Singh & Walker, 2024). Additionally, recycled papers and plastics contain unintentionally added substances, which carry different additives whose composition is often unknown (Monclús et al., 2025; Sobhani & Palanisami, 2025).

Increased plastics collection for recycling without global coordination can lead to disproportionate plastic pollution if high-income countries export plastic waste to low-income countries with inadequate recycling infrastructure (Singh & Walker, 2024).

When glass recycling is included in single-stream systems, glass shards can damage MRF machinery and contaminate other recyclable materials, decreasing their market value (Deer, 2021). Additionally, the heavy weight and fragility of glass means recycling trucks require multiple trips, consuming more fuel and increasing transportation costs. 

Another key risk is that materials collected for recycling may ultimately be landfilled when poor market conditions prevent their recovery. 

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

All of these solutions can reuse clean and high-quality recycled materials as a raw material or feedstock or repurpose them as substitute materials in targeted uses. The embodied emissions from the recovered waste used as production or process inputs will be reduced, enhancing the solutions’ net climate impacts and supporting circularity.

Recycling paper and cardboard waste reduces deforestation required for extracting and processing primary raw materials.

Increased adoption of efficient mechanical recycling systems and equipment can improve the rate and cost of scaling similar highly-efficient, complementary technologies (e.g., chemical recycling). 

Competing

Diverting certain paper and cardboard types from landfills lowers methane emissions available to be captured and sold for biogas revenue. Paper and cardboard recycling also can reduce the amount of material that can be converted into biochar or compost.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

Mt recycled

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
01.41×10⁶1.48×10⁶median
units/yr
Current 740 01,3001,400
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 1.1 1.92.1
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-100
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄

Solution Basics

Mt recycled

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
0600,0001.0×10⁶median
units/yr
Current 160 0220260
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.16 0.220.26
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-400
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄

Solution Basics

Mt recycled

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
2.0×10⁶
units/yr
Current 35.9 04554
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.07 0.090.1
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-4
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄

Solution Basics

Mt recycled

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
058,00079,000median
units/yr
Current 27 03648
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.002 0.0030.004
US$ per t CO₂-eq
9,000
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄

Trade-offs

Ciacci et al. (2016) and van Ewijk and Stegemann (2023) noted that as recycling approaches near-total recovery, energy consumption steeply rises, driven by increased decontamination efforts, sorting challenges, and diminished material quality. However, recycling rates are currently low enough that recycling is less carbon intense than primary material manufacturing.

The eventual quality degradation in secondary materials requires supplementation with virgin resources. However, overall embodied emissions are still lower than they would be for producing all-new materials. 

Glass recycling poses a trade-off between convenience and recycling efficiency in single-stream systems. Only 40% of glass is repurposed into new products, and the glass can contaminate other materials. Multi-stream or source-separated systems require more effort but achieve 90%-plus recycling rates (Berardocco et al., 2022; Deer, 2021).

Watari et al. (2025) noted that countries can achieve high local recycling rates and high recycled content by importing scrap metals from elsewhere, but with the trade-off that metal production emissions are offshored rather than reduced. This also introduces dependencies on international scrap flows and global supply chains (Guo et al., 2023), which can similarly occur for paper, cardboard, and plastics.

% metal composition of MSW
≤ 1
1–5
5–10
10–15
> 15
No Data

Metals component of MSW, 2018

Percentage (by mass) of each country’s MSW that is metal.

World Bank. (2018). What a waste global database (Version 3, Last updated: 2024, June 4) [Data set]. Retrieved March 6, 2025, from Link to source: https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/0039597

% metal composition of MSW
≤ 1
1–5
5–10
10–15
> 15
No Data

Metals component of MSW, 2018

Percentage (by mass) of each country’s MSW that is metal.

World Bank. (2018). What a waste global database (Version 3, Last updated: 2024, June 4) [Data set]. Retrieved March 6, 2025, from Link to source: https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/search/dataset/0039597

Maps Introduction

Mechanical recycling can, in theory, be implemented anywhere with basic waste management systems. In practice, significant geographic variation exists in current uptake and feasibility of scaling, depending on infrastructure, economic viability, availability of reliable energy grids, and policy support. 

