Sufficient, nutritious, and safe nourishment that is physically and economically accessible at all times.

Icon

Deploy Agrivoltaics

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

Key Takeaways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diagram demonstrating Agrivoltaic configurations

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

Solution in Action

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Al-Amin Bugaje, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

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

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

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

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions. 

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /MW/yr, 100-yr basis

Estimate 720
Left Text Column Width
Cost

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

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

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

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

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

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

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

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

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

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

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

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

Current Adoption

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

Table 2. Current adoption level (2023).

Unit: MW installed capacity

Estimate 140,000
Left Text Column Width

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

Adoption Trend

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

Enable Download
On

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

Table 3. Adoption trend (2010–2023).

Unit: MW installed capacity/yr

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

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

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

Adoption Ceiling

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

Table 4. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: MW installed capacity

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

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

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

Achievable Adoption

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

Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: MW installed capacity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Benefits

Heat Stress

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

Income and Work

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

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

Food Security

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

Energy Availability

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

Health

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

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

Nature Protection

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

Animal Well-being

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

Land Resources

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

Water Resources

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

Air Quality

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

Risks

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

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

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

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

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

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

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

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

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

Competing

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

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

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

Consensus
Dashboard

Solution Basics

MW installed capacity

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

Climate Impact

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

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Trade-offs

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

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

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

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Agrivoltaics
Classification
Highly Recommended

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of overall effectiveness of agrivoltaics: High

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

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

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

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

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Produce Biochar

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

Key Takeaways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diagram of biochar process.

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Jason Lam

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Emily Cassidy

Effectiveness

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

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

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

Table 1. Effectiveness at sequestering carbon.

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

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

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

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

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

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

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

Median 230
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

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

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

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

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

Current Adoption

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

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

Table 3. Current adoption level (2023).

Unit: t biochar produced and added to soil/yr

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

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

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

Adoption Ceiling

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

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

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

Table 4. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: t biochar produced and added to soil/yr

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

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

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

Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: t biochar produced and added to soil/yr

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

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

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

Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

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

Food Security

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

Health

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

Nature Protection

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

Land Resources

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

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

Water Resources

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

Water Quality

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

Air Quality

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

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

Risks

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

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

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

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

Competing

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

Dashboard

Solution Basics

t biochar produced and added to soil

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

Climate Impact

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

CO₂

Trade-offs

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

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

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

Action Word
Produce
Solution Title
Biochar
Classification
Highly Recommended

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in sequestering carbon: High

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

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

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

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

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Deploy Silvopasture

Sector
Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Remove Carbon
Cluster
Shift Agriculture Practices
Image
Cows grazing among trees
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

We define the Deploy Silvopasture solution as the adoption of agroforestry practices that add trees to grazing land, including planted pastures and natural rangelands. (Note that this solution does NOT include creating forested grazing land by thinning existing forest; this is a form of deforestation and not desirable in terms of climate.) Some silvopastures are open savannas, while others are dense, mature tree plantations. The trees may be planted or managed to naturally regenerate. Some silvopasture systems have been practiced for thousands of years, while others have been recently developed. All provide shade to livestock; in some systems, the trees feed livestock, produce timber or crops for human consumption, or provide other benefits. New adoption is estimated from the 2025 level as a baseline which is therefore set to zero.

Income & work,Food security
Nature protection,Animal well-being,Water quality
Description for Social and Search
Deploy Silvopasture is a Highly Recommended climate solution. It enhances carbon storage by adding trees to grazing land, including planted pastures and natural rangelands.
Overview

In silvopasture systems, trees are planted or allowed to naturally regenerate on existing pasture or rangeland. Tree density is generally less than forest, allowing sunlight through for good forage growth.

Silvopasture has multiple climate impacts, though carbon sequestration is the only one which has been thoroughly studied across all climates and sub-practices.

Silvopasture sequesters carbon in both soil and woody biomass. Carbon sequestration rates are among the highest of any farming system (Toensmeier, 2017). The lifetime accumulation of carbon in both soils and biomass is higher than for managed grazing alone (Montagnini et al., 2019; Nair et al., 2012).

Silvopasture can also reduce GHG emissions, though not in every case. We do not include emissions reductions in this analysis.

Conversion from pasture to silvopasture slightly increases capture and storage of methane in soils (Bentrup and Shi, in press). In addition, in fodder subtypes of silvopasture systems, ruminant livestock consume tree leaves or pods. Many, but not all, of the tree species used in these systems have tannin content that reduces emissions of methane from enteric fermentation (Jacobsen et al., 2019). 

Some subtypes of silvopasture reduce nitrous oxide emissions from manure and urine, as grasses and trees capture nitrogen that microbes would otherwise convert to nitrous oxide. There are also reductions to nitrous oxide emissions from soils: 76–95% in temperate silvopastures and 16–89% in tropical-intensive silvopastures (Ansari et al., 2023; Murguietio et al., 2016).

Many silvopasture systems increase productivity of milk and meat. Yield increases can reduce emissions from deforestation by growing more food on existing farmland, but in some cases can actually worsen emissions if farmers clear forests to adopt the profitable practice (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2019). The yield impact of silvopasture varies with tree density, climate, system type, and whether the yields of other products (e.g., timber) are counted as well (Rojas et al., 2022). 

References

Ansari, J., Udawatta, R. P., & Anderson, S. H. (2022). Soil nitrous oxide emission from agroforestry, rowcrop, grassland and forests in North America: a review. Agroforestry Systems, 97(8), 1465–1479. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-023-00870-y

Basche, A., Tully, K., Álvarez-Berríos, N. L., Reyes, J., Lengnick, L., Brown, T., Moore, J. M., Schattman, R. E., Johnson, L. K., & Roesch-McNally, G. (2020). Evaluating the untapped potential of US conservation investments to improve soil and environmental health. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 547876. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.547876 

Batcheler, M., Smith, M. M., Swanson, M. E., Ostrom, M., & Carpenter-Boggs, L. (2024). Assessing silvopasture management as a strategy to reduce fuel loads and mitigate wildfire risk. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 5954. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-56104-3

Bentrup, G. & Shi, X. (in press). Multifunctional buffers: Design guidelines for buffers, corridors and greenways. USDA Forest Service. 

Bostedt, G., Hörnell, A., & Nyberg, G. (2016). Agroforestry extension and dietary diversity–an analysis of the importance of fruit and vegetable consumption in West Pokot, Kenya. Food Security, 8, 271–284. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0542-x

Briske, D. D., Vetter, S., Coetsee, C., & Turner, M. D. (2024). Rangeland afforestation is not a natural climate solution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2727

Cadavid, Z., & BE, S. T. (2020). Sistemas silvopastoriles: aspectos teóricos y prácticos. CIPAV. Link to source: https://cipav.org.co/sdm_downloads/sistemas-silvopastoriles-aspectos-teoricos-y-practicos/

Cardinael, R., Umulisa, V., Toudert, A., Olivier, A., Bockel, L., & Bernoux, M. (2019). Revisiting IPCC Tier 1 coefficients for soil organic and biomass carbon storage in agroforestry systems. Environmental Research Letters, 13(12), 124020. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaeb5f

Chapman, M., Walker, W.S., Cook-Patton, S.C., Ellis, P.W., Farina, M., Griscom, B.W., & Baccani, A. (2019). Large climate mitigation potential from adding trees to agricultural lands Global Change Biology, 26(80), 4357–4365. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15121

Chatterjee, N., Nair, P. R., Chakraborty, S., & Nair, V. D. (2018). Changes in soil carbon stocks across the forest-agroforest-agriculture/pasture continuum in various agroecological regions: A meta-analysis. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 266, 55–67. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.07.014

Damania, Richard; Polasky, Stephen; Ruckelshaus, Mary; Russ, Jason; Amann, Markus; Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca; Gerber, James; Hawthorne, Peter; Heger, Martin Philipp; Mamun, Saleh; Ruta, Giovanni; Schmitt, Rafael; Smith, Jeffrey; Vogl, Adrian; Wagner, Fabian; Zaveri, Esha. (2023). Nature's Frontiers: Achieving Sustainability, Efficiency, and Prosperity with Natural Capital. Environment and Sustainable Development series. Washington, DC: World Bank Link to source: https://hdl.handle.net/10986/39453

de Sherbinin, A., VanWey, L. K., McSweeney, K., Aggarwal, R., Barbieri, A., Henry, S., Hunter, L. M., Twine, W., & Walker, R. (2008). Rural household demographics, livelihoods and the environment. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 38–53. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.05.005

Den Herder, M., Moreno, G., Mosquera-Losada, R. M., Palma, J. H., Sidiropoulou, A., Freijanes, J. J. S., & Burgess, P. J. (2017). Current extent and stratification of agroforestry in the European Union. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 241, 121–132. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.03.005

Di Prima, S., Wright, E. P., Sharma, I. K., Syurina, E., & Broerse, J. E. W. (2022). Implementation and scale-up of nutrition-sensitive agriculture in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review of what works, what doesn’t work and why. Global Food Security, 32, 100595. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100595

deStefano, A, & Jacobson, M.G. (2018). Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems: A review. Agroforestry Systems, 92, 285–299. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0212-y

Dudley, N., Eufemia, L., Fleckenstein, M., Periago, M. E., Petersen, I., & Timmers, J. F. (2020). Grasslands and savannahs in the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Restoration Ecology, 28(6), 1313–1317. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13272

Dupraz, C, and Liagre, F.(2011). Agroforesterie: Des Arbres et des Cultures. Editions France Agricole. Link to source: https://agroboutique.com/agroecologie-catalogue/12-agroforesterie-des-arbres-et-des-cultures.html

FAO Statistical Service (2024). FAOStat. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/

Feliciano, D., Ledo, A., Hillier, J., & Nayak, D. R. (2018). Which agroforestry options give the greatest soil and above ground carbon benefits in different world regions?. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 254, 117–129. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.11.032

Frelat, R., Lopez-Ridaura, S., Giller, K. E., Herrero, M., Douxchamps, S., Djurfeldt, A. A., Erenstein, O., Henderson, B., Kassie, M., Paul, B. K., Rigolot, C., Ritzema, R. S., Rodriguez, D., Van Asten, P. J. A., & Van Wijk, M. T. (2016). Drivers of household food availability in sub-Saharan Africa based on big data from small farms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(2), 458–463. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1518384112

Garrett, H. E., Kerley, M. S., Ladyman, K. P., Walter, W. D., Godsey, L. D., Van Sambeek, J. W., & Brauer, D. K. (2004). Hardwood silvopasture management in North America. In New Vistas in Agroforestry: A Compendium for 1st World Congress of Agroforestry, 2004 (pp. 21–33). Springer Netherlands. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2424-1_2

Goracci, J., & Camilli, F. (2024). Agroforestry and animal husbandry. IntechOpen. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1006711

Government of Colombia (2020). Actualización de la Contribución Determinada a Nivel Nacional de Colombia. Government of Colombia. Link to source: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022-06/NDC%20actualizada%20de%20Colombia.pdf

Greene, H., Kazanski, C. E., Kaufman, J., Steinberg, E., Johnson, K., Cook-Patton, S. C., & Fargione, J. (2023). Silvopasture offers climate change mitigation and profit potential for farmers in the eastern United States. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7, 1158459. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1158459

Hart, D.R.T, Yeo, S, Almaraz, M, Beillouin, D, Cardinael, R, Garcia, E, Kay, S, Lovell, S.T., Rosenstock, T.S., Sprenkle-Hyppolite, S, Stolle, F, Suber, M, Thapa, B, Wood, S & Cook-Patton, S.C (2023). “Priority science can accelerate agroforestry as a natural climate solution”. Nature Climate Change. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8209212

Husak, A. L., & Grado, S. C. (2002). Monetary benefits in a southern silvopastoral system. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 26(3), 159–164. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/sjaf/26.3.159

IPCC (2019). 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 [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.)]. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/

IPCC AR6 WG3 (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. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926

Jacobsen (2019). Secondary metabolites in leaf hay as a mitigation option for enteric methane production in ruminants. Aarhus University. Link to source: https://pure.au.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/197235590/Secondary_Metabolites_in_Leaf_Hay_as_a_Mitigation_Option_for_Enteric_Methane_Production_in_Ruminants.pdf

Jose, S., & Dollinger, J. (2019). Silvopasture: a sustainable livestock production system. Agroforestry systems, 93, 1-9. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00366-8

Lal, R., Smith, P., Jungkunst, H. F., Mitsch, W. J., Lehmann, J., Nair, P. R., & Ravindranath, N. H. (2018). The carbon sequestration potential of terrestrial ecosystems. Journal of soil and water conservation, 73(6), 145A–152A. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.73.6.145A

Lee, S., Bonatti, M, Löhe, K, Palacios, V., Lana, M.A., and Sieber, S (2020). Adoption potentials and barriers of silvopastoral systems in Colombia: Case of Cundinamarca region. Cogent Environmental Science 6(1). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311843.2020.1823632

Lemes, A. P., Garcia, A. R., Pezzopane, J. R. M., Brandão, F. Z., Watanabe, Y. F., Cooke, R. F., Sponchiado, M., Paz, C. C. P., Camplesi, A. C., Binelli, M., & Gimenes, L. U. (2021). Silvopastoral system is an alternative to improve animal welfare and productive performance in meat production systems. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 14092. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93609-7

Lorenz, K., & Lal, R. (2018). Carbon sequestration in agricultural ecosystems. Springer, Cham. Link to source: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-92318-5

Mehrabi, Z., Tong, K., Fortin, J., Stanimirova, R., Friedl, M., & Ramankutty, N. (2024). Global agricultural lands in the year 2015. Earth System Science Data Discussions, 2024, 1–44. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-279

Montagnini, F (2019). Función de los sistemas agroforestales en la adaptación y mitigación del cambio climático. Sistemas agroforestales: Funciones productivas, socioeconómicas y ambientales, 269-299. Link to source: https://cipav.org.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/sistemas-agroforestales-funciones-productivas-socioeconomicas-y-ambientales.pdf

