Surface, ground, and rainwater used for ecological and human use.

Icon

Improve Rice Production

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Agriculture Practices
Image
Peatland
Coming Soon
On
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 reduces methane emissions from rice paddies by converting from continuous flooding to noncontinuous flooding, and reduces the nitrous oxide emissions that result by adopting improved nutrient management as well.
Overview

Rice is a staple crop of critical importance, occupying 11% of global cropland (FAOstat, 1997). Rice production has higher 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.

It is important to first define some terms. 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 it is excluded 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 consider both irrigated and rain-fed paddies.

Methane Reduction

Flooded rice paddies encourage methanogenesis, 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. There are several approaches to reducing 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 results in a significant reduction of 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 application 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 are not included in our analysis at this time. These include the application of biochar to rice paddies and the use of certain 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.

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

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 

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, 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. https://doi.10.3389/fsufs.2021.675818  

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nationals. 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, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY USA. Link to source: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_11_Ch11_N2O%26CO2.pdf

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, 109603. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2024.109603

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

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, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY USA. 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. FAO, Rome. 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

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, 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 the 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 1).

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 (see “nitrous oxide emissions”). 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 combined effectiveness of noncontinuous flooding and nutrient management for each country with over 100,000 ha of rice production was –0.48–0.09 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).

left_text_column_width

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

Methane & Nitrous Oxide Reductions by Country
Methane & Nitrous Oxide Reduction (t CO2-eq/ha/yr)
Country methane reduction, t CO2-eq/ha/yr nitrous oxide reduction, t CO2-eq/ha/yr Combined effectiveness, t CO2-eq/ha/yr
Afghanistan1.63 (4.75)0.03 (0.03)1.67 (4.78)
Argentina2.70 (7.85)0.07 (0.07)2.77 (7.93)
Bangladesh1.63 (4.75)0.06 (0.06)1.69 (4.81)
Benin2.30 (6.71)0.03 (0.03)2.34 (6.74)
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)2.70 (7.85)0.00 (0.00)2.70 (7.85)
Brazil2.70 (7.85)0.00 (0.00)2.70 (7.86)
Burkina Faso2.30 (6.71)–0.02 (0.02)2.28 (6.68)
Cambodia2.13 (6.21)0.01 (0.01)2.15 (6.22)
Cameroon2.30 (6.71)0.00 (0.00)2.30 (6.71)
Chad2.30 (6.71)0.01 (0.01)2.32 (6.72)
China2.48 (7.20)0.01 (0.01)2.48 (7.21)
Colombia2.70 (7.85)–0.07 (–0.07)2.63 (7.21)
Côte d'Ivoire2.30 (6.71)0.02 (0.02)2.32 (6.73)
Democratic People's Republic of Korea2.48 (7.20)0.02 (0.02)2.50 (7.23)
Democratic Republic of the Congo2.30 (6.71)0.01 (0.01)2.31 (6.71)
Dominican Republic2.70 (7.85)–0.16 (0.16)2.54 (7.69)
Ecuador2.70 (7.85)–0.08 (–0.08)2.62 (7.77)
Egypt2.30 (6.71)–0.15 (–0.15)2.16 (6.56)
Ghana2.30 (6.71)0.05 (0.05)2.35 (6.76)
Guinea2.30 (6.71)0.01 (0.01)2.32 (6.72)
Guinea-Bissau2.30 (6.71)0.01 (0.01)2.32 (6.72)
Guyana2.70 (7.85)–0.06 (–0.06)2.63 (7.79)
India1.63 (4.75)–0.02 (–0.02)1.61 (4.73)
Indonesia2.13 (6.21)0.11 (011)2.24 (6.31)
Iran (Islamic Republic of)3.29 (9.57)–0.05 (–0.05)3.24 (9.52)
Italy3.29 (9.57)0.00 (0.00)3.29 (9.57)
Japan2.48 (7.20)0.07 (0.07)2.54 (7.27)
Lao People's Democratic Republic2.13 (6.21)0.02 (0.02)2.15 (6.23)
Liberia2.30 (6.71)0.02 (0.02)2.32 (6.72)
Madagascar2.30 (6.71)0.00 (0.00)2.31 (6.71)
Malaysia2.13 (6.21)–0.01 (–0.01)2.13 (6.20)
Mali2.30 (6.71)–0.03 (–0.03)2.28 (6.20)
Mozambique2.30 (6.71)0.01 (0.01)2.32 (6.72)
Myanmar2.13 (6.21)0.04 (0.04)2.17 (6.25)
Nepal1.63 (4.75)0.04 (0.04)1.67 (4.79)
Nigeria2.30 (6.71)0.01 (0.01)2.32 (6.72)
Pakistan1.63 (4.75)–0.04 (–0.04)1.59 (4.71)
Paraguay2.70 (7.85)0.01 (0.01)2.71 (7.86)
Peru2.70 (7.85)0.09 (0.09)2.79 (7.95)
Philippines2.13 (6.21)0.00 (0.00)2.14 (6.21)
Republic of Korea2.48 (7.20)0.00 (0.00)2.47 (7.20)
Russian Federation3.29 (9.57)0.04 (0.04)3.33 (9.61)
Senegal2.30 (6.71)–0.04 (–0.04)2.27 (6.67)
Sierra Leone2.30 (6.71)0.02 (0.02)2.32 (6.73)
Sri Lanka1.63 (4.75)0.02 (0.02)1.65 (4.77)
Thailand2.13 (6.21)–0.03 (–0.03)2.10 (6.18)
Turkey3.29 (9.57)0.10 (0.10)3.39 (9.67)
Uganda2.30 (6.71)0.00 (0.00)2.31 (6.71)
United Republic of Tanzania2.30 (6.71)0.04 (0.04)2.35 (6.75)
United States of America1.55 (4.51)–0.05 (–0.05)1.49 (4.45)
Uruguay2.70 (7.85)0.03 (0.03)2.72 (7.88)
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)2.70 (7.85)–0.48 (–0.48)2.22 (7.38)
Vietnam2.13 (6.21)0.00 (0.00)2.13 (6.20)

Unit: t CO₂‑eq (100-yr, with 20-yr in parentheses)/ha installed/yr

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-ha 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.

left_text_column_width

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

Unit: US$/ha

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/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/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 over-application of fertilizer. Here we used the mean value from Gu et al. (2023), a savings of US$507.80/t nitrogen. We used our national-level data on over-application 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.

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Net cost and profit of noncontinuous flooding with nutrient management by region in 2023 US$/ha/yr.

Unit: US$/ha

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
Viet Nam 0.00

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 –US$15.03/t CO₂‑eq (Table 4). Note that this cost is the same for both 100- and 20-yr results.

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Weighted average cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: US$ (2023) per t CO₂‑eq

Weighted average -15.03
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Learning curve data are not available for improved rice cultivation.

left_text_column_width
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.

left_text_column_width
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.

left_text_column_width
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). 

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Current adoption level (2025).

Unit: Mha

mean 46.65

Noncontinuous flooding, ha installed.

Left Text Column Width

Nutrient Management

Nutrient management adoption is based 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 provides a national average overapplication rate.

left_text_column_width
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.

left_text_column_width

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 applied national adoption ceilings for noncontinuous flooding from Bo et al. (2022) to the total national paddy area to determine maximum hectares 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).

left_text_column_width

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

Unit: Mha

median 77.53

ha of noncontinuous flooding installed.

Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

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 53.15 Mha. 

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

left_text_column_width

Table 8. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mha

Current Adoption 48.65
Achievable – Low 53.51
Achievable – High 77.53
Adoption Ceiling 77.53

Mha of noncontinuous flooding installed. 

Left Text Column Width

We calculated the potential impact of improved rice, on a 100-yr basis, at 0.10 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr from current adoption, and 0.11, 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, 0.31, 0.48, and 0.48, respectively.

left_text_column_width

Table 9. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr

Current Adoption 0.10
Achievable – Low 0.11
Achievable – High 0.16
Adoption Ceiling 0.16

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr

Current Adoption 0.29
Achievable – Low 0.31
Achievable – High 0.48
Adoption Ceiling 0.48
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.

left_text_column_width
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 mitigated 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 mitigate 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 (Liang et al., 2013; Singh & Craswell, 2021). 

left_text_column_width
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). 

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

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

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
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
-15
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.

left_text_column_width
% 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. In China, the world’s #1 producer of rice, noncontinuous flooding is more suitable in northern rice-growing regions than in southern ones. The pattern is reversed in India, where noncontinuous flooding has limited suitability in the Indo-Gangetic (northern) plains and more suitability in the south. 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:

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(2019). 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.

left_text_column_width
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 (Table S1), 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 (Table S1). 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.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Protect Peatlands

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
FALO & Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Cut Emissions Remove Carbon
Cluster
Protect & Manage Ecosystems
Image
Peatland
Coming Soon
On
Summary

The Protect Peatlands solution is defined as legally protecting peatland ecosystems through establishment of protected areas (PAs), which preserves stored carbon and ensures continued carbon sequestration by reducing degradation of the natural hydrology, soils, and/or vegetation. This solution focuses on non-coastal peatlands that have not yet been drained or otherwise severely degraded. Reducing emissions from degraded peatlands is addressed in the Restore Peatlands solution, and mangroves located on peat soils are addressed in the Protect Coastal Wetlands solution.

Extreme weather events
Income & work,Health
Nature protection,Water resources
Description for Social and Search
Protect Peatlands is a HIghly Recommended climate solution. Peatland soils accumulate huge amounts of carbon over centuries. Protecting Peatlands reduces disturbances that turn these powerful carbon sinks into major sources of GHG emissions.
Overview

Peatlands are diverse ecosystems characterized by waterlogged, carbon-rich peat soils consisting of partially decomposed dead plant material (Figure 1). They are degraded or destroyed through clearing of vegetation and drainage for agriculture, forestry, peat extraction, or other development. An estimated 600 Gt carbon (~2,200 Gt CO₂‑eq ) is stored in peatlands, twice as much as the carbon stock in all forest biomass (Yu et al., 2010; Pan et al., 2024). Because decomposition occurs very slowly under waterlogged conditions, large amounts of plant material have accumulated in a partially decomposed state over millennia. These carbon-rich ecosystems occupy only 3–4% of land area (Xu et al., 2018b; United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2022). Their protection is both feasible due to their small area and highly impactful due to their carbon density.

Figure 1. These photos show the diversity of peatlands that occur in different places, including a fen peatland and meadow complex in California (top left), a peat swamp in Indonesia (top right), a peat fen and forest in Canada (bottom left), and a peat bog in New Hampshire (bottom right). 

Examples of peatland types

Photo credits: Catie and Jim Bishop | U.S. Department of Agriculture; Rhett A. Butler; Garth Lenz; Linnea Hanson | U.S. Department of Agriculture

When peatlands are drained or disturbed, the rate of carbon loss increases sharply as the accumulated organic matter begins decomposing (Figure 2). Removal of overlying vegetation produces additional GHG emissions while also slowing or stopping carbon uptake. Whereas emissions from vegetation removal occur rapidly following disturbance, peat decomposition and associated emissions can continue for centuries depending on environmental conditions and peat thickness. Peat decomposition after disturbance occurs faster in warmer climates because cold temperatures slow microbial activity. In this analysis, we evaluated tropical, subtropical, temperate, and boreal regions separately.

Figure 2. Greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration in intact peatlands (left) and a drained peatland (right). Intact peatlands are a net greenhouse gas sink, sequestering carbon in peat through photosynthesis but also emitting methane due to waterlogged soils. Drained peatlands are a greenhouse gas source, producing emissions from peat decomposition and drainage canals.

Diagram comparing healthy and degraded peatland

Source: Link to source: https://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/news/new-briefing-addresses-peatlands-and-methane-debate 

In addition to peat decomposition, biomass removal, and lost carbon sequestration, peatland disturbance impacts methane and nitrous oxide emissions and carbon loss through waterways (Figure 2; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2014; UNEP, 2022). Intact peatlands are a methane source because of methane-producing microbes, which thrive under waterlogged conditions. However, carbon uptake typically outweighs methane emissions. Leifield et al. (2019) found that intact peatlands are a net carbon sink of 0.77 ± 0.15 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr in temperate and boreal regions and 1.65 ± 0.51 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr in tropical regions after accounting for methane emissions. Peatland drainage reduces methane emissions from the peatland itself, but the drainage ditches can become potent methane sources (Evans et al., 2015; Peacock et al., 2021). Dissolved and particulate organic carbon also run off through drainage ditches, increasing CO₂ emissions in waterways from microbial activity and abiotic processes. Finally, rates of nitrous oxide emissions increase following drainage as the nitrogen stored in the peat becomes available to microbes. 

Patterns of ongoing peatland drainage are poorly understood at the global scale, but rates of ecosystem disturbance are generally lower in PAs and on Indigenous peoples’ lands than outside of them (Li et al., 2024b; Wolf et al., 2021; Sze et al., 2021). The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) defines six levels of PAs that vary in their allowed uses, ranging from strict wilderness preserves to sustainable use areas that allow for some extraction of natural resources. All PA levels were included in this analysis (UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Center [UNEP-WCMC] and IUCN, 2024). Due to compounding uncertainties in the distributions of peatlands and Indigenous peoples’ lands, which have not yet been comprehensively mapped, and unknown rates of peatland degradation within Indigenous people’s lands, peatlands within Indigenous peoples’ lands were excluded from the tables but are discussed in the text (Garnett et al., 2018; UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2024). 

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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0275-5

Atkinson, C. L., & Alibašić, H. (2023). Prospects for Governance and Climate Change Resilience in Peatland Management in Indonesia. Sustainability, 15(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031839

Austin, K. G., Elsen, P. R., Coronado, E. N. H., DeGemmis, A., Gallego-Sala, A. V., Harris, L., Kretser, H. E., Melton, J. R., Murdiyarso, D., Sasmito, S. D., Swails, E., Wijaya, A., Winton, R. S., & Zarin, D. (2025). Mismatch between global importance of peatlands and the extent of their protection. Conservation Letters, 18(1), e13080. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.13080

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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0501-y

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. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1119:FCASOM]2.0.CO;2

Conchedda, G., & Tubiello, F. N. (2020). Drainage of organic soils and GHG emissions: Validation with country data. Earth System Science Data, 12(4), 3113–3137. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3113-2020

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. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF14173

Deshmukh, C. S., Julius, D., Desai, A. R., Asyhari, A., Page, S. E., Nardi, N., Susanto, A. P., Nurholis, N., Hendrizal, M., Kurnianto, S., Suardiwerianto, Y., Salam, Y. W., Agus, F., Astiani, D., Sabiham, S., Gauci, V., & Evans, C. D. (2021). Conservation slows down emission increase from a tropical peatland in Indonesia. Nature Geoscience, 14(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00785-2

Dietrich, O., & Behrendt, A. (2022). Wet Grassland Sites with Shallow Groundwater Conditions: Effects on Local Meteorological Characteristics. Water, 14(21), Article 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14213560

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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsci.2024.1349350

Evers, S., Yule, C. M., Padfield, R., O’Reilly, P., & Varkkey, H. (2017). Keep wetlands wet: The myth of sustainable development of tropical peatlands – implications for policies and management. Global Change Biology, 23(2), 534–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13422

Felipe Cadillo, M. M., & Bennett, A. (2024). Navigating socio-political threats to Amazonian peatland conservation: Insights from the Imiria Region, Peru. Sustainability, 16(16), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166967

Fluet-Chouinard, E., Stocker, B. D., Zhang, Z., Malhotra, A., Melton, J. R., Poulter, B., Kaplan, J. O., Goldewijk, K. K., Siebert, S., Minayeva, T., Hugelius, G., Joosten, H., Barthelmes, A., Prigent, C., Aires, F., Hoyt, A. M., Davidson, N., Finlayson, C. M., Lehner, B., … McIntyre, P. B. (2023). Extensive global wetland loss over the past three centuries. Nature, 614(7947), 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05572-6

Fuller, C., Ondei, S., Brook, B. W., & Buettel, J. C. (2020). Protected-area planning in the Brazilian Amazon should prioritize additionality and permanence, not leakage mitigation. Biological Conservation, 248, 108673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108673

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

Girkin, N. T., & Davidson, S. J. (2024). Protect peatlands to achieve climate goals. Science, 383(6682), 490–490. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adn4001

Girkin, N. T., Burgess, P. J., Cole, L., Cooper, H. V., Honorio Coronado, E., Davidson, S. J., Hannam, J., Harris, J., Holman, I., McCloskey, C. S., McKeown, M. M., Milner, A. M., Page, S., Smith, J., & Young, D. (2023). The three-peat challenge: Business as usual, responsible agriculture, and conservation and restoration as management trajectories in global peatlands. Carbon Management, 14(1), 2275578. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2023.2275578

Goib, B. K., Fitriani, N., Wicaksono, S., & Chitra, J. (2018). Restoring peat, improving welfare, and empowering women: Can we have it all? https://wri-indonesia.org/en/insights/restoring-peat-improving-welfare-and-empowering-women-can-we-have-it-all

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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0738-8

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. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114

Harris, L. I., Richardson, K., Bona, K. A., Davidson, S. J., Finkelstein, S. A., Garneau, M., McLaughlin, J., Nwaishi, F., Olefeldt, D., Packalen, M., Roulet, N. T., Southee, F. M., Strack, M., Webster, K. L., Wilkinson, S. L., & Ray, J. C. (2022). The essential carbon service provided by northern peatlands. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 20(4), 222–230. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2437

Harrison, M. E., & Paoli, G. D. (2012). Managing the Risk of Biodiversity Leakage from Prioritising REDD+ in the Most Carbon-Rich Forests: The Case Study of Peat-Swamp Forests in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Tropical Conservation Science, 5(4), 426–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291200500402

Hein, L., Spadaro, J. V., Ostro, B., Hammer, M., Sumarga, E., Salmayenti, R., Boer, R., Tata, H., Atmoko, D., & Castañeda, J.-P. (2022). The health impacts of Indonesian peatland fires. Environmental Health, 21(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00872-w

Helbig, M., Waddington, J. M., Alekseychik, P., Amiro, B., Aurela, M., Barr, A. G., Black, T. A., Carey, S. K., Chen, J., Chi, J., Desai, A. R., Dunn, A., Euskirchen, E. S., Flanagan, L. B., Friborg, T., Garneau, M., Grelle, A., Harder, S., Heliasz, M., … Schulze, C. (2020). The biophysical climate mitigation potential of boreal peatlands during the growing season. Environmental Research Letters, 15(10), 104004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abab34

Hugelius, G., Loisel, J., Chadburn, S., Jackson, R. B., Jones, M., MacDonald, G., Marushchak, M., Olefeldt, D., Packalen, M., Siewert, M. B., Treat, C., Turetsky, M., Voigt, C., & Yu, Z. (2020). Large stocks of peatland carbon and nitrogen are vulnerable to permafrost thaw. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(34), 20438–20446. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916387117

Humpenöder, F., Karstens, K., Lotze-Campen, H., Leifeld, J., Menichetti, L., Barthelmes, A., & Popp, A. (2020). Peatland protection and restoration are key for climate change mitigation. Environmental Research Letters, 15(10), 104093. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abae2a

IPCC 2014, 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands, Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Tanabe, K., Srivastava, N., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M. and Troxler, T.G. (eds). Published: IPCC, Switzerland.