Current recycling adoption remains limited, with less than 14% of global waste recycled (Kaza et al., 2018). High-income countries with the highest recycling rates were Faroe Islands, Liechtenstein, Singapore, South Korea, and Iceland (56–67% of MSW recycled), followed by 16 countries with rates of 31–50% and another 27 with 20–28%. Globally, 36 countries recycled 1–9 Mt of MSW each in 2018, with South Korea, Germany, and the United States reporting more than 11, 24, and 91 Mt recycled, respectively. These values reflect combined single-stream MSW recycling volumes across metals, paper and cardboard, plastics, and glass.

Recycling potential is closely tied to urbanization, regulatory frameworks, and access to markets for recycled materials (Burinskienė et al., 2025; Egger & Keuschnigg, 2024). Middle-income countries present strong opportunities for future uptake, with improving socioeconomic conditions (Dong et al., 2022) and waste generation rising faster than recycling infrastructure. In low-income regions, adoption faces barriers such as limited collection systems, lack of processing technology, low revenues from recyclables, high costs for sorting and infrastructure upgrades, and limited public participation. High-income countries have the means to expand recycling but are challenged by unpredictable markets, insufficient political commitment, and inadequate sorting of increasingly complex waste streams (Barford & Beales, 2025). In all regions, recycling rates can significantly increase. 

Cost estimates, including our own, may underestimate the variability in costs because recycling facilities often rely on public or consumer incentives, process multiple waste streams with differing profitability, and face large regional cost differences. Actual values can vary widely depending on local and operational conditions.

Material availability and recyclability also vary geographically. Paper and glass recycling tends to be most feasible where contamination rates are low and access to nearby mills or furnaces exists. In the case of glass, closed-loop recycling is most efficient in regions such as Western Europe, Japan, and South Korea where color-sorted collection systems are widely implemented and demand for clear cullet is high (Baek et al., 2025; Close the Glass Loop, 2025). Plastics recycling is more limited due to the diversity of resin types, price volatility of recyclables, and high sensitivity to contamination. For plastics recycling, recycling rates vary from 5–6% in the United States to 20% in Japan, while developing countries rely heavily on informal recycling networks due to limited infrastructure (Hendrickson et al., 2024; Houssini et al., 2025). Metals are among the most universally recycled materials (de Sa & Korinek, 2021), but access to scrap streams, collection systems, and trade networks still influences effectiveness. Global metals recycling trade is dominated by countries in Asia, Europe, and North America, with Germany serving as a transit hub with mature recycling systems, China importing large volumes of common metals such as aluminum, iron, and copper to meet domestic demand, and the United States exporting common metal scrap (Zhou et al., 2022).