Morena, G., & Rolo, V. (2019). Agroforestry practices: Silvopastoralism. In Agroforestry for sustainable agricultura (1st ed.). Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429275500

Murgueitio, E., Uribe, F., Molina, C., Molina, E., Galindo, W., Chará, J., & González, J. (2016). Establecimiento y manejo de sistemas silvopastoriles intensivos con Leucaena. Editorial CIPAV, Cali, Colombia. Link to source: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Naranjo-R/publication/310460876_Establecimiento_y_manejo_de_sistemas_silvopastoriles_intensivos_con_leucaena/links/582e30cb08ae138f1c01d8b9/Establecimiento-y-manejo-de-sistemas-silvopastoriles-intensivos-con-leucaena.pdf

Nair, P.K. R. (2012). Climate change mitigation: A low-hanging fruit of agroforestry. Agroforestry: The future of global land use, 31–69. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4676-3_7

Ortiz, J., Neira, P., Panichini, M., Curaqueo, G., Stolpe, N. B., Zagal, E., & Gupta, S. R. (2023). Silvopastoral systems on degraded lands for soil carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation. Agroforestry for Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Asia and Africa, 207–242. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-4602-8_7

Pent, G. J. (2020). Over-yielding in temperate silvopastures: a meta-analysis. Agroforestry Systems, 94(5), 1741–1758. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-020-00494-6

Pezo, D., Ríos, N., Ibrahim, M., & Gómez, M. (2018). Silvopastoral systems for intensifying cattle production and enhancing forest cover: the case of Costa Rica. Washington, DC: World Bank. Link to source: https://www.profor.info/sites/default/files/Silvopastoral%2520systems_Case%2520Study_LEAVES_2018.pdf

Poudel, S., Pent, G., & Fike, J. (2024). Silvopastures: Benefits, past efforts, challenges, and future prospects in the United States. Agronomy, 14(7), 1369. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14071369

Quandt, A, Neufeldt, G, & Gorman, K (2023). Climate change adaptation through agroforestry: Opportunities and gaps. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 60, 101244. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101244

Rivera, J. E., Serna, L., Arango, J., Barahona, R., Murgueitio, E., Torres, C. F., & Chará, J. (2023). Silvopastoral systems and their role in climate change mitigation and Nationally Determined Contributions in Latin America. In Silvopastoral systems of Meso America and Northern South America (pp. 25–53). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-43063-3_2

Rojas, D, & Rodriguez Anido, N. (2022) Potential of silvopastoral systems for the mitigation of greenhouse gasses generated in the production of bovine meat. In Sistemas silvopastoriles: Hacia una diversificación sostenible. CIPAV. Link to source: https://cipav.org.co/sistemas-silvopastoriles-hacia-una-diversificacion-sostenible/

Riset, J.Å., Tømmervik, H. & Forbes, B.C. (2019). Sustainable and resilient reindeer herding. Reindeer Caribou Health Dis, (23–43). Link to source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344787755_Ch13_Sustainable_and_resilient_reindeer_herding

Shelton, M., Dalzell, S., Tomkins, N. and Buck, S. R. (2021). Leucaena: The productive and sustainable forage legume. University of Queensland. Link to source: https://era.dpi.qld.gov.au/id/eprint/9425/

Shi, L., Feng, W., Xu, J., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2018). Agroforestry systems: Meta‐analysis of soil carbon stocks, sequestration processes, and future potentials. Land Degradation & Development, 29(11), 3886–3897. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3136

Smith, M. M., Bentrup, G., Kellerman, T., MacFarland, K., Straight, R., Ameyaw, L., & Stein, S. (2022). Silvopasture in the USA: A systematic review of natural resource professional and producer-reported benefits, challenges, and management activities. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 326, 107818. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107818

Sprenkle-Hyppolite, S. Griscom, B., Griffey, V., Munshi, E., Chapman, M. (2024). Maximizing tree carbon in cropland and grazing lands while sustaining yields. Carbon Balance and Management 19:23. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-024-00268-y

Toensmeier, E. (2017). Perennial staple crops and agroforestry for climate change mitigation. Integrating landscapes: Agroforestry for biodiversity conservation and food sovereignty, 439-451. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69371-2_18

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS]. (2025). Conservation Practice Physical Effects [Dataset]. Link to source: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/resources/guides-and-instructions/conservation-practice-physical-effects

Udawatta, R. P., Walter, D., & Jose, S. (2022). Carbon sequestration by forests and agroforests: A reality check for the United States. Carbon footprints, 1(8). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.20517/cf.2022.06 

Zeppetello, L. R. V., Cook-Patton, S. C., Parsons, L. A., Wolff, N. H., Kroeger, T., Battisti, D. S., Bettles, J., Spector, J. T., Balakumar, A., & Masuda, Y. J. (2022). Consistent cooling benefits of silvopasture in the tropics. Nature communications, 13(1), 708. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28388-4

Zhu, X., Liu, W., Chen, J., Bruijnzeel, L. A., Mao, Z., Yang, X., Cardinael, R., Meng, F.-R., Sidle, R. C., Seitz, S., Nair, V. D., Nanko, K., Zou, X., Chen, C., & Jiang, X. J. (2020). Reductions in water, soil and nutrient losses and pesticide pollution in agroforestry practices: A review of evidence and processes. Plant and Soil, 453(1–2), 45–86. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04377-3

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Eric Toensmeier

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

We found a median carbon sequestration rate of 9.81 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr (Table 1). This is based on an above-ground biomass (tree trunks and branches) accumulation rate of 6.43 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr and a below-ground biomass (roots) accumulation rate of 1.61 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr using a root-to-shoot ratio of 0.25 (Cardinael et al., 2019). These are added to the soil organic carbon sequestration rate of 1.76 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr to create the combined total.

Table 1. Effectiveness at carbon sequestration.

Unit: t CO₂-eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 4.91
Mean 14.70
Median (50th percentile) 9.81
75th percentile 20.45

100-yr basis

Left Text Column Width

Reductions in nitrous oxide and methane and sustainable intensification impacts are not yet quantifiable to the degree that they can be used in climate mitigation projections.

Cost

Because baseline grazing systems are already extensive and well established, we assumed there is no cost to establish new baseline grazing land. In the absence of global data sets on costs and revenues of grazing systems, we used a global average profit per hectare of grazing land of US$6.28 from Damania et al. (2023).

Establishment costs of silvopasture vary widely. We found the cost to establish one hectare of silvopasture to be US$1.06–4,825 (Dupraz & Liagre, 2011; Lee et al., 2011). Reasons for this wide range include the low cost of natural regeneration and the broad range in tree density depending on the type of system. We collected costs by region and used a weighted average to obtain a global net net cost value of US$424.20.

Cost and revenue data for silvopasture were insufficient. However, data on the impact on revenues per hectare are abundant. Our analysis found a median 8.7% increase in per-hectare profits from silvopasture compared with conventional grazing, which we applied to the average grazing value to obtain a net profit of US$6.82/ha. This does not reflect the very high revenues of silvopasture systems in some countries.

We calculated cost per t CO₂‑eq sequestered by dividing net net cost/ha by total CO₂‑eq sequestered/ha.

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂-eq

Median $43.25

100-yr basis & 20-yr basis are the same.

Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

There is not enough information available to determine a learning curve for silvopasture. However, anecdotal evidence showed establishment costs decreasing as techniques for broadscale mechanized establishment were developed in Australia and Colombia (Murguietio et al., 2016; Shelton et al., 2021).

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

Caveats

Permanence

Living biomass and soil organic matter only temporarily hold carbon (decades to centuries for soil organic matter, and for the life of the tree or any long-lived products made from its wood in the case of woody biomass). Sequestered carbon in both soils and biomass is vulnerable to fire, drought, long-term shifts to a drier precipitation regime, and other climate change impacts, as well as to a return to the previous farming or grazing practices. Such disturbances can cause carbon to be re-emitted to the atmosphere (Lorenz & Lal, 2018). 

Saturation

Like all upland, terrestrial agricultural systems, over the course of decades, silvopastures reach saturation and net sequestration slows to nearly nothing (Lorenz & Lal, 2018). 

Current Adoption

Lack of data on the current adoption of silvopasture is a major gap in our understanding of the potential of this solution. One satellite imaging study found 156 million ha of grazing land with more than 10 t C/ha in above-ground biomass, which is the amount that indicates more than grass alone (Chapman et al., 2019). However, this area includes natural savannas, which are not necessarily silvopastures, and undercounts the existing 15.1 million ha of silvopasture known to be present in Europe (den Herder et al., 2017).

Sprenkle-Hippolite et al. (2024) estimated a current adoption of 141.4 Mha, or 6.0% of grazing land (Table 3). We have chosen this more recent figure as the best available estimate of current adoption. Note that in Solution Basics in the dashboard above we set current adoption at zero. This is a conservative assumption to avoid counting carbon sequestration from land that has already ceased to sequester net carbon due to saturation, which takes place after 20–50 years (Lal et al., 2018).

Table 3. Current (2023) adoption level.

Unit: million ha

Mean 141.4
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

There is little quantifiable information reported about silvopasture adoption trends.

Adoption Ceiling

Grazing is the world’s largest land use at 2,986 Mha (Mehrabi et al., 2024). Much grazing land is too dry for trees, while other grasslands that were not historically forest or savanna should not be planted with trees in order to minimize water use and protect grassland habitat (Dudley et al., 2020). Three studies estimated the total potential area suitable for silvopasture (including current adoption). 

Lal et al. (2018) estimated the technical potential for silvopasture adoption at 550 Mha.

Chapman et al. (2019) estimated the suitable area for increased woody biomass on grazing land as 1,890 Mha. 

Sprenkle-Hippolite (2024) assessed the maximum area of grazing land to which trees could be added without reducing livestock productivity. They calculated a total of 1,589 Mha, or 67% of global grazing land (Table 4). To our knowledge, this is the most accurate estimate available. 

Table 4. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: ha converted

25th percentile 1069000000
Mean 1343000000
Median (50th percentile) 1588000000
75th percentile 1739000000

Unit: % of grazing land

25th percentile 45
Mean 36
Median (50th percentile) 53
75th percentile 58
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

In our Achievable – High scenario, global silvopasture starts at 141.4 Mha and grows at the Colombian Nationally Determined Contribution growth rate of 6.5%/yr. This would provide the high end of the achievable potential at 206.3 Mha by 2030, of which 64.9 million ha are newly adopted (Table 5). For the Achievable – Low scenario, we chose 1/10 of Colombia’s projected growth rate. This would provide 147.0 Mha of adoption by 2030, of which 5.6 Mha are new.

Few estimates of the global adoption potential of silvopasture are available, and even those for the broader category of agroforestry are rare due to the lack of solid data on current adoption and growth rates (Shi et al., 2018; Hart et al., 2023). The IPCC estimates that, for agroforestry overall, 19.5% of the technical potential is economically achievable (IPCC AR6 WG3, 2022). Applying this rate to Sprenkle-Hippolite’s estimated 1,588 Mha technical potential yields an achievable potential of 310 Mha of convertible grazing land.

Our high adoption rate reaches 13% of the adoption ceiling by 2030. This suggests that silvopasture represents a large but relatively untapped potential that will require aggressive policy action and other incentives to spur scaling.

Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mha

Current adoption 141.4
Achievable – low 147.0
Achievable – high 206.3
Adoption ceiling 1,588.0

Unit: Mha

Current adoption 0.00
Achievable – low 5.6
Achievable – high 64.9
Adoption ceiling 1,447.4
Left Text Column Width

Carbon sequestration continues only for a period of decades; because silvopasture is an ancient practice with some plantings centuries old, we could not assume that previously adopted hectares continue to sequester carbon indefinitely. Much of the current adoption of silvopasture has been in place for centuries and sequestration there has presumably already slowed down to almost zero. We apply an adoption adjustment factor of 0.25 to current adoption (see Methodology) to reflect that most current adoption is no longer sequestering significant carbon, yet there is substantial new adoption within the past 20–50 years.

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

For current adoption the calculation is effectiveness * 0.25 * current adoption = climate impact

Climate impacts shown in Table 6 are the sum of current and new adoption impacts. Carbon sequestration impact is 0.35 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for current adoption, 0.40 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for Achievable – Low, 0.98 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for Achievable – High, and 14.54 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for our Adoption Ceiling. 

Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr

Current adoption 0.35
Achievable – low 0.40
Achievable – high 0.98
Adoption ceiling 14.54

100-yr basis, New adoption only 

Left Text Column Width

Lal et al. (2018) estimated a technical global carbon sequestration potential of 0.3–1.0 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Sprenkle-Hyppolite et al. (2024) estimated a silvopasture technical potential of 1.4 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ; this assumes a tree density of 2–6 trees/ha, which is substantially lower than typical silvopasture. For agroforestry overall (including silvopasture and other practices), the IPCC (2022) estimates an achievable potential of 0.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr and a technical potential of 4.0 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.

Additional Benefits

Income and Work 

Silvopasture can also increase and diversify farmer income. Tree fruit and timber often provide income for ranchers. A study in the southern United States showed that silvopasture systems generated 10% more income than standalone cattle production (Husak & Grado, 2002). A more comprehensive analysis across the eastern United States (Greene et al., 2023) found that virtually all silvopasture systems assessed had a positive 20- and 30-yr internal rate of return (IRR). For some systems, the 30-yr IRR can be >15% (Greene et al., 2023).

Food Security

While evidence on the impact of silvopasture on yields is mixed, this practice can improve food security by diversifying food production and income sources (Bostedt et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2022). In pastoralists in Kenya, Bostedt et al. (2016) found that agroforestry practices were associated with increased dietary diversity, an important aspect of food and nutrition security. Diverse income streams can mediate household food security during adverse conditions, such as droughts or floods, especially in low- and middle-income countries (de Sherbinin et al., 2008; Di Prima et al., 2022; Frelat et al., 2016). 