IUCN. Peatlands and Climate Change (IUCN Issues Briefs). (2021). Link to source: https://iucn.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/iucn_issues_brief_peatlands_and_climate_change_final_nov21.pdf

Jalilov, S.-M., Rochmayanto, Y., Hidayat, D. C., Raharjo, J. T., Mendham, D., & Langston, J. D. (2025). Unveiling economic dimensions of peatland restoration in Indonesia: A systematic literature review. Ecosystem Services, 71, 101693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101693

Jones, M. C., Harden, J., O’Donnell, J., Manies, K., Jorgenson, T., Treat, C., & Ewing, S. (2017). Rapid carbon loss and slow recovery following permafrost thaw in boreal peatlands. Global Change Biology, 23(3), 1109–1127. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13403

Kiely, L., Spracklen, D. V., Arnold, S. R., Papargyropoulou, E., Conibear, L., Wiedinmyer, C., Knote, C., & Adrianto, H. A. (2021). Assessing costs of Indonesian fires and the benefits of restoring peatland. Nature Communications, 12(1), 7044. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27353-x

Konecny, K., Ballhorn, U., Navratil, P., Jubanski, J., Page, S. E., Tansey, K., Hooijer, A., Vernimmen, R., & Siegert, F. (2016). Variable carbon losses from recurrent fires in drained tropical peatlands. Global Change Biology, 22(4), 1469–1480. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13186

Leifeld, J., & Menichetti, L. (2018). The underappreciated potential of peatlands in global climate change mitigation strategies. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1071. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03406-6

Leifeld, J., Wüst-Galley, C., & Page, S. (2019). Intact and managed peatland soils as a source and sink of GHGs from 1850 to 2100. Nature Climate Change, 9(12), 945–947. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0615-5

Li, B. V., Wu, S., Pimm, S. L., & Cui, J. (2024a). The synergy between protected area effectiveness and economic growth. Current Biology, 34(13), 2907-2920.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.05.044

Li, G., Fang, C., Watson, J. E. M., Sun, S., Qi, W., Wang, Z., & Liu, J. (2024b). Mixed effectiveness of global protected areas in resisting habitat loss. Nature Communications, 15(1), 8389. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-52693-9

Loisel, J., Gallego-Sala, A. V., Amesbury, M. J., Magnan, G., Anshari, G., Beilman, D. W., Benavides, J. C., Blewett, J., Camill, P., Charman, D. J., Chawchai, S., Hedgpeth, A., Kleinen, T., Korhola, A., Large, D., Mansilla, C. A., Müller, J., van Bellen, S., West, J. B., … Wu, J. (2021). Expert assessment of future vulnerability of the global peatland carbon sink. Nature Climate Change, 11(1), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00944-0

Marlier, M. E., Liu, T., Yu, K., Buonocore, J. J., Koplitz, S. N., DeFries, R. S., Mickley, L. J., Jacob, D. J., Schwartz, J., Wardhana, B. S., & Myers, S. S. (2019). Fires, smoke exposure, and public health: An integrative framework to maximize health benefits from peatland restoration. GeoHealth, 3(7), 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GH000191

Melton, J. R., Chan, E., Millard, K., Fortier, M., Winton, R. S., Martín-López, J. M., Cadillo-Quiroz, H., Kidd, D., & Verchot, L. V. (2022). A map of global peatland extent created using machine learning (Peat-ML). Geoscientific Model Development, 15(12), 4709–4738. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4709-2022

Miettinen, J., Shi, C., & Liew, S. C. (2011). Deforestation rates in insular Southeast Asia between 2000 and 2010. Global Change Biology, 17(7), 2261–2270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02398.x

Miettinen, J., Shi, C., & Liew, S. C. (2016). Land cover distribution in the peatlands of Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra and Borneo in 2015 with changes since 1990. Global Ecology and Conservation, 6, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2016.02.004

Minasny, B., Adetsu, D. V., Aitkenhead, M., Artz, R. R. E., Baggaley, N., Barthelmes, A., Beucher, A., Caron, J., Conchedda, G., Connolly, J., Deragon, R., Evans, C., Fadnes, K., Fiantis, D., Gagkas, Z., Gilet, L., Gimona, A., Glatzel, S., Greve, M. H., … Zak, D. (2024). Mapping and monitoring peatland conditions from global to field scale. Biogeochemistry, 167(4), 383–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-023-01084-1

Minayeva, T. Yu., Bragg, O. M., & Sirin, A. A. (2017). Towards ecosystem-based restoration of peatland biodiversity. Mires and Peat, 19, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2013.OMB.150

Müller, J., & Joos, F. (2021). Committed and projected future changes in global peatlands – continued transient model simulations since the Last Glacial Maximum. Biogeosciences, 18(12), 3657–3687. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3657-2021

Nelson, K., Thompson, D., Hopkinson, C., Petrone, R., & Chasmer, L. (2021). Peatland-fire interactions: A review of wildland fire feedbacks and interactions in Canadian boreal peatlands. Science of The Total Environment, 769, 145212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145212

Noon, M. L., Goldstein, A., Ledezma, J. C., Roehrdanz, P. R., Cook-Patton, S. C., Spawn-Lee, S. A., Wright, T. M., Gonzalez-Roglich, M., Hole, D. G., Rockström, J., & Turner, W. R. (2022). Mapping the irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems. Nature Sustainability, 5(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00803-6

Pan, Y., Birdsey, R. A., Phillips, O. L., Houghton, R. A., Fang, J., Kauppi, P. E., Keith, H., Kurz, W. A., Ito, A., Lewis, S. L., Nabuurs, G.-J., Shvidenko, A., Hashimoto, S., Lerink, B., Schepaschenko, D., Castanho, A., & Murdiyarso, D. (2024). The enduring world forest carbon sink. Nature, 631(8021), 563–569. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07602-x

Peacock, M., Audet, J., Bastviken, D., Futter, M. N., Gauci, V., Grinham, A., Harrison, J. A., Kent, M. S., Kosten, S., Lovelock, C. E., Veraart, A. J., & Evans, C. D. (2021). Global importance of methane emissions from drainage ditches and canals. Environmental Research Letters, 16(4), 044010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abeb36

Posa, M. R. C., Wijedasa, L. S., & Corlett, R. T. (2011). Biodiversity and conservation of tropical peat swamp forests. BioScience, 61(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.1.10

Ritson, J. P., Bell, M., Brazier, R. E., Grand-Clement, E., Graham, N. J. D., Freeman, C., Smith, D., Templeton, M. R., & Clark, J. M. (2016). Managing peatland vegetation for drinking water treatment. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 36751. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep36751

Sasmito, S. D., Taillardat, P., Adinugroho, W. C., Krisnawati, H., Novita, N., Fatoyinbo, L., Friess, D. A., Page, S. E., Lovelock, C. E., Murdiyarso, D., Taylor, D., & Lupascu, M. (2025). Half of land use carbon emissions in Southeast Asia can be mitigated through peat swamp forest and mangrove conservation and restoration. Nature Communications, 16(1), 740. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-55892-0

Schulz, C., Martín Brañas, M., Núñez Pérez, C., Del Aguila Villacorta, M., Laurie, N., Lawson, I. T., & Roucoux, K. H. (2019). Uses, cultural significance, and management of peatlands in the Peruvian Amazon: Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, 235, 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.04.005

Spitzer, K., & Danks, H. V. (2006). Insect biodiversity of boreal peat bogs. Annual Review of Entomology, 51, 137–161. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151036

Strack, M., Davidson, S. J., Hirano, T., & Dunn, C. (2022). The potential of peatlands as nature-based climate solutions. Current Climate Change Reports, 8(3), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-022-00183-9

Suwarno, A., Hein, L., & Sumarga, E. (2016). Who benefits from ecosystem services? A case study for central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Environmental Management, 57(2), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0623-9

Syahza, A., Suswondo, Bakce, D., Nasrul, B., Irianti, W., & Irianti, M. (2020). Peatland policy and management strategy to support sustainable development in Indonesia. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1655, 012151. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1655/1/012151

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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00815-2

Tan, Z. D., Lupascu, M., & Wijedasa, L. S. (2021). Paludiculture as a sustainable land use alternative for tropical peatlands: A review. Science of The Total Environment, 753, 142111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142111

Thorburn, C. C., & Kull, C. A. (2015). Peatlands and plantations in Sumatra, Indonesia: Complex realities for resource governance, rural development and climate change mitigation. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 56(1), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12045

Thornton, S. A., Setiana, E., Yoyo, K., Dudin, Yulintine, Harrison, M. E., Page, S. E., & Upton, C. (2020). Towards biocultural approaches to peatland conservation: The case for fish and livelihoods in Indonesia. Environmental Science & Policy, 114, 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.08.018

Turetsky, M. R., Benscoter, B., Page, S., Rein, G., van der Werf, G. R., & Watts, A. (2015). Global vulnerability of peatlands to fire and carbon loss. Nature Geoscience, 8(1), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2325

Uda, S. K., Hein, L., & Sumarga, E. (2017). Towards sustainable management of Indonesian tropical peatlands. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 25(6), 683–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-017-9544-0

Uda, S. K., Hein, L., & Atmoko, D. (2019). Assessing the health impacts of peatland fires: A case study for Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(30), 31315–31327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06264-x

UNEP (2022). Global Peatlands Assessment – The State of the World’s Peatlands: Evidence for action toward the conservation, restoration, and sustainable management of peatlands. Main Report. Global Peatlands Initiative. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. (2024). Protected Planet Report. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. https://digitalreport.protectedplanet.net

Waldron, A., Adams, V., Allan, J., Arnell, A., Asner, G., Atkinson, S., Baccini, A., Baillie, J., Balmford, A., & Austin Beau, J. (2020). Protecting 30% of the planet for nature: Costs, benefits and economic implications. https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/16560/1/Waldron_Report_FINAL_sml.pdf

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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01389-0

Worrall, F., Howden, N. J. K., Burt, T. P., Rico-Ramirez, M. A., & Kohler, T. (2022). Local climate impacts from ongoing restoration of a peatland. Hydrological Processes, 36(3), e14496. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14496

Xu, J., Morris, P. J., Liu, J., & Holden, J. (2018a). Hotspots of peatland-derived potable water use identified by global analysis. Nature Sustainability, 1(5), 246–253. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0064-6

Xu, J., Morris, P. J., Liu, J., & Holden, J. (2018b). PEATMAP: Refining estimates of global peatland distribution based on a meta-analysis. CATENA, 160, 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2017.09.010

Yu, Z., Loisel, J., Brosseau, D. P., Beilman, D. W., & Hunt, S. J. (2010). Global peatland dynamics since the Last Glacial Maximum. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(13). https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043584

Credits

Lead Fellow

Avery Driscoll

Contributors

Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

James Gerber, Ph.D.

Daniel Jasper

Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

Aiyana Bodi

Hannah Henkin

Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

Ted Otte

Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Paul West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

We estimated that protecting a ha of peatland avoids 0.92–13.47 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr, with substantially higher emissions reductions in subtropical and tropical regions and lower emissions reductions in boreal regions (100-yr GWP; Table 1a–d; Appendix). 

We estimated effectiveness as the avoided emissions attributable to the reduction in peatland loss conferred by protection (Equation 1). First, we calculated the biome-specific difference between the annual rate of peatland loss outside PAs (Peatland lossbaseline) versus inside PAs (Peatland lossprotected) (Appendix; Conchedda & Tubellio, 2020; Davidson et al., 2014; Miettinen et al., 2011; Miettinen et al., 2016; Uda et al., 2017, Wolf et al., 2021). We then multiplied the avoided peatland loss by the total emissions from one ha of drained peatland over 30 years. This is the sum of the total biomass carbon stock (Carbonbiomass), which degrades relatively quickly; 30 years of annual emissions from peat itself (Carbonflux); and 30 years of lost carbon sequestration potential, reflecting the carbon that would have been taken up by one ha of intact peatland in the absence of degradation (Carbonuptake) (IPCC 2014; UNEP, 2022). The carbon flux includes CO₂‑eq emissions from: 1) peat oxidation, 2) dissolved organic carbon loss through drainage, 3) the net change in on-field methane between undrained and drained states, 4) methane emissions from drainage ditches, and 5) on-field nitrous oxide emissions.

Equation 1. 

Effectiveness= (Peatland lossbaseline- Peatland lossprotected)* (Carbonbiomass + 30*Carbonflux + 30*Carbonuptake) 

Without rewetting, peat loss typically persists beyond 30 years and can continue for centuries (Leifield & Menichetti, 2018). Thus, this is a conservative estimate of peatland protection effectiveness that captures near-term impacts, aligns with the 30-yr cost amortization time frame, and is roughly consistent with commonly used 2050 targets. Using a longer time frame produces larger estimates of emissions from degraded peatlands and therefore higher effectiveness of peatland protection.

The effectiveness of peatland protection as defined here reflects only a small percentage of the carbon stored in peatlands because we account for the likelihood that the peatland would be destroyed without protection. Peatland protection is particularly impactful for peatlands at high risk of drainage.

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness of peatland protection at avoiding emissions and sequestering carbon. Regional differences in values are driven by variation in emissions factors and baseline rates of peatland drainage.

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

t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/ha/yr 0.92

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

t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/ha/yr 4.42

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

t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/ha/yr 13.47

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

t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/ha/yr 13.23
Left Text Column Width
Cost

We estimated that the net cost of peatland protection is approximately US$1.5/ha/yr, or $0.25/t CO₂‑eq avoided (Table 2). Data related to the costs of peatland protection are very limited. These estimates reflect global averages rather than regionally specific values, and rarely include data specific to peatlands. The costs of peatland 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, forestry, peat extraction, or urban development. Protecting peatlands can also generate revenue through increased tourism. Costs and revenues are highly variable across regions, depending on the costs of land and enforcement and potential for tourism. 

Dienerstein et al. (2024) estimated the initial cost of establishing a protected area for 60 high-biodiversity ecoregions. Amongst the 33 regions that were likely to contain peatlands, the median acquisition cost was US$957/ha, which we amortized over 30 years. Costs of protected area maintenance were estimated at US$9–17/ha/yr (Bruner et al., 2004; Waldron et al., 2020), though these estimates were not specific to peatlands. Additionally, these estimates reflect the costs of effective enforcement and management, but many existing protected areas lack adequate funds for effective enforcement (Adams et al., 2019; Barnes et al., 2018; Burner et al., 2004). Waldron et al. (2020) estimated that, across all ecosystems, tourism revenues directly attributable to protected area 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 peatland protection.

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact for peatland protection.

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

median 0.25
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

A learning curve is defined here as falling costs with increased adoption. The costs of peatland protection do not fall with increasing adoption, so there is no learning curve for this solution.

left_text_column_width
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.

Protect Peatlands 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.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Permanence, or the durability of stored carbon, is a caveat for emissions avoidance through peatland protection that is not addressed in this analysis. Protected peatlands could be drained if legal protections are reversed or inadequately enforced, resulting in the loss of stored carbon. Additionally, fires on peatlands have become more frequent due to climate change (Turetsky et al., 2015; Loisel et al., 2021), and can produce very large emissions pulses (Konecny et al., 2016; Nelson et al., 2021). In boreal regions, permafrost thaw can trigger large, sustained carbon losses from previously frozen peat (Hugelius et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2017). In tropical regions, climate change-induced changes in precipitation can lower water tables in intact peatlands, increasing risks of peat loss and reducing sequestration potential (Deshmukh et al., 2021). 

Additionality, or the degree to which emissions reductions are above and beyond a baseline, is another important caveat for emissions avoidance through ecosystem protection (Atkinson & Alibašić, 2023; Fuller et al., 2020; Williams et al., 2023). In this analysis, additionality was addressed by using baseline rates of peatland degradation in calculating effectiveness. Evaluating additionality is challenging and remains an active area of research.

Finally, there are substantial uncertainties in the available data on peatland areas and distributions, peatland loss rates, the drivers of peatland loss, the extent and boundaries of PAs, and the efficacy of PAs at reducing peatland disturbance. Emissions dynamics on both intact and cleared peatlands are also uncertain, particularly under different land management practices and in the context of climate change.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Because peatlands are characterized by their soils rather than by overlying vegetation, they are difficult to map at the global scale (Minasny et al., 2024). Mapping peatlands remains an active area of research, and the adoption values presented here are uncertain. We estimated that 22.6 Mha of peatlands are located within strictly protected PAs (IUCN classes I or II), and 82.2 Mha are within other or unknown PA classes (Table 3a–e; UNEP, 2022; UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2024), representing 22% of total global peatland area (482 Mha). Because of data limitations, we did not include Indigenous peoples’ lands in subsequent analyses despite their conservation benefits. There are an additional 186 Mha of peatlands within Indigenous peoples’ lands that are not also classified PAs, with a large majority (155 Mha) located in boreal regions (Table 3; Garnett et al., 2018; UNEP, 2022).

Given the uncertainty in the global extent of peatlands, estimates of peatland protection vary. The Global Peatlands Assessment estimated that 19% (90.7 Mha) of peatlands are protected (UNEP, 2022), with large regional variations ranging from 35% of peatlands protected in Africa to only 10% in Asia. Using a peatland map from Melton et al. (2012), Austin et al. (2025) estimated that 17% of global peatlands are within PAs, and an additional 27% are located in Indigenous peoples’ lands (excluding Indigenous peoples’ lands in Canada covering large peatland areas).

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current peatland area under protection by biome (circa 2023). Estimates are provided for two different forms of protection: “strict” protection, including IUCN classes I and II, and “nonstrict” protection, including all other IUCN classes. Regional values may not sum to global totals due to rounding.

Unit: Mha protected

Area within strict PAs 12.4
Area within non-strict PAs 41.7

Unit: Mha protected

Area within strict PAs 3.0
Area within non-strict PAs 10.1

Unit: Mha protected

Area within strict PAs 1.1
Area within non-strict PAs 1.6

Unit: Mha protected

Area within strict PAs 6.1
Area within non-strict PAs 28.9

Unit: Mha protected

Area within strict PAs 22.6
Area within non-strict PAs 82.3
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

We calculated the annual rate of new peatland protection based on the year of PA establishment for areas established in 2000–2020. The median annual increase in peatland protection was 0.86 Mha (mean 2.0 Mha; Table 4a–d). This represents a roughly 0.8%/yr increase in peatlands within PAs, or protection of an additional 0.2%/yr of total global peatlands. This suggests that peatland protection is likely occurring at a somewhat slower rate than peatland degradation – which is estimated to be around 0.5% annually at the global scale – though this estimate is highly uncertain and spatially variable (Davidson et al., 2014).

There were large year-to-year differences in how much new peatland area was protected over this period, ranging from only 0.2 Mha in 2016 to 7.9 Mha in 2007. The rate at which peatland protection is increasing has been decreasing, with a median increase of 1.7 Mha/yr between 2000 and 2010 declining to 0.7 Mha/yr during 2010–2020. Recent median adoption of peatland protection by area is highest in boreal (0.5 Mha/yr, Table 4a) and tropical regions (0.2 Mha/yr, Table 4d), followed by temperate regions (0.1 Mha/yr, Table 4b) and subtropical regions (0.01 Mha/yr, Table 4c) (2010–2020). Scaled by total peatland area, however, recent rates of peatland protection are lowest in the subtropics (0.04%/yr), followed by the boreal (0.14%/yr) the tropics (0.16%/yr), and temperate regions (0.19%/yr).

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Adoption trend for peatland protection in PAs of any IUCN class (2000–2020). The 25th and 75th percentiles reflect only interannual variance.