Action Word
Increase
Solution Title
Recycling
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Establish ambitious recycling goals; incorporate them into climate plans.
  • Ensure public procurement uses recycled materials or products as much as possible.
  • Consult with manufacturers, retailers, and the public to determine how best to design local recycling programs.
  • Empower citizen leaders to help manage MSW collection and recycling programs; ensure legal and regulatory structures clearly designate citizen and/or local control to avoid political disagreements and interference.
  • Use decision-making models and economic analysis tools to design MSW systems that incorporate aspects such as life-cycle assessments, material flows, cost/benefit analyses, environmental impact assessments, management systems, and assessments of immediate impacts on human well-being, especially in low-income and urban settings.
  • Ensure waste management systems and practices are appropriate for the local context and not just imported models from other countries.
  • Coordinate recycling efforts, policies, and budgets horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts), ensuring an inclusive process for local communities.
  • Use financial incentives that are appropriate for the local context such as subsidizing recycling plants, transportation, and pickup; offer tax exemptions and other incentives to low-income communities.
  • Use financial disincentives and taxes appropriate for the local context, such as landfilling fees, rent and/or property taxes, product fees, and collection fees included in utility bills or tied to waste quantity; ensure fees do not burden or stop low-income communities from recycling (possibly by tying collection fees to income bracket).
  • Invest in waste management infrastructure, including waste drop-off and buy-back centers, collection and separation facilities, roads and collection vehicles, education programs, community engagement mechanisms, and research and development for more efficient recycling techniques, behavioral change mechanisms, product design, and alternative materials.
  • Institute bans on landfilling recyclable (or compostable) materials; establish penalties for noncompliance.
  • Enact container deposit programs to encourage recycling and reuse.
  • Mandate standard shapes and color coding for waste bins to facilitate collection and separation.
  • Ban single-use plastics such as shopping bags and water bottles; ensure strong customs enforcement for imports.
  • Enact extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste; set standards for the traceability of materials; require clear labeling for recyclable products.
  • Aim to eliminate government corruption behind illicit waste trade; create monitoring programs to hold waste managers accountable.
  • Incentivize or encourage waste management facilities to run on renewable energy and use electric fleets.
  • Incentivize or encourage manufacturers – including climate solution industries such as solar and wind producers – to use as much recycled materials as possible.
  • Require products made of metal, paper, plastic, or glass to contain a minimum percentage of recycled materials; ensure packaging producers meet recycling obligations potentially through the use of market-based mechanisms such as packaging waste recovery notes (PRNs) and/or packaging waste export recovery notes (PERNs).
  • Work to bring informal waste pickers into the formal MSW system by providing or advocating for training, protective gear, formal employment, free or low-cost childcare services, and other social benefits and purchasing separated recyclable waste.
  • Work with businesses and industries to develop consistent markets for recycled goods and stabilize the price of recycled materials.
  • Carefully enter into transparent public–private recycling partnerships, ensuring legal systems can enforce compliance with contractual terms.
  • Set collection fees, designate collection areas, and establish the amount of monitoring services at the municipal level rather than letting private companies do so.
  • Improve building codes and manufacturing regulations to require the use of recycled materials and material traceability; set standards for building and vehicle demolition to require the recovery of window glass and other recyclable materials.
  • Set recycling-facilitating regulations and standards for product disassembly.
  • Set standards that ease barriers for trading recycled goods and recyclable materials; halt the export of waste from rich countries to low- and middle-income countries; enforce trade standards and ensure illicit trade networks do not circumvent them.
  • Foster cooperation and technology transfers between low- and middle-income countries, avoiding models used in rich countries that are ill-suited for other contexts.
  • Deploy diverse means of engaging the public in recycling, such as volunteer groups, social activities, and musical trucks.
  • Create or improve training programs for waste management professionals that focus on practical skills and knowledge for working with communities to design and manage MSW systems.
  • Partner with schools, manufacturers, retailers, nonprofits, and other community organizations to promote recycling.
  • Establish programs that teach how to separate waste effectively, the waste hierarchy, and why these processes are important; incorporate these concepts into public school curricula.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Place recycling plants as close to points of waste generation as possible.
  • Consult with government officials, manufacturers, retailers, and the public to determine how best to design local recycling programs; utilize local data to inform planning, development, collection, and sorting techniques.
  • Support and cooperate with citizen leaders to help manage MSW collection and recycling programs.
  • Use decision-making models and economic analysis tools to design MSW systems that incorporate aspects such as life-cycle assessments, material flows, cost/benefit analyses, environmental impact assessments, management systems, and assessments of immediate impacts on human well-being, especially in low-income and urban settings.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies for recycling plant construction, transportation, and pickup; if none exist, advocate to policymakers for incentives.