Nature Protection

Trees boost habitat availability, enhance landscape connectivity, and aid in forest regeneration and restoration. In most climates they provide a major boost to biodiversity compared with pasture alone (Smith et al., 2022; Pezo et al., 2018). 

Animal Well-being

By providing shade, silvopasture systems reduce heat stress experienced by livestock. Heat stress for cattle begins at 30 °C or even lower in some circumstances (Garrett et al., 2004). In the tropics, the cooling effect of integrating trees into a pastoral system is 0.32–2.4 °C/t of woody carbon added/ha (Zeppetello et al., 2022). Heifers raised in silvopasture systems had higher body mass and more optimal body temperature than those raised in intensive rotational grazing systems (Lemes et al., 2021). Improvement in livestock physiological conditions probably results from access to additional forage, increased livestock comfort, and reduced heat stress in silvopastoral systems. Silvopasture is highly desirable for its improvements to animal welfare (Goracci & Camilli, 2024).

Land Resources

Silvopasture and agroforestry are important for ensuring soil health (Basche et al., 2020). These practices improve soil health by reducing erosion and may also contribute to soil organic matter retention (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service ([USDA NRCS], 2025). There is evidence that silvopasture may improve soil biodiversity by preventing soil organism habitat loss and degradation (USDA NRCS, 2025).

Water Quality

Perennials in silvopasture systems could reduce runoff and increase water infiltration rates relative to open rangelands (Smith et al., 2022; Pezo et al., 2018). This increases the resilience of the system during drought and high heat. Silvopasture can improve water quality by retaining soil sediments and filtering pollutants found in runoff (USDA NRCS, 2025). On average, silvopasture and agroforestry practices can reduce runoff of sediments and excess nutrients into water 42–47% (Zhu et al., 2020). The filtering benefits of silvopasture can also mitigate pollution of antibiotics from livestock operations from entering waterways (Moreno & Rolo, 2019). 

Risks

Some of the tree and forage species used in silvopastures are invasive in certain contexts. For example, river tamarind (Leucaena leucocephala) is a centerpiece in intensive silvopasture in Latin America, where it is native, but also in Australia, where it is not. Australian producers have developed practices to limit or prevent its spread (Shelton et al., 2021).

Livestock can damage or kill young trees during establishment. Protecting trees or excluding grazing animals during this period increases costs (Smith et al., 2022).

Poorly designed tree layout can make herding, haying, fencing, and other management activities more difficult. Tree densities that are too high can reduce livestock productivity (Cadavid et al., 2020).

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Silvopasture represents a way to produce some ruminant meat and dairy in a more climate-friendly way. This impact can contribute to addressing emissions from ruminant production, but only as part of a program that strongly emphasizes diet change and food waste reduction.

Forms of silvopasture that increase milk and meat yields can reduce pressure to convert undeveloped land to agriculture.

Silvopasture is a technique for restoring farmland.

Silvopasture is a form of savanna restoration.

Competing

Expanding silvopasture could restrict land availability for renewable energy or raw material and food production, since many technologies and practices could be sited on grazing lands. Silvopasture and forest restoration can also compete for the same land.

Silvopasture is a kind of agroforestry, though in this iteration of Project Drawdown “Deploy Agroforestry” refers to crop production systems only. With that said, some agroforestry systems integrate both crops and livestock with the trees, such as the widespread parkland systems of the African Sahel.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha converted from grazing land to silvopasture

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
04.919.81median
units
Current 1.414×10⁸ 01.47×10⁸2.063×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.35 0.40.98
US$ per t CO₂-eq
43
Delayed

CO₂

Trade-offs

Solutions that improve ruminant production could undermine the argument for reducing ruminant protein consumption in wealthy countries. 

Certain silvopasture systems reduce per-hectare productivity of meat and milk, even if overall productivity increases when the yields of timber or food from the tree component are included. For example, silvopasture systems that are primarily focused on timber production, with high tree densities, will have lower livestock yields than pasture alone - though they will have high timber yields.

The costs of establishment are much higher than those of managed grazing. There is also a longer payback period (Smith et al., 2022). These limitations mean that secure land tenure is even more important than usual, to make adoption worthwhile (Poudel et al., 2024).

Maps Introduction

Silvopasture is primarily appropriate for grazing land that receives sufficient rainfall to support tree growth. While it can be implemented on both cropland and grassland, if adopted on cropland, it will reduce food yield because livestock produce much less food per hectare than crops. In the humid tropics, a particularly productive and high-carbon variation called intensive silvopasture is an option. Ideally, graziers will have secure land tenure, though pastoralist commons have been used successfully.

Areas too dry to establish trees (<450 mm annual precipitation) are not suitable for silvopasture by tree planting, but regions that can support natural savanna may be suitable for managed natural regeneration.

Most silvopasture today appears in sub-Saharan Africa (Chapman et al., 2019), though this may reflect grazed natural savannas rather than intentional silvopasture. This finding neglects well-known systems in Latin America and Southern Europe. 

Chapman et al. (2019) listed world grasslands by their potential to add woody biomass. According to their analysis, the countries with the greatest potential to increase woody biomass carbon in grazing land are, in order: Australia, Kazakhstan, China, the United States, Mongolia, Iran, Argentina, South Africa, Sudan, Afghanistan, Russia, and Mexico. Tropical grazing land accounts for 73% of the potential in one study. Brazil, China, and Australia have the highest areas, collectively accounting for 37% of the potential area (Sprenkle-Hippolite 2024).

We do not present any maps for the silvopasture solution due to the uncertainties in identifying current areas where silvopasture is practiced, and in identifying current grasslands that were historically forest or savanna. 

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Silvopasture
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Lower the risk for farmers transitioning from other pastoral systems.
  • Increase understanding of silvopasture.
  • Reduce technical and bureaucratic complexity.
  • Establish or expand technical assistance programs.
  • Simplify incentive programs.
  • Ensure an appropriate and adequate selection of tree species are eligible for incentives.
  • Establish a silvopasture certification program.
  • Create demonstration farms.
  • Strengthen land tenure laws.
  • Incentivize lease structures to facilitate silvopasture transitions on rented land.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Seek support from technical assistance programs and extension services.
  • Seek out networks of adopters to share information, resources, best practices, and collective marketing.
  • If available, leverage incentive programs such as subsidies, tax rebates, grants, and carbon credits.
  • Negotiate new lease agreements to accommodate silvopasture techniques or advocate for public incentives to reform lease structures.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Prioritize suppliers and source from farmers who use silvopasture.
  • Provide innovative financial mechanisms to encourage adoption.
  • Participate in and help create high-quality carbon credit programs.
  • Incentivize silvopasture transitions in lease agreements.
  • Support the creation of a certification system to increase the marketability of silvopasture products.
  • Join coalitions with other purchasers to grow demand.
  • Collaborate with public and private agricultural organizations on education and training programs. 

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Educate farmers and those who work in the food industry about the benefits of silvopasture.
  • Communicate any government incentives for farmers to transition to silvopasture.
  • Explain how to take advantage of incentives.
  • Provide training material and/or work with extension services to support farmers transitioning to silvopasture, such as administering certification programs.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved incentives for farmers, stronger land tenure laws, and flexible lease agreements.

Further information:

Investors
  • Use capital like low-interest or favorable loans to support farmers and farmer cooperatives exploring silvopasture projects.
  • Invest in credible, high-quality carbon reduction silvopasture projects.
  • Invest in silvopasture products (e.g., fruits, berries, and other tree products)
  • Encourage favorable lease agreements between landowners or offer favorable costs and benefit-sharing structures.
  • Consider banking through community development financial institutions or other institutions that support farmers. 

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Provide grants and loans for establishing silvopasture and support farmland restoration projects that include silvopasture.
  • Support capacity-building, market access, education, and training opportunities for smallholder farmers – especially those historically underserved – through activities like farmer cooperatives, demonstration farms, and communal tree nurseries.
  • Consider banking through Community Development Financial Institutions or other institutions that support farmers. 

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Use your platform to build awareness of silvopasture and its benefits, incentive programs, and regulatory standards.
  • Provide technical information to practitioners.
  • Host community dialogues such as Edible Connections to engage the public about silvopasture and other climate-friendly farming practices.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Improve the affordability and equipment needed to plant and manage trees.
  • Refine satellite tools to improve silvopasture detection.
  • Develop ways to monitor changes in soil and biomass.
  • Standardize data collection protocols.
  • Create a framework for transparent reporting and reliable verification.
  • Fill gaps in data, such as quantifying the global adoption potential of silvopasture and regional analysis of revenue and operating costs/hectare. 

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Purchase silvopasture products and support farmers who use the practice.
  • Request silvopasture products at local markets.
  • Encourage policymakers to help farmers transition.
  • Encourage livestock farmers to adopt the practice.
  • Host community dialogues such as Edible Connections to engage the public about silvopasture and other climate-friendly farming practices.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in sequestering carbon: Mixed to High 

There is a high level of consensus about the carbon biosequestration impacts of silvopasture, including for the higher per-hectare sequestration rates relative to improved grazing systems alone. A handful of reviews, expert estimations, and meta-analyses have been published on the subject. These include:

Cardinael et al. (2018) assembled data by climate and region for use in the national calculations and reporting. 

Chatterjee et al. (2018) found that converting from pasture to silvopasture increases carbon stocks. 

Lal et al. ( 2018) estimated the technical adoption and mitigation potential of silvopasture and other practices.

Udawatta et al. (2022) provided an up-to-date meta-analysis for temperate North America. 

The results presented in this document summarize findings from two reviews, two meta-analyses, one expert opinion and three original studies reflecting current evidence from a global scale. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Consensus regarding other climate impacts: Low

There is low consensus on the reduction of methane from enteric emissions, nitrous oxide from manure, and CO₂ from avoided deforestation due to increased productivity. We do not include these climate impacts in our calculations.

Consensus regarding adoption potential: Low

Until recently there was little understanding of the current adoption of silvopasture. Sprenkle-Hyppolite et al. (2024) used Delphi expert estimation to determine current adoption and technical potential. Rates of adoption and achievable potential are still largely unreported or uninvestigated. See the Adoption section for details.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Protect Seaweed Ecosystems

Sector
FALO & Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Cut Emissions and Remove Carbon
Cluster
Protect & Manage Ecosystems
Image
Seaweed
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Seaweed ecosystem protection is the long-term protection from degradation of wild subtidal brown and red seaweed ecosystems. Seaweeds, also called macroalgae, are photosynthetic marine organisms that absorb CO₂ from the water and convert it into biomass. This can lower surface-water CO₂ concentrations, allowing additional CO₂ from the atmosphere to be dissolved in the ocean. Some of the fixed carbon can be sequestered through export to the deep sea or burial in the seafloor, while a portion may persist in forms that resist degradation even at the ocean surface. 

Protecting seaweed ecosystems can reduce a range of human impacts (wild harvesting, coastal development, overgrazing, and poor water quality) and improve resilience to other stressors (warming), which helps preserve carbon removal by the seaweed and avoid CO₂ emissions from biomass losses. 

This solution focuses on legal mechanisms of protection through the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), which are managed with the primary goal of conserving nature. This solution does not include cultivated seaweed (see Deploy Seaweed Farming for Food).

Extreme weather events
Income & work,Food security,Equality
Nature protection,Water quality
Description for Social and Search
Protecting seaweed ecosystems is a Highly Recommended climate solution. It can likely deliver globally relevant levels of climate impact while providing additional benefits for humans and ecosystems.
Overview

Seaweeds are diverse marine photosynthetic organisms composed of three groups: brown (Phaeophyceae), green (Chlorophyta), and red algae (Rhodophyta). They can form ecosystems, such as kelp forests, and contribute to other marine ecosystems by providing habitat and food. Seaweeds are distinguished from other algae, such as phytoplankton, based on their larger size and because most are attached to substrate rather than free-floating. Seaweeds cover an estimated 600 Mha of the ocean (Duarte et al., 2022), an area that is an order of magnitude greater than the area associated with coastal wetlands (~55 Mha, see Protect Coastal Wetlands). 

This solution focuses on wild subtidal (always submerged) brown and red seaweed ecosystems, which together account for over 75% of global seaweed extent (Duarte et al., 2022) (Figure 1). We do not include green seaweeds due to their smaller extent and data limitations. We also do not include seaweeds that occur in intertidal zones, as free-floating colonies (e.g., some species of Sargassum) or are cultivated due to data limitations or coverage in other Explorer solutions (e.g., Deploy Seaweed Farming for Food).

Figure 1. Seaweed ecosystem types considered in this solution (left to right): subtidal brown (central California, USA) and subtidal red (Atlantic coast of Spain)

Two photos demonstrating seaweed ecosystem types. Left: subtidal brown. Right: subtidal red.

fdastudillo | iStock; Damocean | iStock

Seaweed ecosystems exhibit high net primary productivity (NPP) rates, comparable to those of terrestrial forests (Filbee-Dexter, 2020). Unlike many terrestrial ecosystems, however, nearly all carbon storage in seaweed ecosystems occurs as above-ground biomass, since seaweeds lack below-ground roots. A smaller amount can be buried on site in sediment (Krause-Jensen & Duarte, 2016). Most long-term carbon storage attributable to seaweeds occurs largely outside of seaweed ecosystems, through the export of carbon in dissolved and suspended forms (Figure 2). Some of this carbon reaches the deep sea, where it can persist for more than 100 years (Krause-Jensen & Duarte, 2016; Krause-Jensen et al., 2018; Ortega et al., 2019). Roughly 11.4% (25th quartile, 6.0%; 75th quartile, 13.7%) of NPP from global seaweed ecosystems is estimated to contribute to long-term carbon storage in the deep sea, equivalent to as much as 0.62 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (173 Tg C/yr, Krause-Jensen & Duarte, 2016). While uncertain and requiring more research, recent modeling efforts support these estimates, suggesting that more than 12.5% of NPP may be removed on 100-yr timescales (Filbee-Dexter et al., 2024b).