Unit: Mha of peatland protected/yr

25th percentile 0.24
mean 0.87
median (50th percentile) 0.50
75th percentile 0.89

Unit: Mha of peatland protected/yr

25th percentile 0.07
mean 0.23
median (50th percentile) 0.10
75th percentile 0.28

Unit: Mha of peatland protected/yr

25th percentile 0.00
mean 0.04
median (50th percentile) 0.01
75th percentile 0.04

Unit: Mha of peatland protected/yr

25th percentile 0.48
mean 0.84
median (50th percentile) 0.25
75th percentile 0.83
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

We considered the adoption ceiling to include all undrained, non-coastal peatlands and estimated this to be 425 Mha, based on the Global Peatlands Database and Global Peatlands Map (UNEP, 2022; Table 5e; Appendix). We estimated that 284 Mha of undrained peatlands remain in boreal regions (Table 5a, 26 Mha in temperate regions (Table 5b, 12 Mha in the subtropics (Table 5c), and 103 Mha in the tropics (Table 5d). The adoption ceiling represents the technical upper limit to adoption of this solution.

There is substantial uncertainty in the global extent of peatlands, which is not quantified in these adoption ceiling values. Estimates of global peatland extent from recent literature include 404 Mha (Melton et al., 2022), 423 Mha (Xu et al., 2018b), 437 Mha (Müller & Joos, 2021), 463 Mha (Leifield & Menichetti, 2018), and 488 Mha (UNEP, 2022). Several studies suggest that the global peatland area may still be underestimated (Minasny et al., 2024; UNEP, 2022). 

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling: upper limit for adoption of legal protection of peatlands by biome. Values may not sum to global totals due to rounding.

Unit: Mha protected

Peatland area (Mha) 284

Unit: Mha protected

Peatland area (Mha) 26

Unit: Mha protected

Peatland area (Mha) 12

Unit: Mha protected

Peatland area (Mha) 103

Unit: Mha protected

Peatland area (Mha) 425
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

UNEP (2022) places a high priority on protecting a large majority of remaining peatlands for both climate and conservation objectives. We defined the achievable range for peatland protection as 70% (low achievable) to 90% (high achievable) of remaining undrained peatlands. Only ~19% of peatlands are currently under formal protection within PAs (UNEP, 2022; UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2024). However, approximately 60% of undrained peatlands are under some form of protection if peatlands within Indigenous peoples’ lands are considered (Garnett et al., 2018; UNEP, 2022; UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2024). While ambitious, this provides support for our selected achievable range of 70–90% (Table 6a-e). 

Ensuring effective and durable protection of these peatlands from drainage and degradation, including secure land tenure for Indigenous peoples who steward peatlands and other critical ecosystems, is a critical first step. Research suggests that local community leadership, equitable stakeholder engagement, and cross-scalar governance are needed to achieve conservation goals while also balancing social and economic outcomes through sustainable use (Atkinson & Alibašić, 2023; Cadillo & Bennett, 2024; Girkin et al., 2023; Harrison et al., 2019; Suwarno et al., 2015). Sustainable uses of peatlands include some forms of paludiculture, which can involve peatland plant cultivation, fishing, or gathering without disturbance of the hydrology or peat layer (Tan et al., 2021).

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption of peatland protection by biome.

Unit: Mha protected

Current Adoption 54
Achievable – Low 199
Achievable – High 255
Adoption Ceiling 284

Unit: Mha protected

Current Adoption 13
Achievable – Low 18
Achievable – High 24
Adoption Ceiling 26

Unit: Mha protected

Current Adoption 3
Achievable – Low 9
Achievable – High 11
Adoption Ceiling 12

Unit: Mha protected

Current Adoption 35
Achievable – Low 72
Achievable – High 92
Adoption Ceiling 103

Unit: Mha protected

Current Adoption 105
Achievable – Low 297
Achievable – High 382
Adoption Ceiling 425
Left Text Column Width

CO₂‑eq/yr (Table 7a-e). Achievable levels of peatland protection have the potential to reduce emissions 1.3–1.7 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, with a technical upper bound of 1.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. The estimate of climate impacts under current adoption does not include the large areas of peatlands protected by Indigenous peoples but not legally recognized as PAs. Inclusion of these areas would increase the current estimated impact of peatland protection to 0.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.

Other published estimates of additional emissions reductions through peatland protection are somewhat lower, with confidence intervals of 0–1.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Griscom et al., 2017; Humpenöder et al., 2020; Loisel et al., 2021; Strack et al., 2022). These studies vary in their underlying methodology and data, including the extent of peatland, the baseline rate of peatland loss, the potential for protected area expansion, which GHGs are considered, the time frame over which emissions are calculated, and whether they account for vegetation carbon loss or just emissions from the peat itself. 

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis/yr

Current Adoption 0.05
Achievable – Low 0.18
Achievable – High 0.24
Adoption Ceiling 0.26

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis/yr

Current Adoption 0.06
Achievable – Low 0.08
Achievable – High 0.11
Adoption Ceiling 0.12

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis/yr

Current Adoption 0.04
Achievable – Low 0.12
Achievable – High 0.15
Adoption Ceiling 0.17

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis/yr

Current Adoption 0.46
Achievable – Low 0.95
Achievable – High 1.22
Adoption Ceiling 1.36

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis/yr

Current Adoption 0.61
Achievable – Low 1.33
Achievable – High 1.71
Adoption Ceiling 1.90
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Climate Adaptation

Peatland protection can help communities adapt to extreme weather. Because peatlands regulate water flows, they can reduce the risk of droughts and floods (IUCN, 2021; Ritson et al., 2016). Evidence suggests that peatlands can provide a cooling effect to the immediate environment, lowering daytime temperatures and reducing temperature extremes between day and night (Dietrich & Behrendt, 2022; Helbig et al., 2020; Worrall et al., 2022).

Health

When peatlands are drained they are susceptible to fire. Peatland fires can significantly contribute to air pollution because of the way these fires smolder (Uda et al., 2019). Smoke and pollutants, particularly PM2.5, from peatland fires can harm respiratory health and lead to premature mortality (Marlier et al., 2019). A study of peatland fires in Indonesia estimated they contribute to the premature mortality of about 33,100 adults and about 2,900 infants annually (Hein et al., 2022). Researchers have linked exposure to PM2.5 from peatland fires to increased hospitalizations, asthma, and lost workdays (Hein et al., 2022). Peatland protection mitigates exposure to air pollution and can save money from reduced health-care expenditures (Kiely et al., 2021).

Income and Work

Peatlands support the livelihoods of nearby communities, especially those in low- and middle-income countries. In the peatlands of the Amazon and Congo basins, fishing livelihoods depend on aquatic wildlife (Thornton et al., 2020). Peatlands in the Peruvian Amazon provide important goods for trade, such as palm fruit and timber, and are used for hunting by nearby populations (Schulz et al., 2019). Peatlands can also support the livelihoods of women and contribute to gender equality. For example, raw materials – purun – from Indonesian peatlands are used by women to create and sell mats used in significant events such as births, weddings, and burials (Goib et al., 2018).

Nature Protection

Peatlands are home to a wide range of species, supporting biodiversity of flora and an abundance of wildlife (UNEP, 2022; Minayeva et al., 2017; Posa et al., 2011). Because of their unique ecosystem, peatlands provide a habitat for many rare and threatened species (Posa et al., 2011). A study of Indonesian peat swamps found that the IUCN Red List classified approximately 45% of mammals and 33% of birds living in these ecosystems as threatened, vulnerable, or endangered (Posa et al., 2011). Peatlands also support a variety of insect species (Spitzer & Danks, 2006). Because of their sensitivity to environmental changes, some peatland insects can act as indicators of peatland health and play a role in conservation efforts (Spitzer & Danks, 2006).

Water Resources

Peatlands can filter water pollutants and improve water quality and are important sources of potable water for some populations (Minayeva et al., 2017). Xu et al. (2018a) estimated that peatlands store about 10% of freshwater globally, not including glacial water. Peatlands are a significant drinking water source for people in the United Kingdom and Ireland, where they provide potable water for about 71.4 million people (Xu et al., 2018a).

left_text_column_width
Risks

Leakage occurs when peatland drainage and clearing moves outside of protected area boundaries and is a risk of relying on peatland protection as an emissions reduction strategy (Harrison & Paoli, 2012; Strack et al., 2022). If the relocated clearing also occurs on peat soils, emissions from peatland drainage and degradation are relocated but not actually reduced. If disturbance is relocated to mineral soils, however, the disturbance-related emissions will typically be lower. Combining peatland protection with policies to reduce incentives for peatland clearing can help avoid leakage.

Peatland protection must be driven by or conducted in close collaboration with local communities, which often depend on peatlands for their livelihoods and economic advancement (Jalilov et al., 2025; Li et al., 2024a; Suwarno et al., 2016). Failure to include local communities in conservation efforts violates community sovereignty and can exacerbate existing socioeconomic inequities (Felipe Cadillo & Bennet, 2024; Thorburn & Kull, 2015). Effective peatland protection requires development of alternative income opportunities for communities currently dependent on peatland drainage, such as tourism; sustainable peatland use practices like paludiculture; or compensation for ecosystem service provisioning, including carbon storage (Evers et al., 2017; Girkin et al., 2023; Suwarno et al., 2016; Syahza et al., 2020; Tan et al., 2021; Uda et al., 2017).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Protected areas often include multiple ecosystems. Peatland 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 peatlands. 

left_text_column_width

Restored peatlands need protection to reduce the risk of future disturbance, and the health of protected peatlands can be improved through restoration of adjacent degraded peatlands.

left_text_column_width

Reducing food loss and waste and improving diets reduce demand for agricultural land. These solutions reduce pressure to convert peatlands to agriculture use, easing expansion of protected areas.

left_text_column_width

Competing

None

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

1 ha

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
0.92
units
Current 5.4×10⁷ 01.99×10⁸2.55×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.05 0.180.24
US$ per t CO₂-eq
0
Emergency Brake

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Solution Basics

1 ha

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
4.42
units
Current 1.3×10⁷ 01.8×10⁷2.4×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.06 0.080.11
US$ per t CO₂-eq
0
Emergency Brake

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Solution Basics

1 ha

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
13.47
units
Current 3×10⁶ 09×10⁶1.1×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.04 0.120.15
US$ per t CO₂-eq
0
Emergency Brake

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Solution Basics

1 ha

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
13.23
units
Current 3.5×10⁷ 07.2×10⁷9.2×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.46 0.951.22
US$ per t CO₂-eq
0
Emergency Brake

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Trade-offs

None

left_text_column_width
Action Word
Protect
Solution Title
Peatlands
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Set clear designations of remaining peatlands and implement robust monitoring and enforcement methods.
  • Place bans or regulations on draining intact peatlands, compensate farmers for income losses, and offer extension services that promote protection and paludiculture (growing food on peatlands).
  • Grant Indigenous communities full property rights and autonomy and support them in monitoring, managing, and enforcing protected areas.
  • Incorporate peatland protection into national climate plans and international commitments.
  • Coordinate peatland protection 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.
  • Use financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and payments for ecosystem services (PES) to protect peatlands from development.
  • Synthesize water management regulations to ensure local authorities, renters, and landowners coordinate sufficient water levels in peatlands.
  • Remove harmful agricultural, logging, and mining subsidies.
  • Map and utilize real-time data to monitor the status and condition of peatland areas.
  • Invest public funds in peatland conservation, restoration, sustainable management practices, specialized research facilities, and other R&D efforts.
  • Invest in fire warning, prevention, and response efforts and establish local volunteer fire prevention groups.
  • Work with farmers, civil society, and businesses to develop high-integrity carbon markets for peatlands.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Refrain from draining or developing intact peatlands.
  • Invest in peatland conservation, restoration, sustainable management practices, specialized research facilities, and other R&D efforts.
  • Participate in stakeholder engagements and assist policymakers in designating peatlands, creating regulations, and implementing robust monitoring and enforcement methods.
  • Grant Indigenous communities full property rights and autonomy and support them in monitoring, managing, and enforcing protected areas.
  • Ensure protected peatlands don’t displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Assist in managing and monitoring protected peatlands, utilizing real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Create sustainable use regulations for protected peatland areas that provide resources to the local community.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with protected peatlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Create legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over protected peatlands.
  • Help shift public narratives to mobilize public action and build political will for protecting peatlands by creating educational campaigns and strengthening networks of stakeholders and rightsholders.
  • Take advantage of existing financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and payments for ecosystem services (PES) to protect peatlands from development.
  • Offer or create market mechanisms such as biodiversity offsets, payments for ecosystem services, voluntary high-integrity carbon markets, and debt-for-nature swaps to fund peatland protection.
  • Synthesize water management regulations to ensure local authorities, renters, and landowners coordinate sufficient water levels in peatlands.
  • Establish coordinating bodies for farmers, landowners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to manage protected areas holistically.
  • Invest in fire warning, prevention, and response efforts and establish local volunteer fire prevention groups.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Create peat-free supply chains, utilizing data, information, and the latest technology to inform product sourcing.
  • Integrate peat-free business and investment policies and practices in net zero strategies.
  • Only purchase carbon credits from high-integrity, verifiable carbon markets and do not use them as replacements for decarbonizing operations.
  • Develop financial instruments to invest in peatlands focusing on supporting Indigenous communities.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with protected peatlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for legal protection and public relations.
  • Leverage political influence to advocate for stronger peatland protection policies at national and international levels. 

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Ensure operations utilize peat-free products and supply chains.
  • Advocate for protecting peatlands and for public investments.
  • Assist in managing and monitoring protected peatlands, utilizing real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Provide financial support for protecting peatlands management, monitoring, and enforcement.
  • Assist in conducting proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with protected peatlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over protected peatlands.
  • Support high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Share data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid deforestation to support protected peatlands, businesses, and investors.
  • Help shift public narratives to mobilize public action and build political will for protecting peatlands by creating educational campaigns and strengthening networks of stakeholders and rightsholders.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for legal protection and public relations.

Further information:

Investors
  • Create peat-free investment portfolios, utilizing data, information, and the latest technology to inform investments.
  • Invest in peatland protection, monitoring, management, and enforcement mechanisms.
  • Utilize financial mechanisms such biodiversity offsets, payments for ecosystem services, voluntary high-integrity carbon markets, and debt-for-nature swaps to fund peatland 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 peatland destruction to support peatlands, other investors, and NGOs.
  • Help shift public narratives to mobilize public action and build political will for protecting peatlands by creating educational campaigns and strengthening networks of stakeholders and rightsholders.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Ensure operations utilize peat-free products and supply chains.
  • Advocate for protecting peatlands and for public investments.
  • Provide technical assistance to low- and middle-income countries and communities to protect peatlands.
  • Provide financial assistance to low- and middle-income countries and communities for peatland protection.
  • Assist in managing and monitoring protected peatlands, utilizing real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Assist in conducting proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with protected peatlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Support and finance high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over protected peatlands.
  • Support peatlands, other investors, and NGOs by sharing data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid financing peatland destruction.
  • Help shift public narratives to mobilize public action and build political will for protecting peatlands by creating educational campaigns and strengthening networks of stakeholders and rightsholders.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for legal protection and public relations.
  • Financially support Indigenous land tenure.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for protecting peatlands and for public investments.
  • Assist in managing and monitoring protected peatlands, utilizing real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Assist in conducting proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with protected peatlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Provide technical assistance to low- and middle-income countries and communities to protect peatlands.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over protected peatlands.
  • Support high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Share data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid deforestation to support protected peatlands, businesses, and investors.
  • Help shift public narratives to mobilize public action and build political will for protecting peatlands by creating educational campaigns and strengthening networks of stakeholders and rightsholders.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for legal protection and public relations.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Improve mapping of peatland area, carbon content, emissions data, and monitoring methods, utilizing field measurements, models, satellite imagery, and GIS tools.
  • Develop land-use planning tools that help avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with protecting peatlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Create tools for local communities to monitor peatlands, 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 peat-free portfolios and products.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Ensure purchases and investments utilize peat-free products and supply chains.
  • Advocate for protecting peatlands and for public investments.
  • Invest in fire warning, prevention, and response efforts and establish local volunteer fire prevention groups.
  • Establish coordinating bodies for farmers, landowners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to manage protected areas holistically.
  • Assist in managing and monitoring protected peatlands, utilizing real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Assist in conducting proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with protected peatlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over protected peatlands.
  • Help shift public narratives to mobilize public action and build political will for protecting peatlands by creating educational campaigns and strengthening networks of stakeholders and rightsholders.
  • Support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for legal protections and public relations.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Avoided emissions from protecting peatlands: High

There is high scientific consensus that protecting peatland carbon stocks is a critical component of mitigating climate change (Girkin & Davidson, 2024; Harris et al., 2022; Leifield et al., 2019; Noon et al., 2022; Strack et al., 2022). Globally, an estimated 11–12% of peatlands have been drained for uses such as agriculture, forestry, and harvesting of peat for horticulture and fuel, with much more extensive degradation in temperate and tropical regions (~45%) than in boreal regions (~4%) (Fluet-Chouinard et al., 2023; Leifield & Menichetti, 2018; UNEP, 2022). Rates of peatland degradation are highly uncertain, and the effectiveness of PAs at reducing drainage remains unquantified. In lieu of peatland-specific data on the effectiveness of PAs at reducing drainage, we used estimates from Wolf et al. (2021), who found that PAs reduce forest loss by approximately 40.5% at the global average. 

Carbon stored in peatlands has been characterized as “irrecoverable carbon” because it takes centuries to millennia to accumulate and could not be rapidly recovered if lost (Goldstein et al., 2020; Noon et al., 2021). Degraded peatlands currently emit an estimated 1.3–1.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr  (excluding fires), equal to ~2–4% of total global emissions (Leifield and Menichetti., 2018; UNEP, 2022). Leifield et al. (2019) projected that without protection or restoration measures, emissions from drained peatlands could produce enough emissions to consume 10–41% of the remaining emissions budget for keeping warming below 1.5–2.0 °C. Peatland drainage had produced a cumulative 80 Gt CO₂‑eq by 2015, equal to nearly two years worth of total global emissions. In a modeling study, Humpenöder et al. (2020) projected that an additional 10.3 Mha of peatlands would be degraded by 2100 in the absence of new protection efforts, increasing annual emissions from degraded peatlands by ~25% (an additional 0.42 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr  in their study). 

The results presented in this document synthesize findings from 11 global datasets, supplemented by four regional studies on peatland loss rates in Southeast Asia. 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.

left_text_column_width
Appendix

This analysis quantifies the emissions associated with peatland degradation and their potential reduction via establishment of Protected Areas (PAs). We leveraged multiple data products, including national-scale peatland area estimates, a peatland distribution map, shapefiles of PAs and Indigenous people’s lands, available data on rates of peatland degradation by driver, country-scale data on reductions in ecosystem degradation inside of PAs, maps of biomass carbon stocks, and biome-level emissions factors from disturbed peat soils. This appendix describes the source data products and how they were integrated. 

Peatland Extent

The global extent and distribution of peatlands is highly uncertain, and all existing peatland maps have limitations. Importantly, there is no globally accepted definition of a peatland, and different countries and data products use variable thresholds for peat depth and carbon content to define peatlands. The Global Peatland Assessment was a recent comprehensive effort to compile and harmonize existing global peatland area estimates (UNEP, 2022). We rely heavily on two products resulting from this effort: a national-scale dataset of peatland area titled the Global Peatland Database (GPD) and a map of likely peatland areas titled the Global Peatlands Map (GPM; 1 km resolution). 