  • Invest in waste management infrastructure, including waste drop-off and buy-back centers, collection and separation facilities, roads, collection vehicles, education programs, community engagement mechanisms, and research and development for more efficient recycling techniques, behavioral change mechanisms, product design, and alternatives to non-recyclable materials.
  • Use energy efficiency equipment and enhanced heat recovery techniques; install smart technology control systems.
  • Use electric equipment and renewable energy sources as much as possible.
  • Work with the renewable energy industry to ensure new solar photovoltaic panels and wind turbines utilize as much recycled materials as possible.
  • Work to bring informal waste pickers into the formal MSW system by providing or advocating for training, protective gear, formal employment, free or low-cost childcare services, and other social benefits and purchasing separated recyclable waste.
  • Work with policymakers, businesses, and industries to develop consistent markets for recycled goods and stabilize the price of recycled materials.
  • Deploy diverse means of engaging the public in recycling, such as volunteer groups, social activities, and musical trucks.
  • Create or improve training programs for waste management professionals that focus on practical skills and knowledge for working with communities to design and manage MSW systems.
  • Partner with schools, manufacturers, retailers, nonprofits, and other community organizations to promote recycling.
  • Establish programs that teach how to separate waste effectively, the waste hierarchy, and why these processes are important; incorporate these concepts into public school curricula.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Use recycled materials in business operations as much as possible and ensure employees recycle.
  • Improve the quality of products, reduce material usage and product weight, and extend product life cycles through design that allows for easy reuse, repair, upgrading, recycling, and remanufacturing.
  • Work with industry peers to set design standards for common products that contain recycled materials.
  • Improve the traceability of materials used in products to enhance sorting efficiency.
  • Collect used products and reuse the materials for future production.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved municipal recycling programs and support for integrating recycled products into your industry.
  • Provide financial assistance to employees for training in sustainable waste management, circular business models, and other related fields.
  • Create or join platforms that allow business-to-business collaboration to increase adoption of recycling and integration of recycled materials into products and business models.
  • Conduct market research on consumer demands and trends to identify potential markets for recycled materials.
  • Fund research or start-ups that aim to boost recycling in your industry.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate collaboration on recycling.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Ensure procurement uses strategies to reduce waste and use recycled materials as much as possible.
  • Help administer local recycling programs; take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies for recycling plants, transportation, and pickup; ensure services are provided to low-income communities.
  • Consult with government officials, manufacturers, retailers, and the public to determine how best to design local recycling programs.
  • Help recycling service providers navigate certification and permitting; help identify funding opportunities.
  • Help develop decision-making models and economic analyses for designing recycling systems, incorporating aspects such as life-cycle assessments, material flows, cost/benefit analyses, environmental impact assessments, management systems, and assessments of impacts on human well-being, especially in low-income and urban settings.
  • Improve data collection on employment figures in the waste and recycling sectors; work to capture labor statistics for informal waste pickers – especially, women and children involved in the sector that are not captured by current data.
  • Advocate for ambitious public recycling goals, including integration into local and national climate plans.
  • Advocate for international trade standards that ease barriers for trading in recycled goods and recyclable materials; seek to halt the practice of rich countries exporting waste to low- and middle-income countries; advocate for better enforcement of trade standards to ensure illicit trade networks do not circumvent these standards.
  • Create or improve training programs for waste management professionals that focus on practical skills and knowledge for working with communities to design and manage MSW systems.
  • Advocate for bans on discarding recyclable materials to landfills and penalties for noncompliance.
  • Establish or advocate for container deposit programs to encourage recycling and reuse.
  • Advocate for bans on single use plastics such as shopping bags and water bottles.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste; demand standards for traceability and labeling of materials in products to facilitate recycling.
  • Empower citizen leaders to help manage MSW collection and recycling programs; advocate for clear legal and regulatory structures to avoid political disagreements and interference.
  • Help safeguard against government corruption to avoid the illicit waste trade; create monitoring programs to hold waste management companies and/or leadership accountable.
  • Deploy diverse means of engaging the public in recycling, such as volunteer groups, social activities, and musical trucks.
  • Work to bring informal waste pickers into the formal MSW system by providing or advocating for training, protective gear, formal employment, free or low-cost childcare services, and other social benefits.
  • Help facilitate local cooperatives or other management structures for recycling programs; offer to purchase separated recyclable waste from waste pickers.
  • Work with businesses and industry to develop consistent markets for recycled goods and stabilize the price of recycled materials.
  • Partner with schools, manufacturers, retailers, nonprofits, and other community organizations to promote recycling.
  • Establish programs that teach how to separate waste effectively, the waste hierarchy, and why these processes are important; incorporate these concepts into public school curricula.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate collaboration on recycling.