Figure 2. Overview of a seaweed ecosystem showing carbon fluxes into and out of the ecosystem (g=gaseous, aq=aqueous) that can result in carbon removal. Some carbon is exported to the shallow sea, where it may be recycled or persist for longer periods depending on its form, some is exported to the deep sea (~1000 m), and some is buried in seafloor sediments. 

diagram illustration of seaweed ecosystem, showing carbon fluxes into and out of the ecosystem

Adapted from: Hurd, C. L., Gattuso, J.-P., & Boyd, P. W. (2024). Air-sea carbon dioxide equilibrium: Will it be possible to use seaweeds for carbon removal offsets? Journal of Phycology, 60(1), 4–14. 

Seaweed ecosystems face growing threats from a range of climate change impacts (Harley et al., 2012), such as increasing sea surface temperatures, marine heat waves, ocean acidification, and extreme storm events, as well as local drivers, such as overfishing, overgrazing, pollution, disease outbreaks, invasive species, and bottom fishing (Corrigan et al., 2025; Filbee-Dexter et al., 2024a; Hanley et al., 2024). For instance, overfishing can deplete top predators in ecosystems, leading to increases in herbivores, such as sea urchins, that overgraze seaweed (Steneck et al., 2002). 

In this solution, we calculate how legal protection of seaweed ecosystems via MPAs can reduce CO₂ emissions and preserve carbon removal through avoided ecosystem loss. In addition to preventing direct losses from impacts such as wild harvest, MPAs can help restore predator populations that keep herbivores in balance. For instance, many MPAs include no-take zones that allow predatory fish populations to recover, thereby lessening overgrazing impacts over time. MPAs can also increase the resilience of seaweed ecosystems against climate change stressors, such as marine heat waves (Kumagai et al., 2024; Ortiz-Villa et al., 2025). While some seaweed can release methane, offsetting CO₂ removal (Roth et al., 2023), we exclude this process from our analysis due to existing data limitations. We also do not consider nitrous oxide, though protection might provide additional climate benefits because enhanced nitrous oxide production has been tied to nutrient-polluted seaweed systems (Wong et al., 2021). 

We present estimates of climate impact as likely upper bounds under several key assumptions (see Appendix and Caveats), which can be improved upon as more research unfolds. We consider subtidal brown and red seaweed to be protected if they are within designated MPAs based on global datasets from the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) (2024). Importantly, protection can help reduce – but will not eliminate – ecosystem loss in MPAs relative to unprotected areas (see Effectiveness). 

References

Akaike, S., & Mizuta, H. (2024). Optimizing the biomass balance of macroalgae and sea urchins in kelp beds by removing the urchins. European Journal of Phycology, 59(2), 218–231. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/09670262.2024.2306397

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

Bauer, J., Beas-Luna, R., Malpica-Cruz, L., Abadía-Cardoso, A., Filz, P., Bonilla, J. C., & Lorda, J. (2025). Community-led management maintains higher predator biomass supporting kelp forests persistence in Baja California. Scientific Reports, 15(1), Article 23253. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-86140-6

Best, R. J., Chaudoin, A. L., Bracken, M. E. S., Graham, M. H., & Stachowicz, J. J. (2014). Plant–animal diversity relationships in a rocky intertidal system depend on invertebrate body size and algal cover. Ecology, 95(5), 1308–1322. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1480.1

Corrigan, S., Cottier-Cook, E. J., Lim, P. E., & Brodie, J. (2025). The state of the world’s seaweeds 2025 [Data set]. Natural History Museum. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5519/4ln9oqk7

Cotas, J., Gomes, L., Pacheco, D., & Pereira, L. (2023). Ecosystem services provided by seaweeds. Hydrobiology, 2(1), 75–96. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrobiology2010006

Cottier-Cook, E. J., Lim, P. E., Mallinson, S., Yahya, N., Poong, S. W., Wilbraham, J., Nagabhatla, N., & Brodie, J. (2023). Striking a balance: Wild stock protection and the future of our seaweed industries [Policy brief]. United Nations University Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies. Link to source: https://cris.unu.edu/sites/cris.unu.edu/files/UNU-CRIS_Policy-Brief_CottierCook_Et.al_23.06.pdf

Cuba, D., Guardia-Luzon, K., Cevallos, B., Ramos-Larico, S., Neira, E., Pons, A., & Avila-Peltroche, J. (2022). Ecosystem services provided by kelp forests of the Humboldt current system: A comprehensive review. Coasts, 2(4), 259–277. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/coasts2040013

Duarte, C. M., Gattuso, J. P., Hancke, K., Gundersen, H., Filbee-Dexter, K., Pedersen, M. F., Middelburg, J. J., Burrows, M. T., Krumhansl, K. A., Wernberg, T., Moore P., Pessarrodona, A., Ørberg, S. B., Pinto, I. S., Assis, J., Queirós, A. M., Smale, D. A., Bekkby, T., Serrão, E. A., & Krause-Jensen, D. (2022). Global estimates of the extent and production of macroalgal forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 31(7), 1422–1439. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13515

Earp, H. S., Smale, D. A., Almond, P. M., Catherall, H. J. N., Gouraguine, A., Wilding, C., & Moore, P. J. (2024). Temporal variation in the structure, abundance, and composition of Laminaria hyperborea forests and their associated understorey assemblages over an intense storm season. Marine Environmental Research, 200, Article 106652. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2024.106652

Eger, A. M., Eddy, N., McHugh, T. A., Arafeh-Dalmau, N., Wernberg, T., Krumhansl, K., Verbeek, J., Branigan, S., Kuwae, T., Caselle, J. E., Ospina, A. G., & Vergés, A. (2024). State of the world’s kelp forests. One Earth, 7(11), 1927–1931. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.10.008

Eger, A. M., Marzinelli, E. M., Christie, H., Fagerli, C. W., Fujita, D., Gonzalez, A. P., Hong, S. W., Kim, J. H., Lee, L. C., McHugh, T. A., Nishihara, G. N., Tatsumi, M., Steinberg, P. D., & Vergés, A. (2022). Global kelp forest restoration: Past lessons, present status, and future directions. Biological Reviews, 97(4), 1449–1475. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12850

Eger, A. M., Marzinelli, E. M., Beas-Luna, R., Blain, C. O., Blamey, L. K., Byrnes, J. E. K., Carnell, P. E., Choi, C. G., Hessing-Lewis, M., Kim, K. Y., Kumagai, N. H., Lorda, J., Moore, P., Nakamura, Y., Pérez-Matus, A., Pontier, O., Smale, D., Steinberg, P. D., & Vergés, A. (2023). The value of ecosystem services in global marine kelp forests. Nature Communications, 14(1), Article 1894. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37385-0

Elsmore, K., Nickols, K. J., Miller, L. P., Ford, T., Denny, M. W., & Gaylord, B. (2024). Wave damping by giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera. Annals of Botany, 133(1), 29–40. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcad094

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2024). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2024: Blue transformation in action [Report]. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4060/cd0683en

Filbee-Dexter, K. (2020). Ocean forests hold unique solutions to our current environmental crisis. One Earth, 2(5), 398–401. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.05.004

Filbee-Dexter, K., & Wernberg, T. (2020). Substantial blue carbon in overlooked Australian kelp forests. Scientific Reports, 10, Article 12341. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69258-7

Filbee-Dexter, K., Feehan, C. J., Smale, D. A., Krumhansl, K. A., Augustine, S., de Bettignies, F., Burrows, M. T., Byrnes, J. E. K., Campbell, J., Davoult, D., Dunton, K. H., Franco, J. N., Garrido, I., Grace, S. P., Hancke, K., Johnson, L. E., Konar, B., Moore, P. J., Norderhaug, K. M., … Wernberg, T. (2022). Kelp carbon sink potential decreases with warming due to accelerating decomposition. PLOS Biology, 20(8), Article e3001702. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001702

Filbee‐Dexter, K., Starko, S., Pessarrodona, A., Wood, G., Norderhaug, K. M., Piñeiro‐Corbeira, C., & Wernberg, T. (2024a). Marine protected areas can be useful but are not a silver bullet for kelp conservation. Journal of Phycology, 60(2), 203–213. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13446

Filbee-Dexter, K., Pessarrodona, A., Pedersen, M. F., Wernberg, T., Duarte, C. M., Assis, J., Bekkby, T., Burrows, M. T., Carlson, D. F., Gattuso, J.-P., Gundersen, H., Hancke, K., Krumhansl, K. A., Kuwae, T., Middelburg, J. J., Moore, P. J., Queirós, A. M., Smale, D. A., Sousa-Pinto, I., … Krause-Jensen, D. (2024b). Carbon export from seaweed forests to deep ocean sinks. Nature Geoscience, 17(6), 552–559. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-024-01449-7

Gao, G., Gao, L., Jiang, M., Jian, A., & He, L. (2022). The potential of seaweed cultivation to achieve carbon neutrality and mitigate deoxygenation and eutrophication. Environmental Research Letters, 17(1), Article 014018. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac3fd9

Gibbons, E. G., & Quijón, P. A. (2023). Macroalgal features and their influence on associated biodiversity: Implications for conservation and restoration. Frontiers in Marine Science, 10, Article 1304000. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1304000

González-Roca, F., Gelcich, S., Pérez-Ruzafa, Á., Vega, J. M. A., & Vásquez, J. A. (2021). Exploring the role of access regimes over an economically important intertidal kelp species. Ocean & Coastal Management, 212, Article 105811. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105811

Hanley, M. E., Firth, L. B., & Foggo, A. (2024). Victim of changes? Marine macroalgae in a changing world. Annals of Botany, 133(1), 1–16. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcad185

Harley, C. D. G., Anderson, K. M., Demes, K. W., Jorve, J. P., Kordas, R. L., Coyle, T. A., & Graham, M. H. (2012). Effects of climate change on global seaweed communities. Journal of Phycology, 48(5), 1064–1078. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2012.01224.x

Heckwolf, M. J., Peterson, A., Jänes, H., Horne, P., Künne, J., Liversage, K., Sajeva, M., Reusch, T. B. H., & Kotta, J. (2021). From ecosystems to socio-economic benefits: A systematic review of coastal ecosystem services in the Baltic Sea. Science of the Total Environment, 755, Article 142565. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142565

Hurd, C. L., Gattuso, J.-P., & Boyd, P. W. (2024). Air-sea carbon dioxide equilibrium: Will it be possible to use seaweeds for carbon removal offsets? Journal of Phycology, 60(1), 4–14. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.13405

Kelp Forest Alliance. (2024). State of the world’s kelp report [Report]. Link to source: https://kelpforestalliance.com/state-of-the-worlds-kelp-report/

Krause-Jensen, D., & Duarte, C. M. (2016). Substantial role of macroalgae in marine carbon sequestration. Nature Geoscience, 9(10), 737–742. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2790

Krause-Jensen, D., Lavery, P., Serrano, O., Marbà, N., Masque, P., & Duarte, C. M. (2018). Sequestration of macroalgal carbon: The elephant in the blue carbon room. Biology Letters, 14(6), Article 20180236. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0236

Krumhansl, K. A., Okamoto, D. K., Rassweiler, A., Novak, M., Bolton, J. J., Cavanaugh, K. C., Connell, S. D., Johnson, C. R., Konar, B., Ling, S. D., Micheli, F., Norderhaug, K. M., Pérez-Matus, A., Sousa-Pinto, I., Reed, D. C., Salomon, A. K., Shears, N. T., Wernberg, T., Anderson, R. J., … Byrnes, J. E. K. (2016). Global patterns of kelp forest change over the past half-century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(48), 13785–13790. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606102113

Kumagai, J. A., Goodman, M. C., Villaseñor-Derbez, J. C., Schoeman, D. S., Cavanuagh, K. C., Bell, T. W., Micheli, F., De Leo, G., & Arafeh-Dalmau, N. (2024). Marine protected areas that preserve trophic cascades promote resilience of kelp forests to marine heatwaves. Global Change Biology, 30(12), Article e17620. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17620

Lindhart, M., Daly, M. A., Walker, H., Arzeno-Soltero, I. B., Yin, J. Z., Bell, T. W., Monismith, S. G., Pawlak, G., & Leichter, J. J. (2024). Short wave attenuation by a kelp forest canopy. Limnology and Oceanography Letters, 9(4), 478–486. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/lol2.10401

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

Ortega, A., Geraldi, N. R., Alam, I., Kamau, A. A., Acinas, S. G., Logares, R., Gasol, J. M., Massana, R., Krause-Jensen, D., & Duarte, C. M. (2019). Important contribution of macroalgae to oceanic carbon sequestration. Nature Geoscience, 12(9), 748–754. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0421-8

Ortiz‐Villa, E. M., Rassweiler, A., Caselle, J. E., Cavanaugh, K. C., Arafeh‐Dalmau, N., Bell, T. W., & Cavanaugh, K. C. (2025). Marine protected areas enhance climate resilience to severe marine heatwaves for kelp forests. Journal of Applied Ecology, 62(9), 2439–2453. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.70112

Pessarrodona, A., Franco-Santos, R. M., Wright, L. S., Vanderklift, M. A., Howard, J., Pidgeon, E., Wernberg, T., & Filbee-Dexter, K. (2023). Carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation using macroalgae: A state of knowledge review. Biological Reviews, 98(6), 1945–1971.  Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12990

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

Roth, F., Broman, E., Sun, X., Bonaglia, S., Nascimento, F., Prytherch, J., Brüchert, V., Lundevall Zara, M., Brunberg, M., Geibel, M. C., Humborg, C., & Norkko, A. (2023). Methane emissions offset atmospheric carbon dioxide uptake in coastal macroalgae, mixed vegetation and sediment ecosystems. Nature Communications, 14(1), Article 42. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-35673-9