Scaling Procedures

The GPM represents a known overestimate of the global peatland area, so we scaled area estimates derived from spatially explicit analyses dependent on the GPM to match total areas from the GPD. To develop a map of country-level scaling factors, we first calculated the peatland area within each country from the GPM. We calculated the country-level scaling factors as the country-level GPD values divided by the associated GPM values and converted them to a global raster. Some countries had peatland areas represented in either the GPD or GPM, but not both. Four countries had peatland areas in the GPM that were not present in the GPD, which contained 0.51 Mha of peatlands per the GPM. These areas were left unscaled. There were 38 countries with peatland areas in the GPD that did not have areas in the GPM, containing a total 0.70 Mha of peatlands. These areas, which represented 0.14% of the total peatland area in the GPD, were excluded from the scaled maps. We then multiplied the pixel-level GPM values by the scalar raster. Because of the missing countries, this scaling step very slightly overestimated (by 0.4%) total peatlands relative to the GPD. To account for this, we multiplied this intermediate map by a final global scalar (calculated as the global GPM total divided by the GPD total). This process produced a map with the same peatland distribution as the GPM but a total area that summed to that reported in the GPD.

Exclusion of Coastal Peatlands

Many coastal wetlands have peat soils, though the extent of this overlap has not been well quantified. Coastal wetlands are handled in the Protect Coastal Wetlands solution, so we excluded them from this solution to avoid double-counting. Because of the large uncertainties in both the peatland maps and available maps of coastal wetlands, we were not confident that the overlap between the two sets of maps provided a reliable estimate of the proportion of coastal wetlands located on peat soils. Therefore, we took the conservative approach of excluding all peatland pixels that were touching or overlapping with the coastline. This reduced the total peatland area considered in this solution by 5.33 Mha (1.1%). We additionally excluded degraded peatlands from the adoption ceiling and achievable range using country-level data from the GPD. Degraded peatlands will continue to be emissions sources until they are restored, so protection alone will not confer an emissions benefit.

Total Peatland Area

We conducted the analyses by latitude bands (tropical: –23.4° to 23.4°; subtropical: –35° to –23.4° and 23.4° to 35°; temperate: –35° to –50° and 35° to 50°; boreal: <–50° and >50°) in order to retain some spatial variability in emissions factors and degradation rates and drivers. We calculated the total peatland area within each latitude band based on both the scaled and unscaled peatland maps with coastal pixels excluded. We used these values as the adoption ceiling and for subsequent calculations of protected areas. 

Protected Peatland Areas

We identified protected peatland areas using the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA, 2024), which contains boundaries for each PA and additional information, including their establishment year and IUCN management category (Ia to VI, not applicable, not reported, and not assigned). For each PA polygon, we extracted the peatland area from the unscaled version of the GPM with coastal pixels removed. 

Each PA was classified into climate zones (described above) based on the midpoint between its minimum and maximum latitude. Then, protected peatland areas were summed to the IUCN class-climate zone level, and the proportion of peatlands protected within each was calculated by dividing the protected area by the unscaled total area in each climate zone. The proportion of area protected was then multiplied by the scaled total area for each zone to calculate adoption in hectares within each IUCN class and climate zone. To evaluate trends in adoption over time, we aggregated protected areas by establishment year as reported in the WDPA. We used the same procedure to calculate the proportion of area protected using the unscaled maps, and then scale for the total area by biome. 

We used the maps of Indigenous people’s lands from Garnett et al. 2018 to identify Indigenous people’s lands that were not inside of established PAs. The total peatland area within Indigenous people’s lands process as above.

Peatland Degradation and Emissions

Broadly, we estimated annual, per-ha emissions savings from peatland protection as the difference between net carbon exchange in a protected peatland versus an unprotected peatland, accounting for all emissions pathways, the drivers of disturbance, the baseline rates of peatland disturbance, and the effectiveness of PAs at reducing ecosystem degradation. In brief, our calculation of the effectiveness of peatland protection followed Equation S1, in which the annual peatland loss avoided due to protection (%/yr) is multiplied by the 30-yr cumulative sum of emissions per ha of degraded peatland (CO₂‑eq /ha over a 30-yr period). These two terms are described in depth in the subsequent sections.

Equation S1. Effectiveness= Peatland lossavoided t=130(Emissions)  

Peatland Degradation Rates 

We calculated the avoided rate of peatland loss (%/yr) as the difference between the baseline rate of peatland loss without protection and the estimated rate of peatland loss within PAs (Equation S2), since PAs do not confer complete protection from ecosystem degradation. 

Equation S2. Peatland lossavoided =Peatland lossbaseline ✕ Reduction in loss  

We compiled baseline estimates of the current rates of peatland degradation from all causes (%/yr) from the existing literature (Table S1). Unfortunately, data on the rate of peatland loss within PAs are not available. However, satellite data have enabled in-depth, global-scale studies of the effectiveness of PAs at reducing tree cover loss. While not all peatlands are forested and degradation dynamics on peatlands can differ from those on forests writ large, these estimates are a reasonable approximation of the effectiveness of PAs at reducing peatland loss. We used the country-level estimates of the proportionate reduction in loss inside versus outside of PAs from Wolf et al. (2021), which we aggregated to latitude bands based on the median latitude of each country (Table S1).

left_text_column_width

Table S1. Biome-level annual baseline rate of peatland loss, the effectiveness of protection at reducing loss, and the annual avoided rate of peatland loss under protection.

Climate Zone Mean Annual Peatland Loss (%/yr) Proportionate Reduction in Loss Under Protection Avoided Loss Under Protection (%/yr)
Boreal 0.3% 0.44 0.13%
Subtropic 1.2% 0.60 0.73%
Temperate 0.6% 0.56 0.33%
Tropic 1.5% 0.41 0.63%
Left Text Column Width

Emissions Factors for Peatland Degradation

Equation S3 provides an overview of the calculation of emissions from degraded peatlands. In brief, we calculated cumulative emissions as the biomass carbon stock plus the 30-yr total of CO₂‑equivalent fluxes from peat oxidation (Pox), dissolved organic carbon losses (DOC), methane from drainage ditches (Mditch), on-field methane (Mfield), on-field nitrous oxide (N) and the lost net sequestration from an intact peatland, accounting for carbon sequestration in peat and methane emissions from intact peatlands (Seqloss).

Equation S3. t=130(Emissions)=Biomass+t=130(Pox+DOC+Mditch+Mfield+N+Seqloss)  

The IPCC Tier 1 emissions factors for peatland degradation are disaggregated by climate zone (tropical, temperate, and boreal), soil fertility status (nutrient-poor versus nutrient rich), and the driver of degradation (many subclasses of forestry, cropland, grassland, and peat extraction) (IPCC 2014; Tables 2.1–2.5). Table III.5 of Annex III of the Global Peatlands Assessment provides a summarized set of emissions factors based directly on the IPCC values but aggregated to the four coarser classes of degradation drivers listed above (UNEP, 2022), which we use for our analysis. They include the following pathways: CO₂ from peat oxidation, off-site emissions from lateral transport of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), methane emissions from the field and drainage ditches, and nitrous oxide emissions from the field. Particulate organic carbon (POC) losses may be substantial, but were not included in the IPCC methodology due to uncertainties about the fate of transported POC. These emissions factors are reported as annual rates per disturbed hectare, and emissions from these pathways continue over long periods of time.

Three additional pathways that are not included in the IPCC protocol are relevant to the emissions accounting for this analysis: the loss of carbon sequestration potential from leaving the peatland intact, the methane emissions that occur from intact peatlands, and the emissions from removal of the vegetation overlying peat soils. Leifield et al. (2019) reported the annual net carbon uptake per hectare of intact peatlands, including sequestration of carbon in peat minus naturally occurring methane emissions due to the anoxic conditions. If the peatland is not disturbed, these methane emissions and carbon sequestration will persist indefinitely on an annual basis. 

We accounted for emissions from removal of biomass using a separate protocol than emissions occurring from the peat soil due to differences in the temporal dynamics of loss. While all other emissions from peat occur on an annual basis and continue for many decades or longer, emissions from biomass occur relatively quickly. Biomass clearing produces a rapid pulse of emissions from labile carbon pools followed by a declining, but persistent, rate of emissions as more recalcitrant carbon pools decay over subsequent years. The entire biomass carbon stock is likely to be lost within 30 years. Average biomass carbon stocks over the extent of the peatland distribution in the GPM were calculated by latitude band based on the above and below ground biomass carbon stock data from Spawn et al. (2020). We presumed 100% of the biomass carbon stock is lost from peatland degradation, though in many cases some amount of biomass remains following degradation, depending on the terminal land use.

Peatland Degradation Drivers 

Emissions from peatland loss depend on the driver of degradation (e.g., forestry, cropland, peat extraction; IPCC 2014). The GPD contains national-scale estimates of historical peatland loss by driver, which we used to calculate weights for each driver, reflecting the proportion of peatland loss attributable to each driver by latitude band. We took the weighted average of the driver-specific peatland emissions factors, calculated as the sum of the products of the weights and the driver-specific emissions factors.

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

IPCC 2014, 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands, Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., Tanabe, K., Srivastava, N., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M. and Troxler, T.G. (eds). Published: IPCC, Switzerland.

Leifeld, J., Wüst-Galley, C., & Page, S. (2019). Intact and managed peatland soils as a source and sink of GHGs from 1850 to 2100. Nature Climate Change, 9(12), 945–947. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0615-5

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), 112. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0444-4

UNEP (2022). Global Peatlands Assessment – The State of the World’s Peatlands: Evidence for action toward the conservation, restoration, and sustainable management of peatlands. Main Report. Global Peatlands Initiative. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2024), Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and World Database on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (WD-OECM) [Online], Accessed November 2024, Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. Available at: www.protectedplanet.net.

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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01389-0

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Reduce Food Loss & Waste

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean
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 embodied greenhouse gas emissions in food that is lost or wasted across the supply chain, from production through consumers.
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).

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.

left_text_column_width

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).

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Net cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: US$/t CO₂‑eq , 2023

Median (100-yr basis) -194.0
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Learning curve data were not yet available for this solution.

left_text_column_width
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.

left_text_column_width
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).

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Due to a lack of data we were not able to quantify current adoption for this solution.

left_text_column_width
Adoption Trend

Data on adoption trends were not available.

left_text_column_width
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.

left_text_column_width

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).

left_text_column_width

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. 

left_text_column_width

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).

left_text_column_width
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).

left_text_column_width
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).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Competing

Food waste is used as raw material for methane digesters and composting. Reducing FLW may reduce the impact of those solutions as a result of decreased feedstock availability.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

t reduced FLW

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
02.752.82
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).

left_text_column_width
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:

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.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Increase Centralized Composting

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Industry, Materials & Waste
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Use Waste as a Resource
Image
Centralized composting facility
Coming Soon
On
Summary

A composting system diverts organic waste (OW) from landfills, reducing the production of methane and other GHG emissions.OW is defined as the combination of food waste and green waste, composed of yard and garden trimmings. Composting transforms it into a nutrient-rich soil supplement.

Our focus is on centralized (city- or regional-level) composting systems for the OW components of municipal solid waste (MSW). Decentralized (home- and community-level) and on-farm composting are also valuable climate actions, but are not included here due to limited data availability at the global level (see Increase Decentralized Composting).

Income & work,Health,Equality
Land resources,Water resources,Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Increase Centralized Composting reduces methane and other GHG emissions by diverting organic waste from landfills to composting facilities that repurpose waste into nutrient-rich soil supplements.
Overview

There are many stages involved in a composting system to convert organic MSW into finished compost that can be used to improve soil health (Figure 1). Within this system, composting is the biochemical process that transforms OW into a soil amendment rich in nutrients and organic matter. The composting process is based on aerobic decomposition, driven by complex interactions among microorganisms, biodegradable materials, and invertebrates and mediated by water and oxygen (see the Appendix). Without the proper balance of oxygen and water, anaerobic decomposition occurs, leading to higher methane emissions during the composting process (Amuah et al., 2022; Manea et al., 2024). Multiple composting methods can be used depending on the amounts and composition of OW feedstocks, land availability, labor availability, finances, policy landscapes, and geography. Some common methods include windrow composting, in-vessel composting, and aerated static piles (Amuah et al., 2022; Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2023).

Centralized composting generally refers to processing large quantities (> 90 t/week) of organic MSW (Platt, 2017). Local governments often manage centralized composting as part of an integrated waste management system that can also include recycling non-OW, processing OW anaerobically in methane digesters, landfilling, and incineration (Kaza et al., 2018). 

Organic components of MSW include food waste and garden and yard trimmings (Figure 2). In most countries and territories, these make up 40–70% of MSW, with food waste as the largest contribution (Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2023; Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2019; Kaza et al., 2018; Manea et al., 2024; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 2020; U.S. EPA, 2023). 

Diverting OW, particularly food waste, from landfill disposal to composting reduces GHG emissions (Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2023; FAO, 2019). Diversion of organics from incineration could also have emissions and pollution reduction benefits, but we did not include incineration as a baseline disposal method for comparison since it is predominantly used in high-capacity and higher resourced countries and contributes less than 1% to annual waste-sector emissions (Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change [IPCC], 2023; Kaza et al., 2018). 

Disposal of waste in landfills leads to methane emissions estimated at nearly 1.9 Gt CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis) annually (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2024). Landfill emissions come from anaerobic decomposition of inorganic waste and OW and are primarily methane with smaller contributions from ammonia, nitrous oxide, and CO₂ (Cao et al., 2023; Kawai et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). Although CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide are released during composting, methane emissions are up to two orders of magnitude lower than emissions from landfilling (Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al, 2023; FAO, 2019; IEA, 2024; Nordahl et al., 2023; Perez et al., 2023). GHG emissions can be minimized by fine-tuning the nutrient balance during composting. 

Depending on the specifics of the composting method used, the full transformation from initial feedstocks to finished compost can take weeks or months (Amuah et al., 2022; Manea et al., 2024; Perez et al., 2023). Finished compost can be sold and used in a variety of ways, including application to agricultural lands and green spaces as well as for soil remediation (Gilbert et al., 2020; Platt et al., 2022; Ricci-Jürgensen et al., 2020a; Sánchez et al., 2025). 

Alves Comesaña, D., Villar Comesaña, I., & Mato de la Iglesia, S. (2024). Community composting strategies for biowaste treatment: Methodology, bulking agent and compost quality. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(7), 9873–9885. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25564-x 

Amuah, E. E. Y., Fei-Baffoe, B., Sackey, L. N. A., Douti, N. B., & Kazapoe, R. W. (2022). A review of the principles of composting: Understanding the processes, methods, merits, and demerits. Organic Agriculture, 12(4), 547–562. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-022-00408-z

Ayilara, M., Olanrewaju, O., Babalola, O., & Odeyemi, O. (2020). Waste management through composting: Challenges and potentials. Sustainability, 12(11), Article 4456. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114456

Bekchanov, M., & Mirzabaev, A. (2018). Circular economy of composting in Sri Lanka: Opportunities and challenges for reducing waste related pollution and improving soil health. Journal of Cleaner Production, 202, 1107–1119. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.186

Bell, B., & Platt, B. (2014). Building healthy soils with compost to protect watersheds. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Link to source: https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Compost-Builds-Healthy-Soils-ILSR-5-08-13-2.pdf 

Brender, J. D., Maantay, J. A., & Chakraborty, J. (2011). Residential proximity to environmental hazards and adverse health outcomes. American Journal of Public Health, 101(S1), S37–S52. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2011.300183 

Cai, B., Lou, Z., Wang, J., Geng, Y., Sarkis, J., Liu, J., & Gao, Q. (2018). CH4 mitigation potentials from China landfills and related environmental co-benefits. Science Advances, 4(7), Article eaar8400. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar8400

Cao, X., Williams, P. N., Zhan, Y., Coughlin, S. A., McGrath, J. W., Chin, J. P., & Xu, Y. (2023). Municipal solid waste compost: Global trends and biogeochemical cycling. Soil & Environmental Health, 1(4), Article 100038. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seh.2023.100038

Casey, J. A., Cushing, L., Depsky, N., & Morello-Frosch, R. (2021). Climate justice and California’s methane superemitters: Environmental equity Assessment of community proximity and exposure intensity. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(21), 14746–14757. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04328

Coker, C. (2020, March 3). Composting business management: Revenue forecasts for composters. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/composting-business-management-revenue-forecasts-composters/

Coker, C. (2020, March 10). Composting business management: Capital cost of composting facility construction. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/composting-business-management-capital-cost-composting-facility-construction/

Coker, C. (2020, March 17). Composting business management: Composting facility operating cost estimates. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/composting-business-management-composting-facility-operating-cost-estimates/ 

Coker, C. (2022, August 23). Compost facility planning: Composting facility approvals and permits. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/composting-facility-approval-permits/

Coker, C. (2022, September 27). Compost facility planning: Composting facility cost estimates. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/compost-facility-planning-cost/

Coker, C. (2024, August 20). Compost market development. Biocycle. Link to source: https://www.biocycle.net/compost-market-development/

European Energy Agency. (2024). Greenhouse gas emissions by source sector. (Last Updated: April 18, 2024). Eurostat. [Data set and codebook]. Link to source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_air_gge__custom_16006716/default/table 

Farhidi, F., Madani, K., & Crichton, R. (2022). How the US economy and environment can both benefit from composting management. Environmental Health Insights, 16. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302221128454

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2024). The state of food and agriculture 2024 – Value-driven transformation of agrifood systems. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4060/cd2616en

Finlay, K. (2024). Turning down the heat: how the U.S. EPA can fight climate change by cutting landfill emissions. Industrious Labs. Link to source: https://cdn.sanity.io/files/xdjws328/production/657706be7f29a20fe54692a03dbedce8809721e8.pdf

González, D., Barrena, R., Moral-Vico, J., Irigoyen, I., & Sánchez, A. (2024). Addressing the gaseous and odour emissions gap in decentralised biowaste community composting. Waste Management, 178, 231–238. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2024.02.042 

International Energy Agency. (2024), Global Methane Tracker 2024. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-methane-tracker-2024

International Energy Agency. (2025). Outlook for biogas and biomethane. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/outlook-for-biogas-and-biomethane 

Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. (2023). Climate change 2022 – Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Working Group II contribution to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844

Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. (2019). 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). Link to source: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/index.html 

Jamroz, E., Bekier, J., Medynska-Juraszek, A., Kaluza-Haladyn, A., Cwielag-Piasecka, I., & Bednik, M. (2020). The contribution of water extractable forms of plant nutrients to evaluate MSW compost maturity: A case study. Scientific Reports, 10(1), Article 12842. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69860-9

Kawai, K., Liu, C., & Gamaralalage, P. J. D. (2020). CCET guideline series on intermediate municipal solid waste treatment technologies: Composting. United Nations Environment Programme. Link to source: https://www.unep.org/ietc/resources/publication/ccet-guideline-series-intermediate-municipal-solid-waste-treatment

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. World Bank. Link to source: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/30317 

Krause, M., Kenny, S., Stephenson, J., & Singleton, A. (2023). Quantifying methane emissions from landfilled food waste (Report No. EPA-600-R-23-064). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-10/food-waste-landfill-methane-10-8-23-final_508-compliant.pdf 

Maalouf, A., & Agamuthu, P. (2023). Waste management evolution in the last five decades in developing countries – A review. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, 41(9), 1420–1434. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X231160099