Further information:

Investors
  • Ensure portfolio companies and company procurement reduce waste, recycle, and use recycled materials at all stages of the supply chain.
  • Require portfolio companies to measure and report on waste, recycling rates, and use of recycled materials.
  • Provide low-interest loans to recycling service providers for start-up capital, improving efficiency, transitioning to renewable energy, and other development needs.
  • Invest in companies developing or modifying products to be compatible with a circular economy.
  • Fund start-ups that aim to improve sorting technologies, alternative packaging materials, energy efficiency of waste separation equipment, and other industry needs.
  • Offer financial services, notably rural financial market development, including low-interest loans, microfinancing, and grants, to support recycling initiatives.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate collaboration on recycling.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Ensure your organization’s procurement recycles and uses recycled materials as much as possible.
  • Help administer local recycling programs; take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies for recycling plants, transportation, and pickup; ensure services are provided to low-income communities.
  • Foster cooperation and technology transfers between low- and middle-income countries, avoiding models used in rich countries that are ill-suited for other contexts.
  • Offer grants and loans to establish recycling projects, ensuring projects have sustainable means of generating income sources to maintain operations after grant or loan terms end.
  • Provide low-interest loans to recycling service providers for start-up capital, improving efficiency, transitioning to renewable energy, and other development needs.
  • Invest in companies developing or modifying products to be compatible with a circular economy.
  • Fund start-ups that aim to improve sorting technologies, alternative packaging materials, energy efficiency of waste separation equipment, and other industry needs.
  • Offer financial services, notably rural financial market development, including low-interest loans, microfinancing, and grants to support recycling initiatives.
  • Hold community consultations with government officials, manufacturers, retailers, and the public to determine how best to design local recycling programs.
  • Help recycling service providers navigate certification and permitting processes.
  • Help develop decision-making models and economic analyses for designing recycling systems, incorporating aspects such as life-cycle assessments, material flows, cost/benefit analyses, environmental impact assessments, management systems, and assessments of impacts on human well-being, especially in low-income and urban settings.
  • Improve data collection on employment figures in the waste and recycling sectors; work to capture labor statistics for informal waste pickers – especially, women and children involved in the sector that are not captured by current data.
  • Advocate for ambitious public recycling goals and for the goals to be integrated into local and national climate plans.
  • Advocate for international trade standards that ease barriers for trading in recycled goods and recyclable materials; seek to halt the practice of rich countries exporting waste to low- and middle-income countries; advocate for better enforcement of trade standards to ensure illicit trade networks do not circumvent these standards.
  • Create or improve training programs for waste management professionals that focus on practical skills and knowledge for working with communities to design and manage MSW systems.
  • Advocate for bans on discarding recyclable (or compostable) materials to landfills and penalties for noncompliance.
  • Establish or advocate for container deposit programs to encourage recycling and reuse.
  • Advocate for bans on single use plastics such as shopping bags and water bottles.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste; demand standards for the traceability and labeling of materials in products to facilitate the recycling process.
  • Empower citizen leaders to help manage MSW collection and recycling programs; advocate for clear legal and regulatory structures to avoid political disagreements and interference.
  • Help safeguard against government corruption to avoid the illicit waste trade; create monitoring programs to hold waste management companies and/or leadership accountable.
  • Deploy diverse means of engaging the public in recycling, such as volunteer groups, social activities, and musical trucks.
  • Work to bring informal waste pickers into the formal MSW system by providing or advocating for training, protective gear, formal employment, free or low-cost childcare services, and other social benefits.
  • Help facilitate local cooperatives or other management structures for recycling programs; offer to purchase separated recyclable waste from waste pickers.
  • Work with businesses and industry to develop consistent markets for recycled goods and to stabilize the price of recycled materials.
  • Partner with schools, manufacturers, retailers, nonprofits, and other community organizations to promote recycling.
  • Establish programs that teach how to separate waste effectively, the waste hierarchy, and why these processes are important; incorporate these concepts into public school curricula.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate collaboration on recycling.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Adopt recycling, share your experience, and inform your community how to effectively recycle in your area.
  • Consult with government officials, manufacturers, retailers, and the public to determine how best to design local recycling programs.
  • Help recyclers navigate certification and permitting; help identify funding opportunities.
  • Help develop decision-making models and economic analyses for designing recycling systems, incorporating aspects such as life-cycle assessments, material flows, cost/benefit analyses, environmental impact assessments, management systems, and assessments of impacts on human well-being, especially in low-income and urban settings.
  • Create ways of tracing materials and verifying recycled materials; explore the use of blockchain technology.
  • Conduct climate impact assessments of chemical recycling for plastics at an industrial scale; assess its feasibility to supplement mechanical recycling.
  • Improve data collection on employment figures in the waste and recycling sectors; work to capture labor statistics for informal waste pickers – especially, women and children involved in the sector that are not captured by current data.
  • Research and develop strategies for increasing recycling behavior.
  • Advocate for ambitious public recycling goals and for the goals to be integrated into local or national climate plans.
  • Advocate for international trade standards that ease barriers for trading in recycled goods and recyclable materials; seek to halt the practice of rich countries exporting waste to low- and middle-income countries (“waste dumping”); advocate for better enforcement of trade standards to ensure illicit trade networks do not circumvent these standards.
  • Create or improve training programs for waste management professionals that go into practical skills and knowledge for working with communities to design and manage MSW systems.
  • Advocate for bans on discarding recyclable (or compostable) materials to landfills and penalties for noncompliance.
  • Advocate for container deposit programs to encourage recycling and reuse.
  • Advocate for bans on single use plastics such as shopping bags and water bottles.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste; demand standards for the traceability and labeling of materials in products to facilitate the recycling process.
  • Empower citizen leadership to help manage MSW collection and recycling programs; advocate for clear legal and regulatory structures to avoid political disagreements and interference.
  • Help safeguard against government corruption to avoid the illicit waste trade; create monitoring programs to hold waste management companies and/or leadership accountable.
  • Deploy diverse means of engaging the public in recycling, such as volunteer groups, social activities, and musical trucks.
  • Work with businesses and industry to develop consistent markets for recycled goods and to stabilize the price of recycled materials.
  • Partner with schools, manufacturers, retailers, nonprofits, and other community organizations to promote recycling.
  • Establish programs that teach how to separate waste effectively, the waste hierarchy, and why these processes are important; incorporate these concepts into public school curricula.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate collaboration on recycling.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Improve the efficiency of waste separation machinery and develop low-cost, low-maintenance means of waste management – particularly for contexts such as low- and middle-income countries.
  • Improve collecting, sorting, and pre-treating processes to enhance recovery of materials while minimizing degradation and contamination.
  • Improve energy efficiency of equipment such as glass furnaces by enhancing heat recovery; design or improve smart technology control systems.
  • Explore the use of artificial intelligence in separating waste streams.
  • Explore, discover, or improve new uses for recycled or recovered materials.
  • Create ways of tracing materials and verifying recycled materials, such as blockchain technology.
  • Engineer means of reducing the weight of materials in common products such as packaging and glass without sacrificing recyclability or functionality.
  • Improve chemical recycling of plastics – particularly solvent-based purification and de-polymerization – while maintaining low energy consumption and high utilization rates for the remaining waste.
  • Assess the climate impact of industrial-scale chemical recycling of plastics and its feasibility to supplement mechanical recycling.
  • Advance systems for collecting, sorting, and recycling metals, plastics, and glass contained in electronic devices.
  • Improve means of removing ink and adhesives from paper.
  • Improve waste handling techniques and environmental safeguards for the sludge produced during paper recycling; design products using the sludge.
  • Enhance systems for sorting plastics.
  • Research ways to improve recycling or reusing agricultural, construction, and thermoset plastics; find means to recycle polymers such as PVC.
  • Increase the performance of metal-sensing and -sorting equipment such as X-ray detection or spectroscopy; improve means of detecting external impurities, especially in steel scrap.
  • Design recycle-friendly alloys that can be used in a variety of ways and products.
  • Improve technology for sorting colored glass and detecting ceramics.
  • Improve liquefaction technology for plastics to reduce costs, minimize upgrading needs, and produce higher quality products.
  • Research and develop strategies for increasing recycling behavior.
  • Collect up-to-date data on recycled materials - particularly, on glass recycling. 