Steen, H., Moy, F. E., Bodvin, T., & Husa, V. (2016). Regrowth after kelp harvesting in Nord-Trøndelag, Norway. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 73(10), 2708–2720. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw130

Steneck, R. S., Graham, M. H., Bourque, B. J., Corbett, D., Erlandson, J. M., Estes, J. A., & Tegner, M. J. (2002). Kelp forest ecosystems: Biodiversity, stability, resilience and future. Environmental Conservation, 29(4), 436–459. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892902000322

Tano, S., Eggertsen, M., Wikström, S. A., Berkström, C., Buriyo, A. S., & Halling, C. (2016). Tropical seaweed beds are important habitats for mobile invertebrate epifauna. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 183, 1–12. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2016.10.010

Thurstan, R. H., Brittain, Z., Jones, D. S., Cameron, E., Dearnaley, J., & Bellgrove, A. (2018). Aboriginal uses of seaweeds in temperate Australia: An archival assessment. Journal of Applied Phycology, 30(3), 1821–1832. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10811-017-1384-z

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, & International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2024). Protected planet: The world database on protected areas (WDPA) and world database on other effective area-based conservation measures (WD-OECM) [Data set]. Retrieved April 2024, from Link to source: https://www.protectedplanet.net

United Nations Environment Programme. (2023). Into the blue: Securing a sustainable future for kelp forests [Report]. Link to source: https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/42331

Waldron, A., Adams, V., Allan, J., Arnell, A., Asner, G., Atkinson, S., Baccini, A., Baillie, J. E. M., Balmford, A., Beau, J. A., Brander, L., Brondizio, E., Bruner, A., Burgess, N., Burkart, K., Butchart, S., Button, R., Carraso, R., Cheung, W., … Zhang, Y. P. (2020). Protecting 30% of the planet for nature: Costs, benefits and economic implications [Report]. Campaign for Nature. Link to source: https://www.conservation.cam.ac.uk/files/waldron_report_30_by_30_publish.pdf

Wong, W. W., Greening, C., Shelley, G., Lappan, R., Leung, P. M., Kessler, A., Winfrey, B., Poh, S. C., & Cook, P. (2021). Effects of drift algae accumulation and nitrate loading on nitrogen cycling in a eutrophic coastal sediment. Science of The Total Environment, 790, Article 147749. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147749

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Christina Richardson, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • Avery Driscoll, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Avery Driscoll, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

The globally weighted average effectiveness of seaweed ecosystem protection is 0.32 tCO₂‑eq /ha/yr. Protecting 1 ha of seaweed ecosystem avoids emissions of 0.043–0.13 tCO₂‑eq /ha/yr while also sequestering an additional 0.083–0.43 tCO₂‑eq /ha/yr, with effectiveness higher in subtidal brown than subtidal red seaweed ecosystems (100-yr GWP; Table 1; Appendix).

We estimated effectiveness as the avoided emissions and retained carbon sequestration capacity attributable to the reduction in seaweed ecosystem loss conferred by protection, as detailed in Equation 1. First, we calculated the difference between the rate of seaweed ecosystem loss outside and inside MPAs (Seaweed lossbaseline). We assumed a reduction in loss of 53% (Reduction in loss), which is based on estimates for a range of ecosystems in MPAs (Rodríguez-Rodríguez & Martínez-Vega, 2022). Importantly, this number is highly uncertain and likely to be highly variable, too. 

Next, we multiplied this product by the sum of the avoided CO₂ emissions associated with the one-time loss of all above ground biomass carbon in 1 ha of seaweed ecosystem each year over 30 years (Carbonavoided emissions) and the amount of carbon sequestered via long-term storage (on-site or off-site) in 1 ha of protected seaweed ecosystem each year over 30 years (Carbonsequestration). 

We based these rates on original analysis of a subset of studies conducted over, at least, 20 years, collated from Krumhansl et al. (2016), that show a median loss rate of 1.2% per year for kelp forests. Due to data limitations, we applied this loss rate to subtidal red seaweed ecosystems as well, but recognize that loss rates are likely to be highly variable. We did this calculation separately for red and brown seaweed ecosystems due to their distinct biomass densities and sequestration capacities, and then averaged the results with accommodations for their relative global areas.

Equation 1.

\[ \text{Effectiveness} = \left( \text{Seaweed loss}_{\text{baseline}} \times \text{Reduction in loss} \right) \times \left( \text{Carbon}_{\text{avoided emissions}} + \text{Carbon}_{\text{sequestration}} \right) \]

Table 1. Effectiveness of seaweed ecosystem protection in avoiding emissions and sequestering carbon.

Unit: tCO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-year basis

Avoided emissions, estimate 0.13
Sequestration 0.43
Total effectiveness, estimate 0.56
Total effectiveness, 25th percentile 0.21
Total effectiveness, 75th percentile 0.91

Unit: tCO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-year basis

Avoided emissions, estimate 0.043
Sequestration 0.083
Total effectiveness, estimate 0.13
Total effectiveness, 25th percentile 0.034
Total effectiveness, 75th percentile 0.22

Unit: tCO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-year basis

Avoided emissions, estimate 0.080
Sequestration 0.24
Total effectiveness, estimate 0.32
Total effectiveness, 25th percentile 0.11
Total effectiveness, 75th percentile 0.52
Left Text Column Width
Cost

We estimate that seaweed ecosystem protection might save approximately US$72/tCO₂‑eq , but emphasize that these estimates are highly uncertain due to existing data limitations. This is based on protection costs of roughly US$14/ha/yr and revenue of US$43/ha/yr compared with the baseline (Table 2). The costs of seaweed ecosystem protection also include up-front one-time expenditures of US$208 (surveys, administrative setup, legal fees, etc.), estimated from McCrea-Strub et al. (2011). However, data related to the costs of seaweed ecosystem protection are limited, and these estimates are uncertain. For consistency across solutions, we did not include revenue associated with other ecosystem services. 

We estimated costs of MPA maintenance at US$14/ha/yr based on data from existing MPAs, though only 16% of MPAs surveyed reported their current funding was sufficient (Balmford et al., 2004). Maintenance is critical for seaweed ecosystems, especially those prone to overgrazing. Tourism revenues directly attributable to protection were estimated to be $43/ha/yr (Waldron et al., 2020) based on estimates for all MPAs (and PAs) and not including downstream revenues. However, estimates of tourism revenues are highly uncertain for seaweed ecosystems. In some seaweed ecosystems, such as kelp forests, tourism is likely a real revenue generator through diving or other recreational activities, but the financial contribution is generally unclear and poorly documented across all seaweed ecosystems. 

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact. Negative values indicate cost savings.

Unit: 2023 US$/tCO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Estimate -72
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

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

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

Additionality is an important caveat for ecosystem protection. In our analysis, we used baseline rates of seaweed ecosystem loss to calculate the effectiveness of protection, which are highly uncertain and understudied. This assumes that seaweed ecosystems would continue to be lost at these rates in the absence of protection and thus that protection provides additional carbon benefits from the ecosystems whose loss is avoided. 

Importantly, effective protection depends on adequate funding and management. Poorly managed MPAs can fail to prevent key stressors, such as urchin overgrazing, from increasing and undermine the viability of seaweed ecosystems. Similar dynamics have been documented in kelp restoration efforts, where inadequate management has led to overgrazing and project failure (Eger et al., 2022).

The permanence of ecosystem carbon benefits is another key caveat. While seaweed ecosystems are expanding or expected to expand with climate change, in some regions many will contract (Corrigan et al., 2025). Protection may increase resilience to some climate change stressors, but it will not fully prevent ecosystem loss in many regions. Additionally, because seaweed ecosystems sequester carbon both on-site and off-site, the effectiveness of protection partly depends on downstream activities. For instance, carbon at the seafloor is threatened by disturbances such as bottom fishing and mining (see Protect Seafloors). Protection of seaweed ecosystems does not prevent loss of downstream stored carbon, some of which is contributed by seaweed ecosystems (Ortega et al., 2019). Additionally, seaweed biomass extent can change dramatically from year to year, which could result in substantial variability in carbon removal rates despite protection.

Another caveat in this solution lies in our assumptions about carbon dynamics at the ocean surface. We assume that seaweed NPP results in an equivalent removal of CO₂ from the atmosphere. In reality, this influx may not be fully efficient (Hurd et al., 2024). In some regions of the ocean, water carrying a CO₂ deficit from seaweed photosynthesis might be subducted before it reaches equilibrium with the atmosphere, which would reduce the atmospheric removal attributed to seaweed productivity in our calculations.

In our analysis, avoided emissions are calculated under the assumption that destruction of a seaweed ecosystem results in the loss of all biomass carbon. This likely overestimates near-term emissions, as some carbon may remain in the ocean for long periods. However, this fraction is expected to be small given that an estimated 6.0–13.7% (average: 11.4%) of NPP is thought to be stored long term (Krause-Jensen & Duarte, 2016). 

Finally, the relative fraction of NPP removed and durably stored (>100 years) is also uncertain (Pessarrodona et al., 2023). Despite this uncertainty, our use of 11.4% is supported by recent modeling of particulate carbon fluxes that suggest ~12.5% of NPP could be sequestered on a 100-year timescale (based on 44 Tg C of particulate organic carbon export to 1,000 m, where carbon is less likely to return to the atmosphere within a century, and ~353 Tg C as NPP; Filbee-Dexter et al., 2024b), but requires more research.

Current Adoption

A total of 78.80 Mha of seaweed ecosystems are currently within MPAs (Table 3). Cumulatively, roughly 18% of seaweed ecosystems are under some form of protection, with 4% located in strictly protected MPAs, 6% in nonstrict MPAs, and 8% in other IUCN protection categories. Subtidal brown and red seaweed ecosystems have similar rates of existing protection in all protection categories (Figure 3).

Table 3. Current (circa 2024) extent of seaweed ecosystems under legal protection. “Strict protection” includes land within IUCN categories I–II Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). “Nonstrict protection” includes land within IUCN Categories III–VI MPAs. “Other” includes land within all remaining IUCN MPA categories. Values may not sum to global totals due to rounding.

Unit: Mha protected

Strict protection 8.43
Nonstrict protection 11.4
Other 15.5
Total 35.3

Unit: Mha protected

Strict protection 9.28
Nonstrict protection 16.3
Other 18.0
Total 43.5

Unit: Mha protected

Strict protection 17.7
Nonstrict protection 27.6
Other 33.4
Total 78.8
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

We calculated the rate of MPA expansion in seaweed ecosystems based on recorded year of establishment (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2024). Protection expanded by a median of 0.74 Mha/yr in subtidal brown seaweed ecosystems and 0.97 Mha/yr in subtidal red seaweed ecosystems (Table 4; Figure 3a). The global average rate of expansion was roughly 2.13 Mha/yr, with a median of 1.71 Mha/yr. The adoption trend for subtidal brown and red seaweed was relatively similar, with both expanding 0.46–0.55%/yr, on average (median of 0.39–0.40%/yr) (Figure 3b).

Table 4. 2000–2024 adoption trend. Global totals reflect independent statistics, not sums of subtidal brown and red values.

Unit: Mha/yr

25th percentile 0.40
Median (50th percentile) 0.74
Mean 1.01
75th percentile 1.31

Unit: Mha/yr

25th percentile 0.62
Median (50th percentile) 0.97
Mean 1.12
75th percentile 1.45

Unit: Mha/yr

25th percentile 1.02
Median (50th percentile) 1.71
Mean 2.13
75th percentile 2.76
Left Text Column Width

Figure 3. Trend in seaweed ecosystem protection (2000–2024) in terms of (A) total hectares protected and (B) the percent of the current adoption ceiling that is currently protected. These values reflect only the area located within Marine Protected Areas. Units: million hectares protected and percent protected relative to the adoption ceiling.

Enable Download
On
Adoption Ceiling

We estimated that approximately 430 Mha of wild seaweed ecosystems are available for protection (Table 5). Subtidal red seaweeds compose ~240 Mha, with subtidal brown seaweeds occupying the remaining ~190 Mha. These adoption areas do not include other types of seaweed habitats/ecosystems, such as those found in the intertidal zone, rhodolith beds, Halimeda bioherms, coral reefs, and pelagic, free-floating seaweed, which could account for an additional ~150 Mha (Duarte et al., 2022). These adoption areas are highly uncertain due to data limitations and are also likely to shift with climate change.

Table 5. Adoption ceiling: upper limit for the adoption of legal protection of seaweed ecosystems.

Unit: Mha

Estimate 189.6

Unit: Mha

Estimate 243.0

Unit: Mha

Estimate 432.6
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We defined the lower end of the achievable range for seaweed ecosystem protection (across all IUCN categories) as 50% of the adoption ceiling and the upper end of the achievable range as 70% of the adoption ceiling (Table 6). These adoption levels are ambitious relative to existing levels of protection (~18%), but align with targets to protect 30% of ecosystems by 2030 (Eger et al., 2024) and serve as an optimistic benchmark for the 30-year time horizon considered in our analysis. Several countries already protect more than 30% of subtidal brown seaweed ecosystems, such as kelp forests (Kelp Forest Alliance, 2024). For example, the United Kingdom, Japan, China, and France protect over 41%, 68%, 68%, and 47% of their kelp beds, respectively. 
 

Table 6: Range of achievable adoption levels for seaweed ecosystems.

Unit: Mha

Current adoption 78.8
Achievable – low 216.3
Achievable – high 302.9
Adoption ceiling 432.6
Left Text Column Width

We estimated that MPAs currently avoid emissions of 0.03 GtCO₂‑eq/yr in seaweed ecosystems, with potential impacts of 0.14 GtCO₂‑eq/yr at the adoption ceiling (Table 7). Achievable levels of seaweed ecosystem protection could safeguard 0.07 to 0.10 GtCO₂‑eq/yr by reducing emissions from biomass loss and retaining sequestration fluxes (Table 7). However, these estimates are highly uncertain and will benefit from more research (see Caveats).