Manea, E. E., Bumbac, C., Dinu, L. R., Bumbac, M., & Nicolescu, C. M. (2024). Composting as a sustainable solution for organic solid waste management: Current practices and potential improvements. Sustainability, 16(15), Article 6329. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156329

Martínez-Blanco, J., Lazcano, C., Christensen, T. H., Muñoz, P., Rieradevall, J., Møller, J., Antón, A., & Boldrin, A. (2013). Compost benefits for agriculture evaluated by life cycle assessment. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 33(4), 721–732. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0148-7

Martuzzi, M., Mitis, F., & Forastiere, F. (2010). Inequalities, inequities, environmental justice in waste management and health. The European Journal of Public Health, 20(1), 21–26. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckp216

Nguyen, L., Quintana, A., Rowland, A., & Vegh-Gaynor, G. (2019). Mitigating methane from the waste sector: A global health strategy. Global Climate and Health Alliance (GCHA). Link to source: https://climateandhealthalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/MethaneReport-Waste-FINAL.pdf

Nordahl, S. L., Devkota, J. P., Amirebrahimi, J., Smith, S. J., Breunig, H. M., Preble, C. V., Satchwell, A. J., Jin, L., Brown, N. J., Kirchstetter, T. W., & Scown, C. D. (2020). Life-Cycle greenhouse gas emissions and human health trade-offs of organic waste management strategies. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(15), 9200–9209. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00364 

Nordahl, S. L., Preble, C. V., Kirchstetter, T. W., & Scown, C. D. (2023). Greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions from composting. Environmental Science & Technology, 57(6), 2235–2247. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c05846 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2021). Waste - Municipal waste: generation and treatment. (Downloaded: March 20, 2025) [Data set]. Link to source: https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?lc=en&df[ds]=dsDisseminateFinalDMZ&df[id]=DSD_MUNW%40DF_MUNW&df[ag]=OECD.ENV.EPI&dq=.A.INCINERATION_WITHOUT%2BLANDFILL.T&pd=2014%2C&to[TIME_PERIOD]=false&vw=ov 

Pérez, T., Vergara, S. E., & Silver, W. L. (2023). Assessing the climate change mitigation potential from food waste composting. Scientific Reports, 13(1), Article 7608. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34174-z

Platt, B., Bell, B., & Harsh, C. (2013). Pay dirt: Composting in Maryland to reduce waste, create jobs, & protect the bay. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Link to source: https://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Pay-Dirt-Report.pdf

Platt, B. (2017, April 4). Hierarchy to Reduce Food Waste & Grow Community, Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Link to source: https://ilsr.org/articles/food-waste-hierarchy/ 

Platt, B., Libertelli, C., & Matthews, M. (2022). A growing movement: 2022 community composter census. Institute for Local Self-Reliance. Link to source: https://ilsr.org/articles/composting-2022-census/ 

Ricci-Jürgensen, M., Gilbert, J., & Ramola, A.. (2020a). Global assessment of municipal organic waste production and recycling. International Solid Waste Association. Link to source: https://www.altereko.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Report-1-Global-Assessment-of-Municipal-Organic-Waste.pdf 

Ricci-Jürgensen, M., Gilbert, J., & Ramola, A.. (2020b). Benefits of compost and anaerobic digestate when applied to soil. International Solid Waste Association. Link to source: https://www.altereko.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Report-2-Benefits-of-Compost-and-Anaerobic-Digestate.pdf 

Rynk, R., Black, G., Biala, J., Bonhotal, J., Cooperband, L., Gilbert, J., & Schwarz, M. (Eds.). (2021). The composting handbook. Compost Research & Education Foundation and Elsevier. Link to source: https://www.compostingcouncil.org/store/viewproduct.aspx?id=19341051

Sánchez, A., Gea, T., Font, X., Artola, A., Barrena, R., & Moral-Vico, J. (Eds.). (2025). Composting: Fundamentals and Recent Advances: Chapter 1. Royal Society of Chemistry. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1039/9781837673650 

Siddiqua, A., Hahladakis, J. N., & Al-Attiya, W. A. K. A. (2022). An overview of the environmental pollution and health effects associated with waste landfilling and open dumping. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(39), 58514–58536. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21578-z 

The Environmental Research & Education Foundation. (2024). Analysis of MSW landfill tipping fees — 2023. Retrieved from www.erefdn.org 

U.S. Composting Council. (2008). Greenhouse gases and the role of composting: A primer for compost producers [Fact sheet]. Link to source: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.compostingcouncil.org/resource/resmgr/documents/GHG-and-Role-of-Composting-a.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2020). 2018 wasted food report (EPA Publication No. EPA 530-R-20-004). Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-02/2018_wasted_food_report-v2.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). 2019 Wasted food report (EPA Publication No. 530-R-23-005). National Institutes of Health. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/2019-wasted-food-report_508_opt_ec_4.23correction.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM): Organic Materials Chapters (EPA Publication No. EPA-530-R-23-019). Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/warm_organic_materials_v16_dec.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025, January). Approaches to composting. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/approaches-composting

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025, April). Benefits of using compost. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/benefits-using-compost

United Nations Environment Programme. (2023). Towards Zero Waste: A Catalyst for delivering the Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations Environment Programme. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/44102

United Nations Environment Programme. (2024). Global Waste Management Outlook 2024 Beyond an age of waste: Turning rubbish into a resource. United Nations Environment Programme. Link to source: https://www.unep.org/resources/global-waste-management-outlook-2024 

Urra, J., Alkorta, I., & Garbisu, C. (2019). Potential benefits and risks for soil health derived from the use of organic amendments in agriculture. Agronomy, 9(9), 542. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090542

Wilson, D. C., Paul, J., Ramola, A., & Filho, C. S. (2024). Unlocking the significant worldwide potential of better waste and resource management for climate mitigation: With particular focus on the Global South. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, 42(10), 860–872. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X241262717

World Bank. (2018). What a waste global database: Country-level dataset. (Last Updated: June 4, 2024) [Data set]. World Bank. Link to source: https://datacatalogfiles.worldbank.org/ddh-published/0039597/3/DR0049199/country_level_data.csv 

Yasmin, N., Jamuda, M., Panda, A. K., Samal, K., & Nayak, J. K. (2022). Emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) during composting and vermicomposting: Measurement, mitigation, and perspectives. Energy Nexus, 7, Article 100092. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nexus.2022.100092

Zaman, A. U. (2016). A comprehensive study of the environmental and economic benefits of resource recovery from global waste management systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 41–50. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.086

Zero Waste Europe & Bio-based Industries Consortium. (2024). Bio-waste generation in the EU: Current capture levels and future potential (Second edition). LIFE Programme of the European Union. Link to source: https://zerowasteeurope.eu/library/bio-waste-generation-in-the-eu-current-capture-levels-and-future-potential-second-edition/ 

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 Fellow

  • Megan Matthews, Ph. D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Sarah Gleeson, Ph. D.

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

We estimated that composting reduces emissions by 3.9 t CO₂‑eq /t OW (9.3 t CO₂‑eq /t OW, 20-yr basis) based on avoided landfill emissions minus the emissions during composting of MSW OW (Table 1). In our analysis, composting emissions were an order of magnitude lower than landfill emissions.

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions. 

Unit: t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/t OW

25th percentile 2.5
mean 3.2
median (50th percentile) 3.9
75th percentile 4.3
Left Text Column Width

Emissions data from composting and landfilling OW are geographically limited, but our analysis includes three global reports and studies from the U.S., China, Denmark, and the EU (European Energy Agency [EEA], 2024; Industrious Labs, 2024; Perez et al., 2023; U.S. EPA, 2020; Yang et al., 2017, Yasmin et al., 2022). We assumed OW was 39% of MSW in accordance with global averages (Kaza et al., 2018; World Bank, 2018).

We estimated that landfills emit 4.3 t CO₂‑eq /t OW (9.9 t CO₂‑eq /t OW, 20-yr basis). We estimated composting emissions were 10x lower at 0.4 t CO₂‑eq /t OW (0.6 t CO₂‑eq /t OW, 20-yr basis). We quantified emissions from a variety of composting methods and feedstock mixes (Cao et al., 2023; Perez et al., 2023; Yasmin et al., 2022). Consistent with Amuah et al. (2022), we assumed a 60% moisture content by weight to convert reported wet waste quantities to dry waste weights.

left_text_column_width
Cost

Financial data were geographically limited. We based cost estimates on global reports with selected studies from the U.K., U.S., India, and Saudi Arabia for landfilling and the U.S. and Sri Lanka for composting. Transportation and collection costs can be significant in waste management, but we did not include them in this analysis. We calculated amortized net cost for landfilling and composting by subtracting revenues from operating costs and amortized initial costs over a 30-yr facility lifetime.

Landfill initial costs are one-time investments, while operating expenses, which include maintenance, wages, and labor, vary annually. Environmental costs, including post-closure operations, are not included in our analysis, but some countries impose taxes on landfilling to incentivize alternative disposal methods and offset remediation costs. Landfills generate revenue through tip fees and sales of landfill gas (Environmental Research & Education Foundation [EREF], 2023; Kaza et al., 2018). We estimated that landfilling is profitable, with a net cost of –US$30/t OW. 

Initial and operational costs for centralized composting vary depending on method and scale (IPCC, 2023; Manea et al., 2024), but up-front costs are generally cheaper than landfilling. Since composting is labor-intensive and requires monitoring, operating costs can be higher, particularly in regions that do not impose landfilling fees (Manea et al., 2024). 

Composting facilities generate revenue through tip fees and sales of compost products. Compost sales alone may not be sufficient to recoup costs, but medium- to large-scale composting facilities are economically viable options for municipalities (Kawai et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). We estimated the net composting cost to be US$20/t OW. The positive value indicates that composting is not globally profitable; however, decentralized systems that locally process smaller waste quantities can be profitable using low-cost but highly efficient equipment and methods (see Increase Decentralized Composting). 

We estimated that composting costs US$50/t OW more than landfilling. Although composting systems cost more to implement, the societal and environmental costs are greatly reduced compared to landfilling (Yasmin et al., 2022). The high implementation cost is a barrier to adoption in lower-resourced and developing countries (Wilson et al., 2024). 

Combining effectiveness with the net costs presented here, we estimated a cost per unit climate impact of US$10/t CO₂‑eq (US$5/t CO₂‑eq , 20-yr basis) (Table 2). 

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

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

median 10
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Global cost data on composting are limited, and costs can vary depending on composting methods, so we did not quantify a learning rate for centralized composting.

left_text_column_width
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 Centralized Composting 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.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

The composting process has a low risk of reversal since carbon is stored stably in finished compost instead of decaying and releasing methane in a landfill (Ayilara et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). However, a composting system, from collection to finished product, can be challenging to sustain. Along with nitrogen-rich food and green waste, carbon-rich bulking materials are critical for maintaining optimal composting conditions that minimize GHG emissions. Guaranteeing the availability of sufficient bulking materials can challenge the success of both centralized and decentralized facilities.

Financially and environmentally sustainable composting depends not only on the quality of incoming OW feedstocks, but also on the quality of the final product. Composting businesses require a market for sales of compost products (in green spaces and/or agriculture), and poor source separation could lead to low-quality compost and reduced demand (Kawai et al., 2020; Wilson et al., 2024). Improvements in data collection and quality through good feedback mechanisms can also act as leverage for expanding compost markets, pilot programs, and growing community support.

If composting facilities close due to financial or other barriers, local governments may revert to disposing of organics in landfills. Zoning restrictions also vary broadly across geographies, affecting how easily composting can be implemented (Cao et al., 2023). In regions where centralized composting is just starting, reversal could be more likely without community engagement and local government support (Kawai et al., 2020; Maalouf & Agamuthu, 2023); however, even if facilities close, the emissions savings from past operation cannot be reversed.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Table 3. Current adoption level (2021).

Unit: t OW composted/yr

25th percentile 67,000,000
mean 78,000,000
median (50th percentile) 78,000,000
75th percentile 89,000,000
Left Text Column Width

We estimated global composting adoption at 78 million t OW/yr, as the median between two datasets. The most recent global data on composting were compiled in 2018 from an analysis from 174 countries and territories (World Bank, 2018). We also used an Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) analysis from 45 countries (OECD, 2021). However, there were still many countries and territories that did not report composting data in one or both datasets. Although the World Bank dataset is comprehensive, it is based on data collected in 2011–2018, so more recent, high-quality, global data on composting are needed.

Globally, nearly 40% of all waste is disposed of in landfills, 19% is recovered through composting and other recovery and recycling methods, and the remaining waste is either unaccounted for or disposed of through open dumping and wastewater (Kaza et al., 2018).

We calculated total tonnage composted using the reported composting percentages and the total MSW tonnage for each country. Composting percentages were consistently lower than the total percentage of OW present in MSW, suggesting there is ample opportunity for increased composting, even in geographies where it is an established disposal method. In 2018, 26 countries/territories had a composting rate above 10% of MSW, and 15 countries/territories had a composting rate above 20% of MSW. Countries with the highest composting rates were Austria (31%), the Netherlands (27%), and Switzerland (21%) (World Bank, 2018).

left_text_column_width
Adoption Trend

Table 4: Adoption trend (2014–2021)

Unit: t OW composted/yr/yr

25th percentile -1,200,000
mean -1,300,000
median (50th percentile) 260,000
75th percentile 4,300,000
Left Text Column Width

We used OECD data to estimate the composting adoption trend from 2014–2021 (OECD, 2021), which fluctuated significantly from year to year (Table 4). Negative rates indicate less OW was composted globally than in the previous year. Taking the median composting rate across seven years, we estimate the global composting trend as 260,000 t OW/yr/yr. However, the mean composting trend is –1.3 Mt OW/yr/yr, suggesting that on average, composting rates are decreasing globally. 

Although some regions are increasing their composting capacity, others are either not composting or composting less over time. Germany, Italy, Spain, and the EU overall consistently show increases in composting rates year-to-year, while Greece, Japan, Türkiye, and the U.K. show decreasing composting rates. In Europe, the main drivers for consistent adoption were disposal costs, financial penalties, and the landfill directive (Ayilara et al., 2020). 

Lack of reported data could also contribute to a negative global average composting rate over the past seven years. A large decline in composting rates from 2018–2019 was driven by a lack of data in 2019 for the U.S. and Canada. If we assumed that the U.S. composted the same tonnage in 2019 as in 2018, instead of no tonnage as reported in the data, then the annual trend for 2018–2019 is much less negative (–450,000 t OW/yr/yr) and the overall mean trend between 2014–2019 would be positive (1,400,000 t OW/yr/yr).

left_text_column_width
Adoption Ceiling

Table 5: Adoption ceiling. upper limit for adoption level.

Unit: t OW composted/yr

median (50th percentile) 991,000,000
Left Text Column Width

We estimate the global adoption ceiling for Increase Centralized Composting to be 991 million t OW/yr (Table 5). In 2016, 2.01 Gt of MSW were generated, and generation is expected to increase to 3.4 Gt by 2050 (Kaza et al., 2018). Due to limited global data availability on composting infrastructure or policies, we estimated the adoption ceiling based on the projected total MSW for 2050 and assumed the OW fraction remains the same over time.

In reality, amounts of food waste within MSW are also increasing, suggesting that there are sufficient global feedstocks to support widespread composting adoption (Zhu et al., 2023). 

We assume that 75% of OW could be processed via composting and the remaining 25% via methane digesters (see Deploy Methane Digesters). Biowaste from MSW makes up approximately 15% of incoming feedstocks for methane digesters (IEA, 2025). 

left_text_column_width
Achievable Adoption

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: t OW composted/yr

Current Adoption 78,000,000
Achievable – Low 156,000,000
Achievable – High 244,000,000
Adoption Ceiling 91,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Since the global annual trend fluctuates, we used country-specific composting rates and organic fractions of MSW from 2018 to estimate the achievable range of composting adoption (see Appendix for an example). In our analysis, achievable increases in country-specific composting rates cannot exceed the total organic fraction of 2018 MSW. 

For the 106 countries/territories that did not report composting rates, we defined achievable levels of composting relative to the fraction of OW in MSW. When countries also did not report OW percentages, the country-specific composting rate was kept at zero. For the remaining 86 countries/territories, we assumed that 25% of organic MSW could be diverted to composting for low achievable adoption and that 50% could be diverted for high achievable adoption. 

For the 68 countries/territories with reported composting rates, we define low and high achievable adoption as a 25% or 50% increase to the country-specific composting rate, respectively. If the increased rate for either low or high adoption exceeded the country-specific OW fraction of MSW, we assumed that all organic MSW could be composted (see Appendix for an example). Our Achievable – Low adoption level is 156 Mt OW/yr, or 16% of our estimated adoption ceiling. Our Achievable – High adoption level is 244 Mt OW/yr, or 25% of our estimated adoption ceiling. 

Our estimated adoption levels are conservative because some regions without centralized composting of MSW could have subnational decentralized composting programs that aren’t reflected in global data.

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/yr

Current Adoption 0.30
Achievable – Low 0.60
Achievable – High 0.95
Adoption Ceiling 3.8
Left Text Column Width

Although our achievable range is conservative compared to the estimated adoption ceiling, increased composting has the potential to reduce GHG emissions from landfills (Table 7). We estimated that current adoption reduces annual GHG emissions by 0.3 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (0.73 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis). Our estimated low and high achievable adoption levels reduce 0.60 and 0.95 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (1.4 and 2.3 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis), respectively. Using the adoption ceiling, we estimate that annual GHG reductions increase to 3.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (9.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis).

The IPCC estimated in 2023 that the entire waste sector accounted for 3.9% of total global GHG emissions, and solid waste management represented 36% of total waste sector emissions (IPCC, 2023). Disposal of waste in landfills leads to methane emissions estimated at nearly 1.9 Gt CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis) annually (IEA, 2024). Based on these estimates, current composting adoption reduces annual methane emissions from landfills more than 16%. 

Increasing adoption to low and high achievable levels could reduce the amount of OW going to landfills by up to 40% and avoid 32–50% of landfill emissions. Reaching our estimated adoption ceilings for both Increase Centralized Composting and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions could avoid all food-related landfill emissions.

These climate impacts can be considered underestimates of beneficial mitigation from increased composting since we did not quantify the carbon sequestration benefits of compost application and reduced synthetic fertilizer use. Our estimated climate impacts from composting are also an underestimate because we didn’t include decentralized composting. 

left_text_column_width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Composting creates more jobs than landfills or incinerators and can save money compared with other waste management options (Bekchanov & Mirzabaev, 2018; Farhidi et al., 2022; Platt et al., 2013; Zaman, 2016). It is less expensive to build and maintain composting plants than incinerators (Kawai et al., 2020). According to a survey of Maryland waste sites, composting creates twice as many jobs as landfills and four times as many jobs as incineration plants (Platt et al., 2013). Composting also indirectly sustains jobs in the distribution and use of compost products (Platt et al., 2013). Compost is rich in nutrients and can also reduce costs associated with synthetic fertilizer use in agriculture (Farhidi et al., 2022).

Health

Composting can reduce exposures to landfill and waste-to-energy facility emissions, which have been linked to health issues such as lung cancer, respiratory and neurological problems, low birth weight, and birth defects (Brender et al., 2011; Industrious Labs, 2024; Nguyen et al., 2023; Siddiqua et al., 2022). Odors coming from anaerobic decomposition landfills, such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, are another source of pollutants that impact human well-being, which can be reduced by aerobic composting (Cai et al., 2018).