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Participate in local recycling programs, share your experience with your community, and educate others on how to recycle in your area.
  • Practice conscious consumerism; buy only what’s needed and avoid products that use excessive packaging or have a short lifespan.
  • Form stakeholder groups to monitor and help administer local recycling systems.
  • Reuse products, packaging, and materials as much as possible before recycling or disposing of them.
  • Use your power as a consumer to influence businesses to adopt practices that increase recycling.
  • Participate in or advocate for consultations with government officials, manufacturers, retailers, and the public to determine how best to design local recycling programs.
  • Advocate for ambitious public recycling goals to be integrated into local or national climate plans.
  • Advocate for bans on discarding recyclable materials to landfills and penalties for noncompliance.
  • Establish or advocate for container deposit programs to encourage recycling and reuse.
  • Advocate for bans on single use plastics such as shopping bags and water bottles.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste; demand standards for the traceability and labeling of materials in products to facilitate recycling.
  • Help safeguard against government corruption to avoid the illicit waste trade; create community monitoring programs to hold waste management companies and/or leaders accountable.
  • Create, support, or join education campaigns and/or public-private partnerships that facilitate collaboration on recycling.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness of recycling as a climate solution: High 

Recycling reduces solid waste, mitigates GHG emissions from landfilled solid waste, and offers significant savings in electricity and fuel consumption (Cudjoe et al., 2021; Kaza et al., 2018; Uekert et al., 2023). UNEP (2024) estimated that 2.1 Gt of municipal solid waste was generated globally in 2020, and projected that to increase to 3.8 Gt by 2050 if action is not taken. Although postconsumer waste contributes ~5% to total global GHG emissions (Oo et al., 2024), around 30–37% of global waste ends up in landfills with only 19% recovered through recycling and composting processes (Kaza et al., 2018; UNEP, 2024).