Limited data exist on the potential climate impacts of seaweed ecosystem protection for comparison. However, a rough estimate of the benefits of conservation, restoration, and afforestation interventions of seaweeds suggests carbon benefits of at least 0.04 GtCO₂‑eq/yr (Pessarrodona et al., 2023). Other estimates suggest that total carbon sequestration in seaweed ecosystems could be on the order of 0.22–0.98 GtCO₂‑eq/yr (Krause-Jensen & Duarte, 2016). This is higher than our estimates because we account only for the carbon benefits of protection in seaweed ecosystems at risk of loss.

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption. Values may not sum to global totals due to rounding.

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.02
Achievable – low 0.05
Achievable – high 0.07
Adoption ceiling 0.11

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.01
Achievable – low 0.02
Achievable – high 0.02
Adoption ceiling 0.03

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.03
Achievable – low 0.07
Achievable – high 0.10
Adoption ceiling 0.14
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Extreme Weather Events

Seaweeds can provide coastal resilience to the impacts of storms by lowering wave heights before they reach shorelines (Corrigan et al., 2025; Cotas et al., 2023). The magnitude of this benefit can vary based on the species and location of seaweed, and some evidence suggests that severe storms can harm seaweed habitats (Earp et al., 2024). Evidence suggests that kelp forests can attenuate wave heights locally, especially in the summer at peak kelp growth, but protection varies at larger spatial scales (Elsmore et al., 2024; Lindhart et al., 2024). Emerging research has found that protected seaweed ecosystems show more resilience to marine heat waves than unprotected areas (Kumagai et al., 2024). During heat waves, protected ecosystems maintain a habitat for species such as sea urchins that consume species that might degrade kelp ecosystems (Bauer et al., 2025; Kumagai et al., 2024).

Income and Work

Seaweeds support species that are important for tourism and fishing (Cuba et al., 2022; Eger et al., 2023). Many species that are supported by seaweeds have high economic value for fishing, such as crabs, lobsters, and abalones (Corrigan et al., 2025). For example, Eger et al. (2023) estimated that 1 ha of kelp forest where about 900 kg of fish biomass is harvested could yield about US$29,900 a year. The same study estimated that the global value of kelp forests that support fisheries is about US$465–562 billion (Eger et al., 2023). Seaweed habitats can also be tourist destinations for snorkeling and diving (UNEP, 2023), providing income-earning opportunities for nearby communities.

Food Security

The contribution of seaweeds to fisheries production can play a role in global food security (Cottier-Cook et al., 2023; Eger et al., 2023). Additionally, seaweeds are an essential part of many diets, especially in East Asia (FAO, 2024). Because seaweeds are a culturally important food in many geographies, protecting seaweeds can play an important role in equitably improving global food security (FAO, 2024).

Equality

For some cultures, seaweeds and their habitats shape shared identities and livelihoods (Cotas et al., 2023). For example, seaweeds are a source of traditional foods, medicines, art, and knowledge for many coastal communities and Indigenous peoples (Thurstan et al., 2018). Protecting seaweeds can preserve the cultural identities, practices, and knowledge of Indigenous communities that are often vulnerable (Corrigan et al., 2025).

Nature Protection

Seaweeds support biodiversity by providing habitat for a variety of marine species (Best et al., 2014; Cuba et al., 2022; Gibbons & Quijón, 2023; Tano et al., 2016). Literature reviews of the ecosystem services of seaweeds find that they contribute to increases in biodiversity (Gibbons & Quijón, 2023). Seaweeds can provide habitat and refuge from large predators (Best et al., 2014; Gibbons & Quijón, 2023). Invertebrates, detritivores, and other small species found in seaweed forests are essential food sources for other marine species (Cuba et al., 2022; Tano et al., 2016). 

Water Quality

Seaweeds improve water quality by supporting nutrient cycling and reducing pollutants (Cotas et al., 2023; Heckwolf et al., 2021). Evidence suggests that seaweeds can reduce eutrophication by filtering excess nutrients from the water (Corrigan et al., 2025; Gao et al., 2022; Heckwolf et al., 2021). 

Risks

Leakage, in which protecting one ecosystem results in the degradation of another, could offset the climate impact of seaweed ecosystem protection. For instance, restricting wild harvesting through the establishment of an MPA could shift pressure to other unprotected areas. Another key risk is weakly enforced or poorly managed MPAs. This is a real concern with existing MPAs due to a lack of funding, and can result in low protection effectiveness. Finally, climate change stressors, such as ocean warming and marine heat waves, are a major risk to permanence because they could lead to widespread mortality, even in protected areas.

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Intact and healthy seaweed ecosystems can enhance fish stocks, biodiversity, and habitat quality, which benefits all connected coastal and marine ecosystems.

Protecting seaweed ecosystems can help ensure the underlying areas of the seafloor remain intact.

Competing

Protection of seaweed ecosystems could potentially reduce the adoption of offshore wind in some regions.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha of seaweed ecosystem protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
00.110.32estimate
units
Current 7.88×10⁷ 02.163×10⁸3.029×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.03 0.070.1
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-72
Emergency Brake

CO₂

Trade-offs

Seaweed ecosystems can release methane, which could reduce the climate benefits of protection estimated in this solution. While data are scarce, a recent study suggests that methane emissions could offset 28–35% of the carbon sink capacity in some seaweed ecosystems (Roth et al., 2023) if they escape to the atmosphere, which may be unlikely if methane production occurs at depth in sediments (Pessarrodona et al., 2023). 

Subtidal brown
Subtidal red
Both

Global subtidal seaweed ecosystem distribution

Seaweed ecosystems cover approximately 600 Mha of the ocean, an area twice the size of Argentina (Duarte et al., 2022). Here we show the estimated global distribution of subtidal red and brown seaweeds, though large uncertainty exists in their spatial distribution and extent.

Duarte, C. M., Gattuso, J. P., Hancke, K., Gundersen, H., Filbee-Dexter, K., Pedersen, M. F., Middelburg, J. J., Burrows, M. T., Krumhansl, K. A., Wernberg, T., Moore P., Pessarrodona, A., Ørberg, S. B., Pinto, I. S., Assis, J., Queirós, A. M., Smale, D. A., Bekkby, T., Serrão, E. A., & Krause-Jensen, D. (2022). Global estimates of the extent and production of macroalgal forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 31(7), 1422–1439. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13515

Subtidal brown
Subtidal red
Both

Global subtidal seaweed ecosystem distribution

Seaweed ecosystems cover approximately 600 Mha of the ocean, an area twice the size of Argentina (Duarte et al., 2022). Here we show the estimated global distribution of subtidal red and brown seaweeds, though large uncertainty exists in their spatial distribution and extent.

Duarte, C. M., Gattuso, J. P., Hancke, K., Gundersen, H., Filbee-Dexter, K., Pedersen, M. F., Middelburg, J. J., Burrows, M. T., Krumhansl, K. A., Wernberg, T., Moore P., Pessarrodona, A., Ørberg, S. B., Pinto, I. S., Assis, J., Queirós, A. M., Smale, D. A., Bekkby, T., Serrão, E. A., & Krause-Jensen, D. (2022). Global estimates of the extent and production of macroalgal forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 31(7), 1422–1439. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13515

Maps Introduction

While seaweed ecosystems are widely distributed across the global ocean, substantial uncertainty exists surrounding their distribution and extent (Kelp Forest Alliance, 2024; Duarte et al., 2022). The effectiveness of protection varies geographically and is likely to be highest in regions where the resource demands of management and enforcement are relatively low and chronic ecological threats are minimal or easy to address. However, because datasets needed to identify such priority regions are limited, we focus here on broad geographic patterns in seaweed extent and distribution.

Based on the most recent estimates of global extent, subtidal red and brown seaweeds cover nearly an order of magnitude greater area (~430 Mha) of the world’s oceans than do coastal wetlands (~55 Mha, see Protect Coastal Wetlands). Areas with subtidal brown seaweeds, such as kelp forests, are more effective per hectare than those with subtidal red seaweeds at mitigating climate change due to their generally higher biomass densities. Kelp forests are common in 25 countries. Canada, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Denmark contain more than 60% of the world’s kelp forests (~106.8 Mha), particularly in their high polar regions (Kelp Forest Alliance, 2024). In the Southern Hemisphere, Australia, New Zealand, Chile, and Argentina contain the greatest area of kelp forests (~27.8 Mha). Kelp forests in other countries are also critically important for sequestering carbon. Sixteen of the 25 countries with kelp forests have less than 5 Mha, and the median country-level extent is 4.2 Mha, highlighting the need for protection in these areas to achieve globally relevant levels of adoption. No country-level analyses exist for subtidal red seaweed ecosystems, and more research is needed to understand potential priority regions for subtidal red seaweed ecosystem protection.