Equality

Reducing community exposure to air pollution from landfills through composting has implications for environmental justice (Casey et al., 2021; Nguyen et al., 2023). A large review of waste sites in the United States and Europe found that landfills are disproportionately located near populations with low socioeconomic status and near racially and ethnically marginalized neighborhoods (Marzutti et al., 2010). Reducing disproportionate exposures to air pollution from landfills may mitigate poor health outcomes in surrounding communities (Brender et al., 2011)

Land Resources

Compost provides an important soil amendment that adds organic matter and nutrients to soil, reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers (Urra et al., 2019; U.S. EPA, 2025). Healthy soils that are rich in organic matter can benefit the surrounding ecosystem and watershed and lead to more plant growth through improved water retention and filtration, improved soil quality and structure, and reduced erosion and nutrient runoff (Bell & Platt, 2014; Martinez-Blanco et al., 2013; U.S. EPA, 2025). By reducing the need for synthetic fertilizers and by improving soils’ ability to filter and conserve water, compost can also reduce eutrophication of water bodies (U.S. EPA, 2025). These soil benefits are partially dependent on how compost is sorted because there may be risks associated with contamination of microplastics and heavy metals (Manea et al., 2024; Urra et al., 2019).

Water Resources

For a description of the water resources benefits, please refer to the “land resources” subsection. 

Air Quality

Composting can reduce air pollution such as CO₂, methane, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter that is commonly released from landfills and waste-to-energy systems (Kawai et al., 2020; Nordahl et al., 2020; Siddiqua et al., 2022). An analysis comparing emissions from MSW systems found composting to have lower emissions than landfilling and other waste-to-energy streams (Nordahl et al., 2020). Composting can also reduce the incidence of landfill fires, which release black carbon and carbon monoxide, posing risks to the health and safety of people in nearby communities (Nguyen et al., 2023).

left_text_column_width
Risks

Before the composting process can start, feedstocks are sorted to remove potential contaminants, including nonbiodegradable materials such as metal and glass as well as plastics, bioplastics, and paper products (Kawai et al., 2020; Perez et al., 2023; Wilson et al., 2024). While most contaminants can be removed through a variety of manual and mechanical sorting techniques, heavy metals and microplastics can become potential safety hazards or reduce finished compost quality (Manea et al., 2024). Paper and cardboard should be separated from food and green waste streams because they often contain contaminants such as glue or ink, and they degrade more slowly than other OW, leading to longer processing time and lower-quality finished compost (Kawai et al., 2020; Krause et al., 2023).

Successful and safe composting requires careful monitoring of compost piles to avoid anaerobic conditions and ensure sufficient temperatures to kill pathogens and weed seeds (Amuah et al., 2022; Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2023; Kawai et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). Anaerobic conditions within the compost pile increase GHGs emitted during composting. Poorly managed composting facilities can also pose safety risks for workers and release odors, leading to community backlash (Cao et al., 2023; Manea et al., 2024; UNEP, 2024). Regional standards, certifications, and composter training programs are necessary to protect workers from hazardous conditions and to guarantee a safe and effective compost product (Kawai et al., 2020). Community outreach and education on the benefits of separating waste and composting prevent “not-in-my-backyard” attitudes or “NIMBYism” that may lead to siting composting facilities further from the communities they serve.

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Increased composting could positively impact annual cropping by providing consistent, high-quality finished compost that can reduce dependence on synthetic fertilizers and improve soil health and crop yields. 

left_text_column_width

High-quality sorting systems also allow for synergies that benefit all waste streams and create flexible, resilient waste management systems. Improving waste separation programs for composting can have spillover effects that also improve other waste streams, such as recyclables, agricultural waste, or e-waste. Access to well-sorted materials can also help with nutrient balance for various waste streams, including agricultural waste.

left_text_column_width

Composting facilities require a reliable source of carbon-rich bulking material. Agricultural waste can be diverted to composting rather than burning to reduce emissions from crop residue burning. 

left_text_column_width

Competing

Diverting OW from landfills will lead to lower landfill methane emissions and, therefore, less methane available to be captured and resold as revenue.

left_text_column_width

OW diverted from landfills can also be managed using anaerobic digestion in methane digesters, which reduces the available volumes of OW for composting.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

t organic waste

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
02.53.9
units/yr
Current 7.8×10⁷ 01.56×10⁸2.44×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.3 0.60.95
US$ per t CO₂-eq
10
Emergency Brake

CO₂,  CH₄

Trade-offs

Robust collection networks and source separation of OW are vital for successful composting, but they also increase investment costs. However, well-sorted OW can reduce the need for separation equipment and allow for simpler facility designs, leading to lower operational costs. The emissions from transporting OW are not included here, but are expected to be significantly less than the avoided landfill emissions. Composting facilities are typically located close to the source of OW (Kawai et al., 2020; U.S. Composting Council [USCC], 2008), but since centralized composting facilities are designed to serve large communities and municipalities, there can be trade-offs between sufficient land availability and distance from waste sources.

We also exclude emissions from onsite vehicles and equipment such as bulldozers and compactors, assuming that those emissions are small compared to the landfill itself.

left_text_column_width
Action Word
Increase
Solution Title
Centralized Composting
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Establish zero waste and OW diversion goals; incorporate them into local or national climate plans and soil health and conservation policies.
  • Ensure public procurement uses local compost when possible.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, businesses, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Establish or improve existing centralized composting facilities, collection networks, and storage facilities.
  • Establish incentives and programs to encourage both centralized and decentralized composting.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to develop markets for compost.
  • Invest in source separation education and waste separation technology that enhances the quality of final compost products.
  • Regulate the use of waste separation technologies to prioritize source separation of waste and the quality of compost products.
  • Ensure low- and middle-income households are served by composting programs with particular attention to underserved communities such as multi-family buildings and rural households.
  • Enact extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Create demonstration projects to show the effectiveness and safety of finished compost.
  • Ensure composting plants are placed as close to farmland as possible and do not adversely affect surrounding communities.
  • Streamline permitting processes for centralized compost facilities and infrastructure.
  • Establish laws or regulations that require waste separation as close to the source as possible, ensuring the rules are effective and practical.
  • Establish zoning policies that support both centralized and decentralized composting efforts, including at the industrial, agricultural, community, and backyard scales.
  • Establish fees or fines for OW going to landfills; use funds for composting programs.
  • Use financial instruments such as taxes, subsidies, or exemptions to support infrastructure, participation, and waste separation.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to teach how to separate waste effectively and why it’s important.
  • If composting is not possible or additional infrastructure is needed, consider methane digesters as alternatives to composting.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Work with policymakers and local communities to establish zero-waste and OW diversion goals for local or national climate plans.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, businesses, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to create quality supply streams and develop markets for compost.
  • Invest in source separation education and waste separation technology that enhances the quality of final compost products.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to teach how to separate waste effectively and why that’s important.
  • Ensure low- and middle-income households are served by composting programs with particular attention to underserved communities such as multi-family buildings and rural households.
  • Create demonstration projects to show the effectiveness and safety of finished compost.
  • Ensure composting plants are placed as close to farmland as possible and do not adversely affect surrounding communities.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies or exemptions to set up centralized composting infrastructure, increase participation, and improve waste separation.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Consider partnerships through initiatives such as sister cities to share innovation and develop capacity.
  • If additional infrastructure is needed, consider methane digesters as alternatives to composting.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Establish zero-waste and OW diversion goals; incorporate the goals into corporate net-zero strategies.
  • Ensure procurement uses strategies to reduce FLW at all stages of the supply chain; consider using the Food Loss and Waste Protocol.
  • Ensure corporate procurement and facilities managers use local compost when possible.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to develop markets for compost.
  • Offer employee pre-tax benefits on materials to compost at home or participate in municipal composting programs.
  • Offer financial services, including low-interest loans, microfinancing, and grants, to support composting initiatives.
  • Support extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Educate employees on the benefits of composting, include them in companywide waste diversion initiatives, and encourage them to use and advocate for municipal composting in their communities. Clearly label containers and signage for composting.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Help policymakers establish zero-waste and OW diversion goals; help incorporate them into local or national climate plans.
  • Ensure organizational procurement uses local compost when possible.
  • Help administer, fund, or promote local composting programs.
  • Help gather data on local OW streams, potential markets, and comparisons of alternative uses such as methane digesters.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, businesses, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to develop markets for compost.
  • Help ensure low- and middle-income households are served by composting programs with particular attention to underserved communities such as multi-family buildings and rural households.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Advocate for laws or regulations that require waste separation as close to the source as possible, ensuring the rules are effective and practical.
  • Create demonstration projects to show the effectiveness and safety of finished compost.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to teach how to separate waste effectively and why that’s important.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Investors
  • Ensure relevant portfolio companies separate waste streams, contribute to compost programs, and/or use finished compost.
  • Invest in companies developing composting programs or technologies that support the process, such as equipment, circular supply chains, and consumer products.
  • Fund start-ups or existing companies that are improving waste separation technology that enhances the quality of final compost products.
  • Offer financial services, including low-interest loans, microfinancing, and grants, to support composting initiatives.
  • Invest in companies that adhere to extended producer responsibility or encourage portfolio companies to adopt the policies.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Help policymakers establish zero-waste and OW diversion goals; help incorporate them into local or national climate plans.
  • Advocate for businesses to establish time-bound and transparent zero-waste and OW diversion goals.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Provide financing and capacity building for low- and middle-income countries to establish composting infrastructure and programs.
  • Help administer, fund, or promote composting programs.
  • Invest in companies developing composting programs or technologies that support the process, such as equipment, circular supply chains, and consumer products.
  • Fund startups or existing companies that are improving waste separation technology that enhances the quality of final compost products.
  • Incubate and fund mission-driven organizations and cooperatives that are advancing OW composting.
  • Offer financial services, including low-interest loans, microfinancing, and grants, to support composting initiatives.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, businesses, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to develop markets for compost.
  • Help ensure low- and middle-income households are served by composting programs, with particular attention to underserved communities such as multifamily buildings and rural households.
  • Advocate for laws or regulations that require waste separation as close to the source as possible, ensuring the rules are effective and practical.
  • Create demonstration projects to show the effectiveness and safety of finished compost.
  • Research and enact effective composting promotional strategies.
  • Establish one-stop-shop educational programs that use online and in-person methods to teach how to separate waste effectively and why that’s important.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Participate in and promote centralized, community, or household composting programs, if available, and carefully sort OW from other waste streams.
  • If no centralized composting system exists, work with local experts to establish household and community composting systems.
  • Help policymakers establish zero-waste and OW diversion goals; help incorporate them into local or national climate plans.
  • Start cooperatives that provide services and/or equipment for composting.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, businesses, and the public to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Help gather data on local OW streams, potential markets, and comparisons of alternative uses such as methane digesters.
  • Help develop waste separation technology that enhances the quality of final compost products and/or improve educational programs on waste separation.
  • Develop innovative governance models for local composting programs; publicly document your experiences.
  • Work with farmers, local gardeners, the private sector, and local park systems to develop markets for compost.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Advocate for laws or regulations that require waste separation as close to the source as possible, ensuring the rules are effective and practical.
  • Create demonstration projects to show the effectiveness and safety of finished compost.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost.
  • Research various governance models for local composting programs and outline options for communities to consider.
  • Research and enact effective composting campaign strategies.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Quantify estimates of OW both locally and globally; estimate the associated potential compost output.
  • Improve waste separation technology to improve the quality of finished compost.
  • Create tracking and monitoring software for OW streams, possible uses, markets, and pricing.
  • Research the application of AI and robotics for optimal uses of OW streams, separation, collection, distribution, and uses.
  • Research various governance models for local composting programs and outline options for communities to consider.
  • Research effective composting campaign strategies and how to encourage participation from individuals.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Participate in and promote centralized composting programs, if available, and carefully sort OW from other waste.
  • If no centralized composting system exists, work with local experts to establish household and community composting systems.
  • Participate in consultations with farmers, policymakers, and businesses to determine where to place plants, how to use compost, pricing, and how to roll out programs.
  • Take advantage of educational programs, financial incentives, employee benefits, and other programs that facilitate composting.
  • Advocate for extended producer responsibility approaches that hold producers accountable for waste.
  • Advocate for laws or regulations that require waste separation, ensuring the rules are effective and practical.
  • Partner with schools, community gardens, farms, nonprofits, women’s groups, and other community organizations to promote composting and teach the importance of waste separation.
  • Create, support, or join certification programs that verify the quality of compost and/or verify food waste suppliers such as hotels, restaurants, and cafes.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

The scientific consensus on composting as a climate solution is high. Composting reduces OW, prevents pollution and GHG emissions from landfilled OW, and creates soil amendments that can reduce the use of synthetic fertilizers (Kaza et al., 2018; Manea et al., 2024). Although we do not quantify carbon sequestration from compost use in this analysis, a full life-cycle analysis that includes application could result in net negative emissions for composting (Morris et al., 2013).

Globally, the waste sector was responsible for an estimated 3.9% of total global GHG emissions in 2023, and solid waste management represented 36% of those emissions (IPCC, 2023; United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2024). Emissions estimates based on satellite and field measurements from landfills or direct measurements of carbon content in food waste can be significantly higher than IPCC Tier 1-based estimates. Reviews of global waste management estimated that food loss and waste account for around 6% of global emissions or approximately 2.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Wilson et al., 2024; Zhu et al., 2023). Facility-scale composting reduces emissions 38–84% relative to landfilling (Perez et al., 2023), and monitoring and managing the moisture content, aeration, and carbon to nitrogen ratios can further reduce emissions (Ayilara et al., 2020).

Unclear legislation and regulation for MSW composting can prevent adoption, and there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to composting (Cao et al., 2023). Regardless of the method used, composting converts OW into a nutrient-rich resource and typically reduces incoming waste volumes 40–60% in the process (Cao et al., 2023; Kaza et al., 2018). A comparative cost and energy analysis of MSW components highlighted that while composting adoption varies geographically and economically, environmental benefits also depend on geography and income (Zaman, 2016). Food and green waste percentages of MSW are higher in lower-resourced countries than in high-income countries due to less packaging, and more than one-third of waste in high-income countries is recovered through recycling and composting (Kaza et al., 2018).

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 22 reports, 31 reviews, 12 original studies, two books, nine web articles, one fact sheet, and three data sets reflecting the most recent evidence for more than 200 countries and territories. 

left_text_column_width
Appendix

Global MSW Generation and Disposal

Analysis of MSW in this section is based on the 2018 What a Waste 2.0 global dataset and report as well as the references cited in the report (Kaza et al., 2018; World Bank 2018). In 2018, approximately 2 Gt of waste was generated globally. Most of that went to landfills (41%) and open dumps (22%). Out of 217 countries and territories, 24 sent more than 80% of all MSW to landfills and 3 countries reported landfilling 100% of MSW. The average across all countries/territories was 28% of MSW disposed of in landfills. Both controlled and sanitary landfills with gas capture systems are included in the total landfilled percentage.

Approximately 13% of MSW was treated through recycling and 13% through incineration, but slightly more waste was incinerated than recycled per year. Incineration was predominately used in upper-middle and high-income countries with negligible amounts of waste incinerated in low- and lower-middle income countries.

Globally, only about 5% of MSW was composted and nearly no MSW was processed via methane digestion. However, OW made up nearly 40% of global MSW, so most OW was processed through landfilling, open dumping, and incineration all of which result in significant GHG emissions and pollution. There is ample opportunity to divert more OW from polluting disposal methods toward composting. Due to lack of data on open dumping, and since incineration only accounts for 1% of global GHG emissions, we chose landfilling as our baseline disposal method for comparison.

In addition to MSW, other waste streams include medical waste, e-waste, hazardous waste, and agricultural waste. Global agricultural waste generation in 2018 was more than double total MSW (Kaza et al., 2018). Although these specialized waste streams are treated separately from MSW, integrated waste management systems with high-quality source separation programs could supplement organic MSW with agricultural waste. Rather than being burned or composted on-farm, agricultural waste can provide bulking materials that are critical for maintaining moisture levels and nutrient balance in the compost pile, as well as scaling up composting operations. 

left_text_column_width

Details of a Composting System and Process

Successful centralized composting starts with collection and separation of OW from other waste streams, ideally at the source of waste generation. Financial and regulatory barriers can hinder creation or expansion of composting infrastructure. Composting systems require both facilities and robust collection networks to properly separate OW from nonbiodegradable MSW and transport OW to facilities. Mixed waste streams increase contamination risks with incoming feedstocks, so separation of waste materials at the source of generation is ideal. 

Establishing OW collection presents a financial and logistical barrier to increased composting adoption (Kawai et al., 2020; Kaza et al., 2018). However, when considering a full cost-chain analysis that includes collection, transportation, and treatment, systems that rely on source-separated OW can be more cost-effective than facilities that process mixed organics. 

OW and inorganic waste can also be sorted at facilities manually or mechanically with automated techniques including electromagnetic separation, ferrous metal separation, and sieving or screening (Kawai et al., 2020). Although separation can be highly labor-intensive, it’s necessary to remove potential contaminants, such as plastics, heavy metals, glass, and other nonbiodegradable or hazardous waste components (Kawai et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). After removing contaminants, organic materials are pre-processed and mixed to achieve the appropriate combination of water, oxygen, and solids for optimal aerobic conditions during the composting process. 

Regardless of the specific composting method used, aerobic fermentation is achieved by monitoring and balancing key parameters within the compost pile. Key parameters are moisture content, temperature, carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, aeration, pH, and porosity (Cao et al., 2023; Kawai et al., 2020; Manea et al., 2024). The aerobic fermentation process can be split into distinct stages based on whether mesophilic (active at 20–40 oC) or thermophilic (active at 40–70 oC) bacteria and fungi dominate. Compost piles are constructed to allow for sufficient aeration while optimizing moisture content (50–60%) and the initial carbon-to-nitrogen ratio (25:1–40:1), depending on composting method and feedstocks (Amuah et al., 2022; Manea et al, 2024). Optimal carbon-to-nitrogen ratios are achieved through appropriate mixing of carbon-rich “brown” materials, such as sawdust or dry leaves, with nitrogen-rich “green” materials, such as food waste or manure (Manea et al., 2024). During the thermophilic stage, temperatures exceeding 62 oC are necessary to kill most biogenic pathogens and weed seeds (Amuah et al., 2022; Ayilara et al., 2020).

Throughout the composting process key nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and sodium), are mineralized and mobilized and microorganisms release GHGs and heat as by-products of their activity (Manea et al., 2024; Nordahl et al., 2023). Water is added iteratively to maintain moisture content and temperature in the optimal ranges, and frequent turning and aeration are necessary to ensure microorganisms have enough oxygen. Without the proper balance of oxygen and water, anaerobic conditions can lead to higher methane emissions (Amuah et al., 2022; Manea et al., 2024). Although CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide are released during the process, these emissions are significantly lower than associated emissions from landfilling (Ayilara et al., 2020; Cao et al., 2023; FAO, 2019; Perez et al., 2023).

Once aerobic fermentation is completed, compost goes through a maturation stage where nutrients are stabilized before finished compost can be sold or used as a soil amendment. In stable compost, microbial decomposition slows until nutrients no longer break down, but can be absorbed by plants. Longer maturation phases reduce the proportion of soluble nutrients that could potentially leach into soils. 