Three extensive reviews of industrial decarbonization identify four technologies either ready for near-term deployment or already achieving material impact across global industries: electrification, material efficiency, energy efficiency, and circularity driven by increased reuse and recycling (Daehn et al., 2022; Gailani et al., 2024; Rissman et al., 2020). The last includes recovery of the four waste subcategories considered in this solution, where metals and plastics rank among the top six most-produced human-made materials globally (BioCubes, n.d.).

Incorporating recycled metal scraps into manufacturing consumes 30–95% less energy than producing metals from raw feedstocks, where the primary metal sector emits approximately 10% of global GHG emissions from energy-intensive mining, smelting, and refining (Yokoi et al., 2022). Reprocessing 1 t of plastic waste can save up to 130 GJ of energy (Singh & Walker, 2024), and secondary production of plastics with a ~40% global collection rate could mitigate 160 Mt CO₂ /yr in 2050 (Daehn et al., 2022). Glass recycling offers 2–3% energy savings and a 5% reduction in CO₂ emissions from furnace fuel combustion for every 10% increase in cullet content in the melting batch (Baek et al., 2025; Glass Packaging Institute, n.d.; Miserocchi et al., 2024). 

We reiterate that GHG savings from recycling are highly sensitive to assumptions such as material quality, contamination rates, transportation distances, and market conditions. These factors introduce uncertainty because recycling benefits can vary depending on the efficiency of recycling systems in practice and market viability.

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 18 reports, 22 reviews and meta-analyses, 41 original studies, nine perspectives, two books, five web articles, and three datasets reflecting the most recent evidence for more than 200 countries. 

Appendix

Market Revenue Variability of Recyclables

Figure A1. The % revenue from recyclables compared to the % mass of each recyclable processed in an MRF. Values pertain to 2021.

Source: Bradshaw, S. L., Aguirre-Villegas, H. A., Boxman, S. E., & Benson, C. H. (2025). Material recovery facilities (MRFs) in the United States: Operations, revenue, and the impact of scale. Waste Management, 193, 317–327.

Enable Download
On

Current Adoption

In addition to applying global recycling rates of 59.3%, 9%, and 21% to the total waste generated for paper and cardboard, plastics, and glass, respectively (World Bank, 2018; Table A1), we also calculated total tonnage recycled using reported recycling percentages and total MSW tonnage for each country. Combined recycled percentages were consistently lower than the total combined percentage of metal, paper and cardboard, plastic, and glass waste in MSW. This indicates ample opportunity for increased recycling, even in regions where it is already well established. 

Table A1. Global recycling rates for each of the waste materials analyzed in this solution.

Waste material Global recycling rate (%) Reference
Metals 76a Charpentier Poncelet et al. (2022)
Paper and cardboard 59.3b European Paper Recycling Council (2020)
Plastics 9c OECD (2022b)
Glass 21d Ferdous et al. (2021)
Westbroek et al. (2021)

aEstimated using end-of-life recycling rates from Charpentier Poncelet et al. (2022), weighted by average annual global production for aluminum, copper, zinc, lead, iron, nickel, and manganese 2015–2019. We normalized weights against total metal production (1,619 Mt) to reflect each metal’s contribution to global scrap availability. This approach reflects the dominance of aluminum and iron in global scrap flows.

bBased on the average global paper recycling rate in 2018.

cBased on the global plastic recycling rate in 2019.

dBased on total glass produced in 2018 (a production-based recycling rate, meaning the share of recycled cullet used in total glass production), rather than on total glass waste generated (a waste-based recycling rate). We used this value due to a lack of consistent global data on postconsumer (end-of-life, old scrap) glass waste generation, although it may underestimate the recycling rate of actual discarded glass.