Action Word
Protect
Solution Title
Seaweed Ecosystems
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Set achievable targets and pledges for seaweed protection with clear effectiveness goals; regularly measure and report on protection status, seaweed ecosystems, challenges, and related data points.
  • Help develop definitions, standards, strategies, and commitments at the international level for seaweed protection along with frameworks for measurement and monitoring; design indicators to capture long-term impacts, including metrics to capture social and biodiversity impacts.
  • Establish MPAs specifically for seaweeds and their habitats; target subtidal brown seaweeds for maximum climate benefits while not neglecting others such as red seaweeds; incorporate statutory protections for seaweeds in existing MPAs; expand MPA designations to meet international goals.
  • Create strong regulatory frameworks with clear goals and definitions for activities related to seaweed protection such as sustainable harvesting, protection, management, and restoration; ensure the framework is gender responsive and seeks to include women throughout the protection process.
  • Seek to identify local drivers of seaweed decline, address drivers of decline through stringent legal protections, ensure strict enforcement of regulations, and allow for restoration activities.
  • When designating new MPAs, prioritize strategies such as no-take-fishing regulations and strong enforcement measures with high penalties for noncompliance; target large (>100 km2) areas that can be protected over the long term (>10 years) and are ecologically isolated by natural barriers such as deep water and/or sand.
  • Consider placing MPAs near protected or undisturbed terrestrial areas to help avoid nutrient and other land pollution.
  • Codesign seaweed protection projects with the local community; ensure the community engagement process starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and management; ensure finalized protections address sociological, economic, and ecological considerations.
  • Coordinate seaweed protection and restoration policies horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts); seek to align social and environmental safeguards with seaweed protection policies and goals.
  • Develop regional and transboundary coordination mechanisms for seaweed protection, especially when working across international borders; consider using proven methods from adjacent issue areas such as freshwater management or combining MPA management with existing coordinating bodies.
  • Review MPA management plans, regulations, designs, and implementation strategies frequently to adjust for changing conditions; update as needed and ensure protections allow for changes to respond to climatic conditions.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC); codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Strengthen land tenure rights; grant Indigenous communities full property rights and autonomy to protect coastal areas and watersheds.
  • Center Indigenous communities and knowledge in MPA management strategies; help document and amplify Indigenous wisdom and practices.
  • Create programs to monitor for activity and market leakage from protected sites; adjust enforcement and policies to reduce leakage, if necessary.
  • Maintain up-to-date records of seaweed harvesting and populations; monitor impacts; adjust regulations and enforcement to ensure harvesting is sustainable.
  • Remove harmful agriculture subsidies, particularly those that incentivize livestock and overuse of fertilizers that can impact seaweed habitats and MPAs.
  • Put into place locally relevant laws and regulations that help indirectly protect seaweed ecosystems, such as bans on sea otter trapping or bottom trawling.
  • Create “climate-smart” MPAs that connect seaweed ecosystems, allow for gene exchanges, and adjust boundaries to address changing oceanic conditions; target protection of taxa such as brown seaweedss that maximize climate benefits while not neglecting others such as red seaweeds; incorporate climate refugia into MPAs; create strategies for MPAs to address both climate mitigation and adaptation.
  • Invest in research on seaweed biodiversity seeking to document new species, sample from underrepresented regions, and use the most up-to-date techniques to assess taxonomies; support efforts to update key databases such as the IUCN Red List; support research to improve confidence in estimates of global seaweed ecosystem extent, biomass, composition, productivity, and loss rates; monitor related long-term trends.
  • Create educational and volunteer programs that work with schools, universities, NGOs, and the general public to inform communities how to participate in seaweed protection efforts, benefits, and opportunities; expand extension services to develop local capacity in seaweed protection, especially in community-led monitoring and evaluation; establish knowledge-sharing initiatives with Indigenous peoples.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, protection activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify protected areas and sustainable use of seaweed products.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Set achievable targets and pledges for seaweed protection with clear effectiveness goals; regularly measure and report on protection status, seaweed ecosystems, challenges, and related data points.
  • Help develop definitions, standards, strategies, and commitments at the international level for seaweed protection along with frameworks for measurement and monitoring; design indicators to capture long term impacts, including metrics to capture social and biodiversity impacts.
  • Establish MPAs specifically for seaweeds and their habitats; target subtidal brown seaweeds for maximum climate benefits while not neglecting others such as red seaweeds; incorporate statutory protections for seaweeds in existing MPAs; expand MPA designations to meet international goals.
  • Help create strong regulatory frameworks with clear goals and definitions for activities related to seaweed protection such as sustainable harvesting, protection, management, and restoration; ensure the framework is gender responsive and seeks to include women throughout the protection process.
  • Seek to identify local drivers of seaweed decline, address drivers of decline through stringent legal protections, ensure strict enforcement of regulations, and allow for restoration activities.
  • When designating new MPAs, prioritize strategies such as no-take-fishing regulations and strong enforcement measures with high penalties for noncompliance; target large (>100 km2) areas that can be protected over the long term (>10 years) and are ecologically isolated by natural barriers such as deep water and/or sand.
  • Create “climate-smart” MPAs that connect seaweed ecosystems, allow for gene exchanges, and adjust boundaries to address changing oceanic conditions, target protection of taxa such as brown seaweeds that maximize climate benefits while not neglecting others such as red seaweeds; incorporate climate refugia into MPAs; create specific strategies for MPAs to address both climate mitigation and adaptation.
  • Consider placing MPAs near protected or undisturbed terrestrial areas to help avoid nutrient and other land pollution.
  • Codesign seaweed protection projects with the local community; ensure the community engagement process starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups – on location, design, finance, and management; ensure finalized protections address sociological, economic, and ecological considerations.
  • Develop regional and transboundary coordination mechanisms for seaweed protection - especially, when working across international borders; consider using proven methods from adjacent issue areas such as fresh-water management or combining MPA management with existing coordinating bodies.
  • Review MPA management plans, regulations, designs, and implementation strategies frequently to adjust for changing conditions; update as needed and ensure protections allow for changes to respond to climatic conditions.
  • Maintain detailed financial records of activities related to MPA designation and management; share costs publicly and provide recommendations for best practices.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; help codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Center Indigenous communities and knowledge in MPA management strategies; help document and amplify Indigenous wisdom and practices.
  • Work with businesses to develop markets for native species products and other sustainable uses of seaweed and MPAs.
  • Develop or support opportunities for ecotourism industries in local MPAs with particular emphasis on educating tourists of the importance of seaweed.
  • Create programs to monitor for activity and market leakage from protected sites; adjust enforcement and strategies to reduce leakage, if necessary.
  • Maintain up-to-date records of seaweed harvesting and existing populations; monitor impacts; adjust regulations and enforcement to ensure harvesting is sustainable.
  • Invest in research on seaweed biodiversity seeking to document new species, sample from underrepresented regions, and use the most up-to-date techniques to assess taxonomies; support efforts to update key databases such as the IUCN Red List; support research to improve confidence in estimates of global seaweed ecosystem extent, biomass, composition, productivity, and loss rates; monitor related long-term trends.
  • Create educational and volunteer programs that work with schools, universities, NGOs, and the general public to inform communities of how to participate in seaweed protection efforts, benefits, and opportunities; expand extension services to develop local capacity in seaweed protection, especially in community-led monitoring and evaluation; establish knowledge-sharing initiatives with Indigenous peoples.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, protection activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify protected areas and sustainable use of seaweed products.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Ensure operations, development, and supply chains are not degrading seaweed communities or interfering with MPA management.
  • Develop markets for native species products and other sustainable uses of seaweed and MPAs.
  • Develop or support opportunities for ecotourism industries in local MPAs with particular emphasis on educating tourists of the importance of seaweed.
  • Consider offering company grants to suppliers or other partners to improve resource management within your supply chain.
  • Offer incubator services for those working on seaweed protection; offer pro bono business advice or general support for community protection efforts.
  • Enter into outgrower schemes to support sustainable harvesters; make long-term commitments to help stabilize projects.
  • Consider donating or contributing to local seaweed protection efforts; consider using an internal carbon fee or setting aside a percentage of revenue to fund protection projects.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Leverage political influence to advocate for stronger seaweed protection policies at national and international levels.
  • Offer employee professional development funds to be used for certification in seaweed protection or related fields such as curricular economies.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, protection activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify protected areas and sustainable use of seaweed products.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Ensure operations, development, and supply chains are not degrading seaweed communities or interfering with MPA management, if relevant.
  • Assist in managing restoration projects; consider using alternative business structures such as cooperatives.
  • Develop seaweed protection tool kits specific for nations or regions; include best practices, management strategies, typical interventions, recommendations for regulations, and strategies for civil society to impact legal classifications and MPA designations.
  • Advocate for achievable targets and pledges for seaweed protection with clear effectiveness goals; help regularly measure and report on protection status, seaweed ecosystems, challenges, and related data points.
  • Help develop definitions, standards, strategies, and commitments at the international level for seaweed protection along with frameworks for measurement and monitoring; design indicators to capture long-term impacts, including metrics to capture social and biodiversity impacts.
  • Establish or advocate for the establishment of MPAs specifically for seaweeds and their habitats; target subtidal brown seaweeds for maximum climate benefits while not neglecting others such as red seaweeds; advocate for statutory protections for seaweeds in existing MPAs; help expand MPA designations to meet international goals.
  • Help create strong regulatory frameworks with clear goals and definitions for activities related to seaweed protection such as sustainable harvesting, protection, management, and restoration; ensure the framework is gender responsive and seeks to include women throughout the protection process.
  • Seek to identify local drivers of seaweed decline, help address causes when possible, and advocate for stringent legal protections with strict enforcement.
  • Help develop or advocate for regional and transboundary coordination mechanisms for protecting seaweeds, especially when working across international borders; consider using proven methods from adjacent issue areas such as freshwater management or combining MPA management with existing coordinating bodies.
  • Help review MPA management plans, regulations, designs, and implementation strategies frequently to adjust for changing conditions; update as needed and ensure protections allow for changes to respond to climatic conditions.
  • Codesign seaweed protection projects with the local community; ensure the community engagement process starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback from the local community – including from opposition groups–- on location, design, finance, and management strategies; ensure finalized protections address relevant sociological, economic, and ecological considerations.
  • Help maintain and/or audit detailed financial records of activities related to MPA designation and management; share costs publicly and provide recommendations for best practices.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; advocate to codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Center Indigenous communities and knowledge in MPA management strategies; help document and amplify Indigenous wisdom and practices.
  • Work with businesses to develop markets for native species products and other sustainable uses of seaweed and MPAs.
  • Develop or support opportunities for ecotourism industries in local MPAs with particular emphasis on educating tourists of the importance of seaweed.
  • Create programs to monitor for activity and market leakage from protected sites; advocate for adjustments to enforcement and policies to reduce leakage, if necessary.
  • Help establish outgrower schemes and negotiate contracts to support sustainable harvesters to ensure they receive the most favorable terms possible.
  • Assist in maintaining up-to-date records of seaweed harvesting and existing ecosystems; monitor impacts; advocate for adjustments to regulations and enforcement to ensure harvesting is sustainable.
  • Help create educational and volunteer programs that work with schools, universities, other NGOs, and the general public to inform communities of how to participate in seaweed protection efforts, benefits, and opportunities; develop local capacity in seaweed protection, especially in community-led monitoring and evaluation; establish knowledge-sharing initiatives with Indigenous peoples.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, protection activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify protected areas and sustainable use of seaweed products.

Further information:

Investors
  • Create investment portfolios that support seaweed protection and sustainable use; use current data and the latest technology to guide sustainable investments.
  • Apply environmental and social standards to existing investments; divest from destructive industries and/or work with portfolio companies to improve practices.
  • Offer specific credit lines for seaweed protection projects with long-term timelines; offer low-interest loans, microfinancing, and specific financial products for small and medium-sized projects.
  • Own equity in sustainable projects that manage or support seaweed protection, especially during the early and middle phases.
  • Offer incubator services for those working on seaweed protection; offer pro bono business advice or general support for community protection projects.
  • Provide catalytic financing for businesses developing sustainable products made from native species, local ecotourism, or other sustainable uses of seaweed and MPAs.
  • Invest in blue bonds or high-integrity carbon credits for seaweed protection or supportive efforts.
  • Support seaweed protection, other investors, and NGOs by sharing data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid investments that drive declines in seaweeds and damage their habitats.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, protection activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify protected areas and sustainable use of seaweed products.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Ensure operations, development, and supply chains are not degrading seaweed communities or interfering with MPA management, if relevant.
  • Help manage restoration projects; consider using alternative business structures such as cooperatives.
  • Offer grants or specific credit lines for seaweed protection projects with long-term timelines; offer low-interest loans, microfinancing options, and favorable financial products for small and medium-sized projects.
  • Own equity in sustainable projects that manage or support seaweed protection, especially during the early and middle phases.
  • Offer incubator services for those working on seaweed protection; offer free business advice or general support for community protection projects.
  • Provide catalytic financing for business developing sustainable products made from native species, local ecotourism, or other sustainable uses of reforested lands.
  • Develop seaweed protection tool kits specific for nations or regions; include best practices, management strategies, typical interventions, recommendations for regulations, and strategies for civil society to impact legal classifications and MPA designations.
  • Advocate for achievable targets and pledges for seaweed protection with clear effectiveness goals; help regularly measure and report on protection status, seaweed ecosystems, challenges, and related data points.
  • Help develop definitions, standards, strategies, and commitments at the international level for seaweed protection along with frameworks for measurement and monitoring; design indicators to capture long-term impacts, including metrics to capture social and biodiversity impacts.
  • Establish or advocate for the establishment of MPAs specifically for seaweeds and their habitats; target subtidal brown seaweeds for maximum climate benefits while not neglecting other taxa such as red seaweeds; advocate for statutory protections for seaweeds in existing MPAs; help expand MPA designations to meet international goals.
  • Help create strong regulatory frameworks with clear goals and definitions for activities related to seaweed protection such as sustainable harvesting, protection, management, and restoration; ensure the framework is gender responsive and seeks to include women throughout the protection process.
  • Help develop or advocate for regional and transboundary coordination mechanisms for protecting seaweeds, especially when working across international borders; consider using proven methods from adjacent issue areas such as freshwater management or combining MPA management with existing coordinating bodies.
  • Help review MPA management plans, regulations, designs, and implementation strategies frequently to adjust for changing conditions; update as needed and ensure protections allow for changes to respond to climatic conditions.
  • Help maintain and/or audit detailed financial records of activities related to MPA designation and management; share costs publicly and provide recommendations for best practices.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; advocate to codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Center Indigenous communities and knowledge in MPA management strategies; help document and amplify Indigenous wisdom and practices.
  • Work with businesses to develop markets for native species products and other sustainable uses of seaweeds and MPAs.
  • Develop or support opportunities for ecotourism industries in local MPAs with particular emphasis on educating tourists of the importance of seaweed.
  • Create programs to monitor for activity and market leakage from protected sites; advocate for adjustments to enforcement and policies to reduce leakage, if necessary.
  • Help establish outgrower schemes and negotiate contracts to support sustainable harvesters to ensure they receive the most favorable terms possible.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, protection activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify protected areas and sustainable use of seaweed products.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • If possible, initiate seaweed protection projects in your area; work with local experts, share your experience, and document your progress.
  • Advocate for achievable targets and pledges for seaweed protection with clear effectiveness goals; help regularly measure and report on protection status, seaweed ecosystems, challenges, and related data points.
  • Help develop definitions, standards, strategies, and commitments at the international level for seaweed protection along with frameworks for measurement and monitoring; design indicators to capture long-term impacts, including metrics to capture social and biodiversity impacts.
  • Establish or advocate for the establishment of MPAs specifically for seaweeds and their habitats; target subtidal brown seaweeds for maximum climate benefits while not neglecting others such as red seaweeds; advocate for statutory protections for seaweeds in existing MPAs; help expand MPA designations to meet international goals.
  • Help create strong regulatory frameworks with clear goals and definitions for activities related to seaweed protection such as sustainable harvesting, protection, management, and restoration; ensure the framework is gender responsive and seeks to include women throughout the protection process.
  • Help develop or advocate for regional and transboundary coordination mechanisms for protecting seaweeds, especially, when working across international borders; consider using proven methods from adjacent issue areas such as freshwater management or combining MPA management with existing coordinating bodies.
  • Help review MPA management plans, regulations, designs, and implementation strategies frequently to adjust for changing conditions; update as needed and ensure protections allow for changes to respond to climatic conditions.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; advocate to codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Center Indigenous communities and knowledge in MPA management strategies; help document and amplify Indigenous wisdom and practices.
  • Work with businesses to develop markets for native species products and other sustainable uses of seaweeds and MPAs.
  • Develop or support opportunities for ecotourism industries in local MPAs with particular emphasis on educating tourists of the importance of seaweed.
  • Create programs to monitor for activity and market leakage from protected sites; advocate for adjustments to enforcement and policies to reduce leakage, if necessary.
  • Help establish outgrower schemes and negotiate contracts to support sustainable harvesters to ensure they receive the most favorable terms possible.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, protection activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify protected areas and sustainable use of seaweed products.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Help develop spatial distribution models of seaweed ecosystems combining field surveys, satellite data, and machine learning to help identify likely locations of seaweed and vulnerable ecosystems; conduct field observations to validate and/or improve models; update existing or create new databases with the information.
  • Help improve confidence in estimates of global seaweed ecosystems and monitor related long-term trends, including impacts of harvesting and adaptive capacity of seaweeds.
  • Conduct research on seaweed biodiversity seeking to document new species, sample from underrepresented regions, and use the most up-to-date techniques to assess taxonomies; help update key databases such as the IUCN Red List.
  • Help develop national seedstocks and biosecure nurseries for local and vulnerable seaweed.
  • Research the interactions of disturbances such as overfishing, eutrophication, coastal darkening, invasive species, climate change, and other related variables on seaweed ecosystems; identify loss rates and protection strategies to mitigate impacts from these events.
  • Examine and document ecosystem functions of various seaweed varieties, including their productivity and potential contributions to carbon removal; research the benefits of seaweed protection for human well-being.
  • Help classify existing MPAs according to IUCN categories; monitor ongoing efforts; use learnings to inform management.
  • Help gather accurate financial data on MPAs; assess average and global costs; provide cost projections for potential MPA sites; assess financial gains provided by MPAs, such as increased tourism and economic activity.
  • Work with Indigenous communities under FPIC to help document, examine, and apply traditional practices; help amplify relevant Indigenous knowledge.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • If possible, initiate seaweed protection projects in your area; work with local experts, share your experience, and document your progress.
  • Help establish and participate in local protection efforts; consider volunteering with a local nonprofit or establishing one if none exists.
  • Conduct citizen science research to map and monitor local seaweed communities; share your findings with policymakers, local experts, and the public.
  • If seaweed communities are being damaged in your area and no action is being taken, conduct individual advocacy by speaking to local officials, handing out fliers, and other relevant methods.
  • Help identify local sources of degradation and distribute findings to policymakers and the public; help address causes when possible and advocate for stringent legal protections with strict enforcement.
  • Call on governments and administrators to use transparent, inclusive, and ongoing community engagement processes to codesign seaweed protection projects; help solicit community feedback on area designations, finance, monitoring, and distribution of benefits; help ensure finalized projects address relevant sociological, economic, and ecological considerations.
  • Reduce and/or eliminate use of chemicals on your lawn and/or property to reduce pollution runoff, especially if your property contains or is located on a coastally connected watershed; set up a sign that indicates your lawn is chemical-free.
  • Have community conversations about local seaweed habitats, MPAs, and local drivers of damage; seek to reduce harmful practices such as overuse of fertilizers and pesticides; educate friends and neighbors about local degraded seaweed habitats and potential solutions.
  • Consider donating or contributing to local protection efforts.
  • Try to purchase sustainable seaweed products that support local protection efforts.
  • When traveling, look for opportunities to support seaweed protection projects and ecotourism.
  • Advocate for strong land tenure rights; support Indigenous property rights and autonomy to protect watersheds and adjacent terrestrial systems to seaweed habitats.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; help codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Help document and develop knowledge-sharing opportunities for Indigenous and local knowledge.
  • Help create educational and volunteer programs that work with schools, universities, NGOs, and the general public to inform communities of how to participate in seaweed protection efforts, benefits, and opportunities; develop local capacity in seaweed protection, especially in community-led monitoring and evaluation; establish knowledge-sharing initiatives with Indigenous peoples.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, protection activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify protected areas and sustainable use of seaweed products.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness at reducing emissions and maintaining carbon removal: Mixed