The baseline waste management method of landfilling OW is cheaper than composting; however it also leads to significant annual GHG emissions. Composting, although more expensive due to higher labor and operating costs, reduces emissions and produces a valuable soil amendment. Establishing a composting program can have significant financial risks without an existing market for finished compost products (Bogner et al., 2007; Kawai et al., 2020; UNEP, 2024).

left_text_column_width

Example Calculation of Achievable Adoption

In 2018, Austria had the highest composting rate of 31.2%, and Vietnam composted 15% of MSW (World Bank, 2018). 

For low adoption, we assumed composting increases by 25% of the existing rate or until all OW in MSW is composted. In Austria, OW made up 31.4% of MSW in 2018, so the Adoption – Low composting rate was 31.4%. In Vietnam, the Adoption – Low composting rate came out to 18.75%, which is still less than the total OW percentage of MSW (61.9%).

For high adoption, we assumed that composting rates increase by 50% of the existing rate or until all OW in MSW is composted. So high adoption in Austria remains 31.4% (i.e., all OW generated in Austria is composted). In Vietnam, the high adoption composting rate increases to 22.5% but still doesn’t capture all OW generated (61.9% of MSW).

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Deploy Alternative Insulation Materials

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Industry, Materials & Waste
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Improve Materials
Image
Worker sprays insulation in building frame.
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Deploy Alternative Insulation Materials is defined as using alternative building insulation materials in place of conventional ones. In particular, we highlight the impact of using cellulose instead of glass, mineral, or plastic insulation in new and retrofit buildings. Cellulose insulation manufacture and installation emits fewer GHGs to reach the same operational insulating performance than does manufacture and installation of conventional materials.

Income & work,Health
Water resources
Description for Social and Search
Deploy Alternative Insulation Materials is a Highly Recommended climate solution. Changing the materials we use to insulate buildings to alternatives like cellulose can reduce GHG emissions from energy-intensive insulation manufacturing and GHG-releasing installation procedures.
Overview

Thermal insulation materials are used in the walls, roofs, and floors of buildings to help maintain comfortable indoor temperatures. However, manufacture and installation of insulation materials produces GHG emissions. These are called embodied emissions because they occur before the insulation is used in buildings. Insulation embodied emissions offset a portion of the positive climate impacts from using insulation to reduce heating and cooling demand. A Canadian study found that over 25% of residential embodied emissions from manufacturing building materials can be due to insulation (Magwood et al., 2022). Using cellulose insulation made primarily from recycled paper avoids some embodied emissions associated with conventional insulation.

Insulation is manufactured in many different forms, including continuous blankets or boards, loose fill, and sprayed foam (Types of Insulation, n.d.). Most conventional insulation materials are nonrenewable inorganic materials such as stone wool and fiberglass. These require high temperatures (>1,300 °C) to melt the raw ingredients, consuming thermal energy and releasing CO₂ from fossil fuel combustion or grid power generation (Schiavoni et al., 2016). Other common insulations are plastics, including expanded polystyrene (EPS), extruded polystyrene (XPS), polyurethane (PUR), and polyisocyanurate (PIR). Producing these plastics requires the extraction of fossil fuels – primarily petroleum – for feedstocks, as well as high amounts of energy for processing (Harvey, 2007). 

F-gases are often used as blowing agents to manufacture rigid foam board insulation or install sprayed foam insulation. F-gases are GHGs with GWPs that can be hundreds or thousands of times higher than CO₂. High-GWP F-gases used in foam production are released into the atmosphere during all subsequent stages of the foam’s life cycle (Biswas et al., 2016; Waldman et al., 2023). The climate benefits of this solution during the installation stage are primarily due to avoiding these blowing agents. 

Alternative insulation is produced from plant or animal biomass (bio-based materials) or waste products (recycled materials). Alternative insulation materials provide climate benefits by consuming less manufacturing energy, using renewable materials in place of fossil fuels, and eliminating high-GWP blowing agents (Sustainable Traditional Buildings Alliance, 2024). 

Figure 1 compares a variety of conventional and alternative insulation materials. While many bio-based and recycled materials could be used as alternatives to these conventional materials, this solution focuses on cellulose due to its effectiveness in avoiding emissions, low cost, and wide availability. Cellulose insulation is made primarily from recycled paper fibers, newsprint, and cardboard. These products are made into fibers and blended with fire retardants to produce loose or batt cellulose insulation (Waldman et al., 2023; Wilson, 2021).

Figure 1. Properties and adoption of conventional and alternative insulation materials. Costs and emissions will vary from the values here depending on the insulation form (board, blanket, loose-fill, etc.).

Category Material High-GWP F-gases used? Median manufacturing and installation emissions* Mean product and installation cost** Estimated market share
(% by mass)
Conventional materials Stone wool No 0.31 623 20
Glass wool (fiberglass) No 0.29 508 34
EPS No 0.38 678 22
XPS Yes, sometimes 9.44 702 7
PUR/PIR Yes, sometimes 6.14 1,000 11
Alternative materials Cellulose No 0.05 441 2–13
Cork No 0.30 1,520 Commercially available, not widely used
Wood fiber No 0.13 814 Commercially available, not widely used
Plant fibers (kenaf, hemp, jute) No 0.18 467 Commercially available, not widely used
Sheep’s wool No 0.14 800 Commercially available, not widely used
Recycled PET plastic No 0.12 2,950 Commercially available, not widely used

*t CO₂‑eq (100-yr) to insulate 100m² to 1m²·K/W

**2023 US$ to insulate 100m² to 1m²·K/W. We use mean values for cost analysis to better capture the limited data and wide range of reported costs.

Although we are estimating the impact of using cellulose insulation in all buildings, the unique circumstances of each building are important when choosing the most appropriate insulation material. In this solution, we do not distinguish between residential and commercial buildings, retrofit or new construction, different building codes, or different climates, but these would be important areas of future study.

In this solution, the effectiveness, cost, and adoption are calculated over a specified area (100 m²) and thermal resistance (1 m²·K/W). The chosen adoption unit ensures that all data are for materials with the same insulating performance. Due to limited material information, we assumed that insulation mass scales linearly with thermal resistance.

To better understand the adoption unit, a one-story residential building of 130 m² floor area would require approximately 370 m² of insulation area (RSMeans from The Gordian Group, 2023). For a cold climate like Helsinki, Finland, code requires insulation thermal resistance of 11 m²·K/W (The World Bank, n.d.). For a warm climate like Jerusalem, Israel, envelope thermal resistance requirements average 1.1 m²·K/W (The World Bank, n.d.). Therefore, depending on the location, anywhere from approximately 4–40 adoption units insulating 100 m² to 1 m²·K/W may be needed to insulate a small single-story home to the appropriate area and insulation level.

Take Action Intro

Would you like to help deploy alternative insulation? Below are some ways you can make a difference, depending on the roles you play in your professional or personal life.

These actions are meant to be starting points for involvement and may or may not be the most important, impactful, or doable actions you can take. We encourage you to explore, get creative, and take a step that is right for you!

Adams, M., Burrows, V., & Richardson, S. (2019). Bringing embodied carbon upfront: Coordinated action for the building and construction sector to tackle embodied carbon. World Green Building Council, Advancing Net Zero, Ramboll, & C40 Cities. Link to source: https://worldgbc.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/22123951/WorldGBC_Bringing_Embodied_Carbon_Upfront.pdf 

Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. (2016, October 15). Link to source: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2016/10/20161015%2003-23%20PM/Ch_XXVII-2.f-English%20and%20French.pdf 

Andersen, B., & Rasmussen, T. V. (2025). Biobased building materials: Moisture characteristics and fungal susceptibility. Building and Environment, 112720. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.112720 

Asdrubali, F., D’Alessandro, F., & Schiavoni, S. (2015). A review of unconventional sustainable building insulation materials. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 4, 1–17. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2015.05.002 

Biswas, K., Shrestha, S. S., Bhandari, M. S., & Desjarlais, A. O. (2016). Insulation materials for commercial buildings in North America: An assessment of lifetime energy and environmental impacts. Energy and Buildings, 112, 256–269. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.12.013 

Cabeza, L. F., Boquera, L., Chàfer, M., & Vérez, D. (2021). Embodied energy and embodied carbon of structural building materials: Worldwide progress and barriers through literature map analysis. Energy and Buildings, 231, 110612. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110612 

Carbon Removals Expert Group Technical Assistance. (2023, December). Review of certification methodologies for long-term biogenic carbon storage in buildings. European Commission. Link to source: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-12/policy_carbon_expert_biogenic_carbon_storage_in_buildings_en.pdf 

Deer et al. (2007). Alaska Residential Building Manual. Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. Link to source: https://www.ahfc.us/application/files/2813/5716/1325/building_manual.pdf 

Esau et al. (2021). Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings: Low-Cost, High-Value Opportunities. RMI. Link to source: http://www.rmi.org/insight/reducing-embodied-carbon-in-buildings 

The Freedonia Group. (2024). Global insulation report. Link to source: https://www.freedoniagroup.com/industry-study/global-insulation 

Fabbri, M., Rapf, O., Kockat, J., Fernández Álvarez, X., Jankovic, I., & Sibileau, H. (2022). Putting a stop to energy waste: How building insulation can reduce fossil fuel imports and boost EU energy security. Buildings Performance Institute Europe. Link to source: https://www.bpie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Putting-a-stop-to-energy-waste_Final.pdf 

Forestry production and trade. (2023). [Dataset]. FAOSTAT. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FO 

Füchsl, S., Rheude, F., & Röder, H. (2022). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of thermal insulation materials: A critical review. Cleaner Materials, 5, 100119. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clema.2022.100119 

Gelowitz, M. D. C., & McArthur, J. J. (2017). Comparison of type III environmental product declarations for construction products: Material sourcing and harmonization evaluation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 157, 125–133. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.133 

Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, International Energy Agency, and the United Nations Environment Programme. (2020). GlobalABC roadmap for buildings and construction: Towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector. International Energy Agency. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/globalabc-roadmap-for-buildings-and-construction-2020-2050 

Grazieschi, G., Asdrubali, F., & Thomas, G. (2021). Embodied energy and carbon of building insulating materials: A critical review. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2, 100032. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100032 

Harvey, L. D. D. (2007). Net climatic impact of solid foam insulation produced with halocarbon and non-halocarbon blowing agents. Building and Environment, 42(8), 2860–2879. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.028 

Installed cost of residential siding comparative study. (2023). RSMeans / The Gordian Group. Link to source: https://www.gobrick.com/content/userfiles/files/RSMeans%20Residential%20Siding%20Comparative%20Cost%20Wall%20System%20Study%20Final%202023-09-15.pdf 

Insulation choices revealed in new study. (2019, June 19). Home Innovation Research Labs. Link to source: https://www.homeinnovation.com/trends_and_reports/trends/insulation_choices_revealed_in_new_study 

International Energy Agency. (2023). Building envelopes. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings/building-envelopes 

International Energy Agency, International Renewable Energy Agency, & United Nations Climate Change High-Level Champions. (2023). Breakthrough agenda report 2023. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/breakthrough-agenda-report-2023 

Jelle, B. P. (2011). Traditional, state-of-the-art and future thermal building insulation materials and solutions – Properties, requirements and possibilities. Energy and Buildings, 43(10), 2549–2563. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.05.015 

Kumar, D., Alam, M., Zou, P. X. W., Sanjayan, J. G., & Memon, R. A. (2020). Comparative analysis of building insulation material properties and performance. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 131, 110038. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110038 

Magwood et al. (2022). Emissions of Materials Benchmark Assessment for Residential Construction Report. Passive Buildings Canada and Builders for Climate Action.

Malhotra, A., & Schmidt, T. S. (2020). Accelerating Low-Carbon Innovation. Joule, 4(11), 2259–2267. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.09.004 

Mályusz, L., & Pém, A. (2013). Prediction of the learning curve in roof insulation. Automation in Construction, 36, 191–195. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.04.004 

Mapping energy efficiency: A global dataset on building code effectiveness and compliance: Country profiles. (n.d.). [Dataset]. The World Bank. Link to source: https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/sites/buildinggreen/doc/building_green_country_profile.pdf 

Maskell, D., Da Silva, C., Mower, K., Rana, C., Dengel, A., Ball, R., Ansell, M., Walker, P., & Shea, A. (2015, June 22). Properties of bio-based insulation materials and their potential impact on indoor air quality. First International Conference on Bio-based Building Materials, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

McGrath et al. (2023). Embodied Carbon and Material Health in Insulation. Healthy Building Network, Perkins&Will. Link to source: https://habitablefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/96-Carbon-Health-Insulation.pdf 

Naldzhiev, D., Mumovic, D., & Strlic, M. (2020). Polyurethane insulation and household products – A systematic review of their impact on indoor environmental quality. Building and Environment, 169, 106559. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106559 

Northeast Bio-based Materials Collective 2023 summit proceedings. (2023). Link to source: https://massdesigngroup.org/sites/default/files/file/2024/Northeast%20Bio-Based%20Materials%20Collective%202023%20Summit%20Proceedings.pdf 

Petcu et al. (2023). Research on Thermal Insulation Performance and Impact on Indoor Air Quality of Cellulose-Based Thermal Insulation Materials. Materials, 16(15), Article 15. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16155458 

Rabbat, C., Awad, S., Villot, A., Rollet, D., & Andrès, Y. (2022). Sustainability of biomass-based insulation materials in buildings: Current status in France, end-of-life projections and energy recovery potentials. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 156, 111962. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111962 

Riverse. (2024, August). Methodology: Biobased construction materials. Link to source: https://www.riverse.io/methodologies/biobased-construction-materials 

RSMeans from The Gordian Group. (2023). Installed Cost of Residential Siding Comparative Study. Link to source: https://www.gobrick.com/content/userfiles/files/RSMeans%20Residential%20Siding%20Comparative%20Cost%20Wall%20System%20Study%20Final%202023-09-15.pdf 

SaravanaPrabhu et al. (2021). Comparative Analysis of Learning Curve Models on Construction Productivity of Diaphragm Wall and Pile. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1197(1), 012004. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1197/1/012004 

Schiavoni, S., D׳Alessandro, F., Bianchi, F., & Asdrubali, F. (2016). Insulation materials for the building sector: A review and comparative analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, 988–1011. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.045 

Schulte, M., Lewandowski, I., Pude, R., & Wagner, M. (2021). Comparative life cycle assessment of bio-based insulation materials: Environmental and economic performances. GCB Bioenergy, 13(6), 979–998. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12825 

Stamm et al. (2022). Chemical and Environmental Justice Impacts in the Life Cycle of Building Insulation. Energy Efficiency for All, Healthy Building Network. Link to source: https://informed.habitablefuture.org/resources/research/20-chemical-and-environmental-justice-impacts-in-the-life-cycle-of-building-insulation-report-brief 

Sustainable Traditional Buildings Alliance. (2024, March). The use of natural insulation materials in retrofit. Link to source: https://stbauk.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/The-use-of-natural-insulation-materials-in-retrofit.pdf 

The World Bank. (n.d.). Mapping Energy Efficiency: A Global Dataset on Building Code Effectiveness and Compliance. Link to source: https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/sites/buildinggreen/doc/building_green_main_findings.pdf 

Types of insulation. (n.d.). U.S. Department of Energy. Link to source: https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/types-insulation 

Waldman et al. (2023). 2023 Carbon Leadership Forum North American Material Baselines. Carbon Leadership Forum, University of Washington. Link to source: https://carbonleadershipforum.org/clf-material-baselines-2023/ 

Wang et al. (2023). Can Paper Waste Be Utilised as an Insulation Material in Response to the Current Crisis. Sustainability, 15(22), Article 22. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su152215939 

Wi, S., Kang, Y., Yang, S., Kim, Y. U., & Kim, S. (2021). Hazard evaluation of indoor environment based on long-term pollutant emission characteristics of building insulation materials: An empirical study. Environmental Pollution, 285, 117223. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117223 

Wilson. (2021). The BuildingGreen Guide to Thermal Insulation: What You Need to Know About Performance, Health, and Environmental Considerations. BuildingGreen, Inc.

Zabalza Bribián, I., Valero Capilla, A., & Aranda Usón, A. (2011). Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Building and Environment, 46(5), 1133–1140. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.12.002 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Sarah Gleeson, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D. 

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

To insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W using entirely cellulose insulation in place of the current baseline mix of insulation materials is expected to avoid 1.59 t CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis (Table 1). Since many of the avoided emissions are F-gases, the 20-yr effectiveness is higher, avoiding 4.07 t CO₂‑eq per unit of insulation. Effectiveness for this solution measures the one-time reduced emissions from manufacturing and installing insulation. Insulation also reduces the energy used while a building is operating, but those emissions are addressed separately in the Improve Building Envelopes solution. 

Conventional insulation effectiveness was considered to be a weighted average effectiveness of the current baseline insulation mix, including a small amount of cellulose insulation currently in use.

The largest contributor to conventional insulation embodied emissions is using high-GWP blowing agents to manufacture or install XPS, PUR, or PIR foam. We assumed the use of F-gas blowing agents for all foams, although these are already being regulated out of use globally (Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, 2016) and an unknown amount of low-GWP blowing agents are currently used (such as hydrocarbons or CO₂). Therefore, we anticipate the effectiveness of this solution will decrease as F-gases are used less in the future. We assumed that 100% of blowing agents are emitted over the product lifetime.

Cellulose has the greatest avoided emissions of all of the alternative materials we evaluated (Figure 1). The next most effective materials were recycled PET, wood fibers, and sheep’s wool. Conventional materials like XPS, PUR, and PIR that are foamed with F-gases had the highest GHG emissions. For bio-based materials, we did not consider biogenic carbon as a source of carbon sequestration due to quantification and permanence concerns. 

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /insulation required to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 0.98
mean 1.34
median (50th percentile) 1.59
75th percentile 1.81
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Available cost data are variable for all materials, particularly those in early-stage commercialization. The mean cost of purchasing and installing cellulose insulation is less than that of any other conventional or alternative insulation material (Figure 1). Compared with the average cost of conventional insulation, the mean cost savings for cellulose insulation is US$193/100 m² insulated to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W. Since most buildings are insulated over greater areas to higher thermal resistances, these savings would quickly add up. When considering the mean cost per median climate impact, cellulose insulation saves US$121/t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis), making it an economically and environmentally beneficial alternative (Table 2).

We considered conventional insulation cost to be a weighted average cost of the current baseline insulation mix, including a small amount of cellulose insulation currently in use.

For conventional insulation, material costs of purchasing the insulation are higher than costs for installation (US$540 and US$97, respectively, to insulate 100 m2 to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W). Cellulose has a lower product cost and comparable installation costs to conventional materials. We considered all costs to be up-front and not spread over the lifetime of the material or building. For each material type, cost will vary based on the form of the insulation (board, loose, etc.) and this should be accounted for when comparing insulation options for a particular building. 

We determined net costs of insulation materials by adding the mean cost to purchase the product and the best estimation of installation costs based on available information. Installation costs were challenging to find data on and therefore represent broad assumptions of installation type and labor. Cost savings were determined by subtracting the weighted average net cost of conventional materials to the net cost of an alternative material. Although we used median values for other sections of this assessment, the spread of data was large for product cost estimates and the mean value was more appropriate in the expert judgment of our reviewers. 

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis

estimate -121
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Little information is available about the learning rate for new insulation materials. Mályusz and Pém (2013) evaluated how labor time decreased with repetitive cycles for installing roof insulation. They found a learning rate of ~90%, but only for this specific insulation scenario, location, and material. Additionally, this study does not include any product or manufacturing costs that may decrease with scale.