Left Text Column Width

Achievable Adoption

The World Bank (2018) also provided country-specific recycling rates and waste composition fractions of MSW for the materials we considered. Metals, paper and cardboard, plastics, and glass were reported as percentages of MSW by 169, 174, 173, and 168 countries, respectively. However, only 125 countries reported recycling rates, and these rates reflect combined MSW rather than material-specific recovery, so the dataset could not be used to estimate achievable adoption ranges for individual materials. 

Example Calculation of Achievable Adoption

For low achievable adoption, we assumed global recycling increases by 25% of the existing or most recently available rates or total recycled waste tonnage (i.e., recycling volumes) for all four materials except metals. For example, Delbari and Hof (2024) reported 2018 estimates of global glass recycling volumes at 27 Mt annually, so the Adoption – Low recycling rate was calculated at 34 Mt of glass waste recycled/yr. 

For high achievable adoption, we assume that global recycling rates increase by 50% of the existing or most recently available rates or total recycled waste tonnage (i.e., recycling volumes) for all four materials except metals. As an example, Houssini et al. (2025) reported global plastic production in 2022, from which 38 Mt were generated as secondary plastics from plastic mechanical recycling. Therefore, the high adoption recycling rate came out to 57 Mt of plastic waste recycled/yr.

Waste Sector Emissions

According to estimates by Ferdous et al. (2021), Ge et al. (2024), and Oo et al. (2024), the waste sector is responsible for 3.4–5% of total global GHG emissions, with solid waste management of landfills accounting for roughly two-thirds (Ge et al., 2024). In view of this and the energy-intensive production of raw materials, consistently improving recycling efficiency and rates can meaningfully mitigate the world’s carbon output.

Sources

Bradshaw, S. L., Aguirre-Villegas, H. A., Boxman, S. E., & Benson, C. H. (2025). Material recovery facilities (MRFs) in the United States: Operations, revenue, and the impact of scale. Waste Management, 193, 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2024.12.008

Charpentier Poncelet, A., Helbig, C., Loubet, P., Beylot, A., Muller, S., Villeneuve, J., Laratte, B., Thorenz, A., Tuma, A., & Sonnemann, G. (2022). Losses and lifetimes of metals in the economy. Nature Sustainability, 5(8), 717–726. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00895-8

Delbari, S. A., & Hof, L. A. (2024). Glass waste circular economy—Advancing to high-value glass sheets recovery using industry 4.0 and 5.0 technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 462, Article 142629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142629

European Paper Recycling Council. (2020). European declaration on paper recycling 2016-2020: Monitoring report 2019. Confederation of European Paper Industries. https://www.cepi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/EPRC-Monitoring-Report_2019.pdf 

Ferdous, W., Manalo, A., Siddique, R., Mendis, P., Zhuge, Y., Wong, H. S., Lokuge, W., Aravinthan, T., & Schubel, P. (2021). Recycling of landfill wastes (tyres, plastics and glass) in construction – A review on global waste generation, performance, application and future opportunities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 173, Article 105745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105745

Ge, M., Friedrich, J., & Vigna, L. (2024, December 5). Where do emissions come from? 4 charts explain greenhouse gas emissions by sector. World Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/insights/4-charts-explain-greenhouse-gas-emissions-countries-and-sectors

Houssini, K., Li, J., & Tan, Q. (2025). Complexities of the global plastics supply chain revealed in a trade-linked material flow analysis. Communications Earth & Environment, 6(1), Article 257. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02169-5

Oo, P. Z., Prapaspongsa, T., Strezov, V., Huda, N., Oshita, K., Takaoka, M., Ren, J., Halog, A., & Gheewala, S. H. (2024). The role of global waste management and circular economy towards carbon neutrality. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 52, 498–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.11.021

Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development. (2022b). Global plastics outlook: Economic drivers, environmental impacts and policy options [Report]. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/de747aef-en 

Westbroek, C. D., Bitting, J., Craglia, M., Azevedo, J. M. C., & Cullen, J. M. (2021). Global material flow analysis of glass: From raw materials to end of life. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 25(2), 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13112

World Bank. (2018). What a waste global database: Country-level dataset (Last updated: 2024, June 4) [Data set]. https://datacatalogfiles.worldbank.org/ddh-published/0039597/3/DR0049199/country_level_data.csv

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon
Subscribe to Land resources
back to top