In general, labor time for construction projects decreases with repetitive installation, including improved equipment and techniques and increased construction crew familiarity with the process (SaravanaPrabhu & Vidjeapriya, 2021). However, Malhotra and Schmidt (2020) classify building envelope retrofits as technologies that are highly customized based on user requirements, regulations, physical conditions, and building designs, likely leading to learning rates that are slow globally but where local expertise could reduce installation costs.

left_text_column_width
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 Alternative Insulation Materials 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.

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Manufacturing and installation emissions reductions due to the use of alternative building thermal insulation materials are both permanent and additional. 

Permanence: There is a low risk of the emissions reductions for this solution being reversed. By using cellulose insulation instead of inorganic or plastic-based insulation, a portion of the manufacturing and installation emissions are never generated in the first place, making this a permanent reduction. Emissions from high-temperature manufacturing, petroleum extraction, and blowing agent use are all reduced through this approach.

Additionality: The GHG emissions reductions from alternative insulation materials are additional because they are calculated here relative to a baseline insulation case. This includes a small amount of cellulose materials included in baseline building insulation. Therefore, avoided emissions represent an improvement of the current emissions baseline that would have occurred in the absence of this solution. 

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Adoption data are extremely limited for alternative insulation materials. All adoption data and estimates are assumed to apply to both residential and commercial buildings, although in reality the uptake of alternative insulation materials will vary by building type due to differences in structures, climate, use type, and regulations. We assume that future uptake of alternative insulation is used only during retrofit or new construction, or when existing insulation is at the end of its functional lifetime.

European sources report that 2–13% of the insulation market is alternative materials. Depending on the source, this could include renewable materials, bio-based insulation, or recycled materials. In 2018 in the United States, 5% of total insulation area in new single-family homes was insulated with cellulose (Insulation Choices Revealed in New Study, 2019).

To convert estimated cellulose adoption percentage into annual insulation use, we estimated 26 Mt of all installed global insulation materials in 2023 based on a report from The Freedonia Group (2024). We calculated an annual use of approximately 1.7 billion insulation units of 100 m² at a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W. Therefore, the median cellulose adoption is 14 million units/yr at 100 m² at 1 m²·K/W, calculated from the median of the 2–13% adoption range. 

Since this calculation is based on more alternative materials than just cellulose and is heavily reliant on European data where we assume adoption is higher, this estimate of current adoption (Table 3) is most likely an overestimate.

The little adoption data that were considered in this section are mostly for Europe, and some for the United States. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current (2017–2022) adoption level.

Unit: units of insulation/yr installed to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W

25th percentile 9000000
mean 13000000
median (50th percentile) 14000000
75th percentile 17000000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Very few data are available that quantify adoption trends. In a regional study of several bio-based insulation materials, Rabbat et al. (2022) estimated French market annual growth rates of 4–10%, with cellulose estimated at 10%. Petcu et al. (2023) estimated the European adoption of recycled plastic and textile insulation, biomass fiber insulation, and waste-based insulation to have increased from 6% to 10% between 2012 and 2020.

When accounting for the calculated current adoption, these growth rates mean a median estimated annual increase of 500,000 insulation units/yr required to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W. The increasing adoption of bio-based insulation decreases the use of conventional insulation materials in those regions.

This adoption trend (Table 4) is likely an overestimate, as it is biased by high European market numbers and based on the likely high estimate we made for current adoption. 

left_text_column_width

Table 4. 2012–2020 adoption trend.

Unit: annual change in units of insulation/yr installed to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W

25th percentile 500000
mean 800000
median (50th percentile) 500000
75th percentile 1300000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

No estimates have been found for the adoption ceiling of this solution, although we expect it to be high given low rates of current adoption and projected increases in building construction in the coming decades [International Energy Agency (IEA), International Renewable Energy Agency, & United Nations Climate Change High-Level Champions, 2023]. Two physical factors that could influence adoption are availability of alternative materials and thickness of insulation.

For cellulose insulation, availability does not seem to limit adoption. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2023) reports that there is a much higher annual production of cellulose-based materials (>300 Mt annually of cartonboard, newsprint, and recycled paper) than the overall demand for insulation globally (>25 Mt annual demand; Global Insulation Report, 2024). However, other uses for cellulose products may create competition for this supply.

Increased thickness of insulation could also be a limiting factor since this would reduce adoption by decreasing building square footage, in particular making retrofits more challenging and expensive. Deer et al. (2007) reported that the average cellulose thermal resistance is similar to mineral and glass wool, and lower than plastic insulations made of polystyrene and other foams. If we assume that 50% of plastic insulation cannot be replaced with cellulose due to thickness limitations, this would represent ~20% of current insulation that could not be replaced without structural changes to the building. Therefore, we calculate the adoption ceiling to be 80% of the current insulation that would be reasonably replaceable or 140 million units/yr required to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W (Table 5).

Uptake of cellulose insulation could also be limited by its susceptibility to absorbing moisture, limiting its use in wet climates or structures that retain moisture, such as flat roofs. Commercialization of alternative insulation materials beyond cellulose and in many different forms (e.g., board, loose-fill) will increase the adoption ceiling across more building types.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: units of insulation/yr installed to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W

25th percentile N/A
mean N/A
estimate 140000000
75th percentile N/A
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

No estimates have been found for feasible global adoption of this solution. Rabbat et al. (2022) estimated the adoption levels of several bio-based insulation materials in France in 2050. For cellulose wadding, this was estimated to be 2.1 times the commercialized volume in France in 2020. Although we do not expect France to be representative of the rest of the world, if the predicted adoption trend holds across the world then we expect low adoption in 2050 to be 2.1 times greater than 2023 adoption. This is 29 million units/yr to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W (Table 6).

The IEA (2023) claims that building envelopes need to have their retrofit rate increase by 2.5 times over the current rate in order to meet net zero targets (2023). This is a reasonable high-adoption scenario. Assuming that more retrofits of buildings occur and greater amounts of alternative insulation are installed in new buildings, we estimate that high future adoption of new insulation could occur at 2.5 times the rate of the low-adoption scenario. This is 73 million units/yr to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W (Table 6).

Adoption will be facilitated or limited by local regulations around the world. Building codes will determine the location and extent of use of cellulose or other bio-based insulation. We expect uptake to be different between residential and commercial buildings, but due to insufficient data, we have grouped them in our adoption estimates.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: units of insulation/yr installed to insulate 100 m² to a thermal resistance of 1 m²·K/W

Current Adoption 14000000
Achievable – Low 29000000
Achievable – High 73000000
Adoption Ceiling 140000000
Left Text Column Width

The climate impacts for this solution are modest compared to current global GHG emissions. Not all conventional insulations have a high environmental impact due to the use of a wide range of materials, forms, and installation methods as well as the recent adoption of lower-GWP blowing agents. Therefore, the potential for further emissions savings is limited.

We quantified the effectiveness and adoption of cellulose insulation, which has the lowest emissions and, therefore, the highest climate impacts of the insulation materials we evaluated. With high adoption, 1.2 Gt CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis could be avoided over the next decade (Table 7).

While we only considered the adoption of cellulose insulation in this analysis, a realistic future for lowering the climate impact of insulation may include other bio-based materials, too. Utilizing a greater range of materials should increase adoption and climate impact due to more available forms, sources, and thermal resistance values of bio-based insulation.

Note that the current climate impact is calculated using a current materials baseline that includes a small fraction of cellulose. This means that the reported current adoption impact is a slight underestimate compared with the impacts for replacing entirely conventional insulation with the current amount of cellulose insulation in use.

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.022
Achievable – High 0.046
Achievable – Low 0.12
Achievable Ceiling 0.22
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

Some alternative insulations can be cheaper than conventional materials. Although there is large variation in evaluation methods and reported costs, our analysis found that cellulose and plant fibers are cheaper than conventional insulation materials such as stone wool, glass wool, and EPS (Figure 1). Depending on the applicable climate conditions and insulation form, switching to alternative insulation materials can result in cost savings for consumers, including homeowners and business owners.

Health

Conventional insulation materials may contribute to poor indoor air quality, especially during installation, and contribute to eye, skin, and lung irritation (Naldzhiev et al., 2020; Stamm et al., 2022; Wi et al., 2021). Additionally, off-gassing of flame retardants and other volatile organic compounds and by-products of conventional insulation can occur shortly after installation (Naldzhiev et al., 2020). Using bio-based alternative insulation products can minimize the health risks during and after installation (McGrath et al., 2023).

Water Resources

Although there is not a scientifically consistent approach to compare the environmental impacts of conventional and alternative insulation materials, a review analysis of 47 studies on insulation concluded that bio-based insulation materials generally have lower impacts as measured through acidification, eutrophication, and photochemical ozone creation potentials than do conventional materials (Füchsl et al., 2022). Other alternative materials such as wood fiber and miscanthus also tend to have a lower environmental footprint (Schulte et al., 2021). The water demand for wood and cellulose is significantly lower than that for EPS (about 2.8 and 20.8 l/kg respectively compared with 192.7 l/kg for EPS) (Zabalza Bribián et al., 2011). While the limited evidence suggests that the alternative material tends to be better environmentally, there is an urgent need to conduct life cycle assessments using a consistent approach to estimate the impact of these materials.

left_text_column_width
Risks

Cellulose insulation is susceptible to water absorption, which can lead to mold growth in wet or humid environments (Andersen & Rasmussen, 2025; Petcu et al., 2023). Reducing this risk either requires an antifungal treatment for the material or limits adoption to particular climates. The thermal performance of cellulose insulation can decrease over time due to water absorption, settling, or temperature changes, but installing it as dense-packed or damp-spray can alleviate this problem (Wang & Wang, 2023; Wilson, 2021).

Bio-based insulation materials tend to be combustible, meaning they contribute more to the spread of a fire than non-combustible stone or glass insulation. Some bio-based materials are classified as having minimal contribution to a fire, such as some cellulose forms, rice husk, and flax (Kumar et al., 2020). These materials are less likely to contribute to a fire than very combustible plastic insulation such as EPS, XPS, and PUR. Fire codes – as well as other building and energy codes – could limit adoption, risking a lack of solution uptake due to regulatory setbacks (Northeast Bio-Based Materials Collective 2023 Summit Proceedings, 2023). 

Additives such as fire retardants and anti-fungal agents are added to bio-based insulation along with synthetic binders, which can lead to indoor air pollution from organic compounds, although likely in low concentrations (Maskell et al., 2015; Rabbat et al., 2022).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Upgrading insulation to lower-cost and lower-emitting alternative materials should increase the adoption of other building envelope solutions as they can be installed simultaneously to optimize cost and performance. 

left_text_column_width

Increasing the manufacturing of cellulose insulation, which contains large amounts of recycled paper, could increase the revenues for paper recycling.

left_text_column_width

Competing

The use of biomass as raw material for insulation will reduce the availability and increase the cost of using it for other applications. For cellulose, global production of cellulose materials (>300 Mt annually of cartonboard, newsprint, and recycled paper (Forestry Production and Trade, 2023)) is an order of magnitude higher than the demand for insulation materials (>25 Mt annual demand (The Freedonia Group, 2024)), so the overall impact should be small.

left_text_column_width

Reducing the demand for conventional insulation products and instead making insulation that produces fewer GHGs during manufacturing would slightly reduce the global climate impact of other industrial manufacturing solutions. This is because less energy overall would be used for manufacturing, and therefore other technologies for emissions reductions would be less impactful for insulation production.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

insulation units of 100 m² and 1 m²·K/W

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
00.981.59
units/yr
Current 1.4×10⁷ 02.9×10⁷7.3×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.022 0.0460.12
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-121
Emergency Brake

CO₂, F-gas

Trade-offs

Bio-based insulation materials including cellulose often have lower thermal resistance than some conventional insulation materials. In particular, bio-based materials may require a thicker layer than plastic insulation to reach the same insulating performance (Esau et al., 2021; Rabbat et al., 2022). Usable floor area within a building would need to be sacrificed to accommodate thicker insulation, which would potentially depreciate the structure or impact the aesthetic value (Jelle, 2011). This would be a more significant trade-off for retrofit construction and buildings in densely developed urban areas.

Sourcing bio-based materials has environmental trade-offs that come from cultivating biomass, such as increased land use, fertilizer production, and pesticide application (Schulte et al., 2021). Using waste or recycled materials could minimize these impacts. Binders and flame-retardants may also be required in the final product, leading to more processing and material use (Sustainable Traditional Buildings Alliance, 2024).

left_text_column_width
Maps Introduction

The effectiveness of deploying alternative insulation is not inherently dependent on geographic factors since it addresses emissions embodied in the manufacture and deployment of insulation materials. However, due to a lack of related data, we assumed a consistent global breakdown of currently used insulation materials when in reality, the exact mix of insulation currently used in different geographic locations will affect the emissions impact of switching to alternative materials.

Building insulation is used in higher quantities in cold or hot climates, so deploying alternative insulation is more likely to be relevant and adopted in such climates. Other geographic factors also impact adoption: Areas with higher rates of new construction will be better able to design for cellulose or other alternative insulation materials, and drier climates will face a lower risk of mold growth on these materials. Local building codes, including fire codes, can also affect the adoption of alternative materials.

There are no maps for the Deploy Alternative Insulation solution. It is intended to address emissions embodied in the manufacture and deployment of insulation materials and has no intrinsic dependence on geographic factors.

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Alternative Insulation Materials
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Enact comprehensive policy plans that utilize all levers, including financial incentives, improved building and fire code regulations, and educational programs to advance the transition to alternative insulation.
  • Create government procurement policies that become stricter over time and mandate the use of alternative insulation or implement GWP limits in government buildings.
  • Update insulation installation regulations to encourage more sustainable practices and materials.
  • Offer financial incentives such as subsidies, tax credits, and grants for manufacturers, start-ups, and alternative insulation installers.
  • Remove financial and regulatory incentives for conventional insulation.
  • Create and enforce embodied carbon disclosure requirements for new commercial construction.
  • Create energy efficiency standards that periodically increase for insulation materials and buildings.
  • Regulate demolition of old buildings to require proper disposal of conventional insulation to ensure emissions are avoided and gases are destroyed.
  • Create reference standards for the performance and properties of alternative insulation materials.
  • Invest in R&D to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Create green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.
  • Offer educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings, environmental benefits, and health benefits of alternative insulation.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Finance or develop only new construction and retrofits that utilize alternative insulation and other low-carbon practices.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies, tax credits, and grants for installing alternative insulation.
  • Seek or negotiate preferential loan agreements for developers utilizing alternative insulation and other climate-friendly practices.
  • Whenever possible, install insulation that does not use F-gas blowing agents.
  • During demolition, ensure proper disposal of conventional insulation to avoid emissions and destroy residual F-gases.
  • Integrate alternative insulation materials into construction databases, listing prices, and environmental benefits.
  • Enact company policies that disclose embodied carbon of commercial construction.
  • Create new contractual terms that require embodied emissions data from materials and methods from suppliers.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Utilize educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds.
  • Conduct research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Finance only new construction and retrofits that utilize alternative insulation and other low-carbon practices.
  • Expand product lines to include alternative insulation materials.
  • Integrate alternative insulation materials into construction databases, listing prices and environmental benefits.
  • Create new contractual terms that require embodied emissions data from materials and methods.
  • Invest in R&D to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Join green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.
  • Create long-term purchasing agreements with alternative insulation manufacturers to support stable demand and improve economies of scale.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Conduct research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Offer educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings and environmental benefits of alternative insulation.
  • Create, join, or administer green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.

Further information:

Investors
  • Finance only new construction and retrofits that utilize alternative insulation and other low-carbon practices.
  • Invest in R&D and start-ups to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Issue green bonds to invest in projects that use alternative insulation.
  • Offer preferential loan agreements for developers utilizing alternative insulation and other climate-friendly practices.
  • Create new contractual terms that require embodied emissions data from materials and methods.
  • Join green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Finance only new construction and retrofits that utilize alternative insulation and other low-carbon practices.
  • Offer grants for developers utilizing alternative insulation and other climate-friendly practices.
  • Create financing programs for private construction in low-income or under-resourced communities.
  • Create new contractual terms that require embodied emissions data from materials and methods.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Fund research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Offer educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings and environmental benefits of alternative insulation.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Conduct research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Offer or amplify educational resources, one-stop shops for retrofitting and weatherization, installation demonstrations, and tours of model builds for commercial and private developers, highlighting the cost savings and environmental benefits of alternative insulation.
  • Create, join, or administer green building certification schemes and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop and improve existing alternative insulation materials or innovate new materials with enhanced insulation performance.
  • Investigate ways to increase the durability of alternative insulation, such as resistance to moisture, pests, and fire.
  • Find uses for recycled materials in alternative insulation and ways to improve the circular economy.
  • Innovate new manufacturing methods that reduce electricity use and emissions.
  • Design new application systems for alternative insulation that can be done without much additional training or licensing/certification.
  • Create new methods of disposal for conventional insulation during demolitions.
  • Research adoption rates of alternative insulation materials across regions and environments.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Finance or develop only new construction and retrofits that utilize alternative insulation and other low-carbon practices.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies, tax credits, and grants for installing alternative insulation.
  • Whenever possible, install insulation that does not use F-gas blowing agents.
  • Advocate for financial incentives, improved building and fire codes, and educational programs for alternative insulation.
  • Conduct local research to improve alternative insulation materials’ manufacturing, adoption, supply chain access, and circularity.
  • Organize local “green home tours” and open houses to showcase climate-friendly builds and foster demand by highlighting cost savings and environmental benefits of alternative insulation.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for alternative insulation.
  • Capture community feedback and share it with local policymakers to address barriers such as permitting logistics or upfront costs, helping to share policies that drive adoption.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing building sector emissions: Mixed

There is scientific consensus that using building insulation with lower embodied emissions will reduce GHG emissions, but expert opinions about the magnitude of possible emissions reductions as well as the accuracy of determining these reductions are mixed. 

Biswas et al. (2016) determined that, for insulation, avoided emissions from reduced heating and cooling energy tend to outweigh the embodied emissions. However, others emphasize that as buildings become more energy-efficient, material embodied emissions become a larger factor in their carbon footprint (Cabeza et al., 2021; Grazieschi et al., 2021). Embodied emissions from insulation can be substantial: Esau et al. (2021) analyzed a mixed-use multifamily building and found that selecting low-embodied-carbon insulation could reduce building embodied emissions by 16% at no cost premium.

Multiple studies have found that some sustainable insulation materials have lower manufacturing emissions than traditional insulation materials (Asdrubali et al., 2015; Füchsl et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2020; Schiavoni et al., 2016). However, researchers have highlighted the difficulty in evaluating environmental performance of different insulation materials (Cabeza et al., 2021; Grazieschi et al., 2021). Gelowitz and McArthur (2017) found that construction product Environmental Product Declarations contain many errors and discrepancies due to self-contradictory or missing data. Füschl et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis and cautioned that “it does not appear that a definitive ranking [of insulation materials] can be drawn from the literature.” In our analysis, we attempt to compare climate impact between materials but acknowledge that this can come from flawed and inconsistent data.

Despite the difficulties in comparing materials, there is high consensus that cellulose is a strong low-emissions insulation option due to its low embodied carbon, high recycled content, and good thermal insulating performance (Wilson, 2021).

The results presented in this document summarize findings from four reviews and meta-analyses, 14 original studies, three reports, 27 Environmental Product Declarations, and two commercial websites reflecting current evidence from eight countries as well as data representing global, North American, or European insulation materials. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date
Subscribe to Water resources
Back to top