There is mixed scientific consensus that protection prevents the degradation of seaweed ecosystems, but high consensus that degradation leads to losses in biomass carbon stocks and sequestration capacity. Seaweed ecosystems can be degraded by diverse stressors that directly or indirectly affect biomass stocks. Management actions, such as establishment of MPAs, can help prevent both direct and indirect habitat loss and thereby maintain the carbon removal capacity of seaweed ecosystems with relatively high certainty against stressors such as wild harvesting, coastal development, overgrazing, and poor water quality (Pessarrodona et al., 2023). However, some stressors, such as marine heat waves and ocean warming, are less effectively addressed by protection alone (Filbee-Dexter et al., 2024a). Benefits are still expected in some systems because MPAs can enhance resilience and recovery by reducing co-occurring stressors common that contribute to seaweed ecosystem degradation (Krumhansl et al., 2016; Ortiz-Villa et al., 2025). Moreover, MPAs, even when established in areas with addressable stressors, are typically not fully effective. Here, we applied a protection effectiveness of 53%, based on aggregated estimates from MPAs beyond seaweed ecosystems (Rodríguez-Rodríguez & Martínez-Vega, 2022). If the effectiveness of protection is lower (higher), climate impacts could likewise be lower (higher).

There is high scientific consensus that degradation of seaweed ecosystems leads to losses in biomass carbon stocks and sequestration capacity. While direct estimates of CO₂ emissions from biomass are limited, degradation has been shown to remove biomass carbon and reduce sequestration. For instance, drivers of habitat loss and degradation, such as overharvesting (González-Roca et al., 2021; Steen et al., 2016), overgrazing (Akaike & Mizuta, 2024), and poor water quality (Filbee-Dexter & Wernberg, 2020), reduce standing biomass and therefore associated carbon export from seaweed ecosystems (Pessarrodona et al., 2023). 

The carbon sink capacity of seaweed ecosystems, such as kelp forests, is also expected to decline with climate change stressors such as warming, which can increase rates of decomposition by 9–42% (Filbee-Dexter et al., 2022) and drive habitat loss, both of which reduce the likelihood that carbon makes its way to the deep sea for long-term storage. Off the coast of Australia, over 140,000 ha of subtidal brown seaweed forests have already been lost to warming over two decades, representing a decline of 2–4% of regional seaweed biomass carbon stocks and sequestration capacity (Filbee-Dexter & Wernberg, 2020).

The results presented in this assessment synthesize findings from 5 global datasets. We recognize that geographic bias in the information underlying global data products creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions and on understudied aspects of these ecosystems.

Appendix

This analysis quantifies emissions that can be avoided by protecting seaweed ecosystems via the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). We leveraged two global seaweed distribution maps alongside a shapefile of MPAs, available data on rates of avoided ecosystem loss attributable to MPA establishment, and global data on biomass carbon stores and carbon sequestration rates to calculate climate impacts. This appendix describes the source data products and how they were integrated.

Seaweed Ecosystem Extent

We relied on the global maps of seaweed extent developed by Duarte et al. (2022), which classify subtidal brown and red seaweeds (among others). We used the “LT2 Brown Algae Benthic” raster to calculate subtidal brown seaweed extent and the “LT2 Red Algae Benthic” raster to calculate subtidal red seaweed extent. We did not consider red seaweed in subtidal brown-dominant environments, such as kelp forests, due to existing limitations with the global maps. 

Protected Seaweed Ecosystem Areas

We identified protected seaweed ecosystem areas using the World Database on Protected Areas (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2024), which contains boundaries for each MPA and additional information, including the establishment year and IUCN management category (Ia to VI, not applicable, not reported, or not assigned). In this analysis, we considered all categories. While some MPA categories likely allow for wild harvest, which can be unsustainably conducted, wild seaweed harvest is currently estimated at 1.3 Mt/yr (wet weight) (FAO, 2024), which represents a relatively small portion of the global loss rate used (<0.2%/yr). We converted the MPA boundary data to a raster and used them to calculate the seaweed area within MPA boundaries for each seaweed type analyzed (subtidal brown and red) and each MPA category. To evaluate trends in adoption over time, we also aggregated protected areas by establishment year as reported in the WDPA. 

Calculation of Effectiveness

The following equations show a detailed breakdown of the stepwise set of calculations used to implement Equation 1, including estimation of avoided seaweed loss and of emissions and retained sequestration across the 30-year time horizon considered.

Avoided Seaweed Ecosystem Conversion

We compiled baseline estimates of seaweed ecosystem loss (%/yr) from existing literature and used them in conjunction with an estimate of reductions in loss associated with protection of 53% (derived from Rodríguez-Rodríguez & Martínez-Vega, 2022) to calculate the rate of avoidable macroalgae loss (Seaweed lossavoided). Seaweed ecosystem loss rates were based on the original analysis of data aggregated from Krumhansl et al. (2016) for studies over 20 years long (Seaweed lossbaseline; median loss rate of 1.2%/yr). 

Equation A1.

\[ Seaweed\ loss_{avoided}=Seaweed\ loss_{baseline} \times Reduction\ in\ loss\]

We then used the avoidable seaweed loss rates to calculate avoided CO₂ emissions and additional carbon sequestration for each adoption unit. Specifically, we estimated the carbon benefits of avoided seaweed ecosystem loss by multiplying avoided seaweed ecosystem loss by avoided CO₂ emissions (Equation A2) and by applying carbon sequestration rates over 30 years (Equation A3) for each seaweed type. 

We estimated avoided CO₂ emissions by assuming a one-time release of all aboveground biomass carbon upon loss. We derived our estimates of retained carbon sequestration from global databases on NPP for each seaweed type from Duarte et al. (2022) and a global estimate of NPP-derived sequestration (11.4%) from NPP based on Krause-Jensen and Duarte (2016). 

Equation A2.

\[Avoided\ emissions= Seaweed\ loss_{avoided} \times \sum_{t=1}^{30}(Emissions)\]

Equation A3.

\[Sequestration= Seaweed\ loss_{avoided} \times \sum_{t=1}^{30}(Sequestration)\]

We then estimated effectiveness (Equation A4) as the avoided CO₂ emissions and retained carbon sequestration capacity attributable to the reduction in seaweed ecosystem loss conferred by protection estimated in Equations A1–3.

Equation A4.

\[Effectiveness = (Carbon_{avoided\ emissions}+ Carbon_{sequestration})\]
Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Restore Forests

Sector
Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Remove Carbon
Cluster
Restore & Manage Ecosystems
Image
person planting trees
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Forest restoration is the process of returning previously forested land to a forested state. As forests regrow, they remove carbon from the atmosphere and sequester it in biomass.

Heat stress,Wildfires,Floods,Droughts
Income & work,Food security,Health,Equality
Nature protection,Water quality
Description for Social and Search
Restore Forests is a Highly Recommended climate solution. Diverse, healthy forests sequester carbon as biomass.
Overview

We define forest restoration as planting new trees or allowing trees to naturally regrow on previously forested land that has been cleared. Through photosynthesis, forests take carbon from the atmosphere and store it in biomass. On net, forests currently take up an estimated 11.4–14.7 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr  (Friedlingstein et al., 2023; Gibbs et al., 2025; Pan et al., 2024), equal to approximately 19–25% of total global anthropogenic GHG emissions (Dhakal et al., 2022). Restoring forests increases the size of the forest carbon sink, sequestering additional CO₂.  

As commonly defined, restoration ranges from improving management of existing ecosystems, to re-establishing cleared ecosystems, to maintaining the health of functional ecosystems. Forest restoration includes activities such as exclusion of non-native grazing animals from a regenerating site, weed management, assisted seed dispersal, controlled burning, stand thinning, direct seeding, soil amendment, tree planting, and modification of topography or hydrology and other activities (Chazdon et al., 2024; Gann et al., 2022; Kübler & Günter 2024). While acknowledging that all restoration occurs along a spectrum of intervention intensity, we report effectiveness, cost, and adoption data for “low intensity” and “high intensity” restoration separately, with “low intensity” restoration including all interventions up to, but not including, tree planting, and “high intensity” restoration referring to direct seeding or seedling planting. To account for variability in carbon sequestration rates and area available for forest restoration, this analysis also evaluates forest restoration in boreal, temperate, subtropical, and tropical regions separately where possible.

Our definition of forest restoration is more limited than that used by many other sources. First, we only include reforestation of previously forested land with an element of direct human intervention, and therefore exclude entirely passive tree regrowth on abandoned land (i.e., unassisted natural regeneration) and afforestation of native grasslands and savannas. We also exclude areas currently used for crop production. To avoid double counting, we also do not include activities covered in other Project Drawdown solutions, including increasing carbon stocks in existing forests and establishing timber plantations, agroforestry, or silvopasture (see Improve Forest Management, Deploy Biomass Crops on Degraded Land, Deploy Agroforestry, and Deploy Silvopasture, respectively). Restoration of mangroves and forests on peat soils is also excluded, as this is covered in the Restore Coastal Wetlands and Restore Peatlands solutions. Because the scope of this solution is narrower than that of many other studies, the estimated impacts are correspondingly lower as well. 

Intact and regenerating forests take up carbon, but human clearing of forests for logging, agriculture, and other activities emits carbon. Humans clear an estimated 15.5 Mha of forests annually, emitting ~7.4 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (2001–2024; Harris et al., 2021; Gibbs et al., 2025; Sims et al., 2025). Protecting existing forests reduces emissions from deforestation (see Protect Forests) and is an essential complement to forest restoration. 

References

Adams, C., Rodrigues, S. T., Calmon, M., & Kumar, C. (2016). Impacts of large-scale forest restoration on socioeconomic status and local livelihoods: What we know and do not know. Biotropica, 48(6), 731–744. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12385

Ager, A. A., Vogler, K. C., Day, M. A., & Bailey, J. D. (2017). Economic opportunities and trade-offs in collaborative forest landscape restoration. Ecological Economics, 136, 226–239. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.001

Andres, S. E., Standish, R. J., Lieurance, P. E., Mills, C. H., Harper, R. J., Butler, D. W., Adams, V. M., Lehmann, C., Tetu, S. G., Cuneo, P., Offord, C. A., & Gallagher, R. V. (2023). Defining biodiverse reforestation: Why it matters for climate change mitigation and biodiversity. Plants, People, Planet, 5(1), 27–38. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10329

Austin, K. G., Baker, J. S., Sohngen, B. L., Wade, C. M., Daigneault, A., Ohrel, S. B., Ragnauth, S., & Bean, A. (2020). The economic costs of planting, preserving, and managing the world’s forests to mitigate climate change. Nature Communications, 11(1), Article 5946. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19578-z

Bastin, J.-F., Finegold, Y., Garcia, C., Mollicone, D., Rezende, M., Routh, D., Zohner, C. M., & Crowther, T. W. (2019). The global tree restoration potential. Science, 365(6448), 76–79. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0848

Begliomini, F. N., & Brancalion, P. H. S. (2024). Are state-of-the-art LULC maps able to track ecological restoration efforts in Brazilian Atlantic forest? IGARSS 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 4748–4752. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS53475.2024.10641177

Beltrão, M. G., Gonçalves, C. F., Brancalion, P. H. S., Carmignotto, A. P., Silveira, L. F., Galetti, P. M., & Galetti, M. (2024). Priority areas and implementation of ecological corridor through forest restoration to safeguard biodiversity. Scientific Reports, 14(1), Article 30837. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81483-y

Bernal, B., Murray, L. T., & Pearson, T. R. H. (2018). Global carbon dioxide removal rates from forest landscape restoration activities. Carbon Balance and Management, 13(1), Article 22. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-018-0110-8

Betts, R. A. (2000). Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo. Nature, 408(6809), 187–190. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/35041545

Bialic-Murphy, L., McElderry, R. M., Esquivel-Muelbert, A., van den Hoogen, J., Zuidema, P. A., Phillips, O. L., de Oliveira, E. A., Loayza, P. A., Alvarez-Davila, E., Alves, L. F., Maia, V. A., Vieira, S. A., Arantes da Silva, L. C., Araujo-Murakami, A., Arets, E., Astigarraga, J., Baccaro, F., Baker, T., Banki, O., … Crowther, T. W. (2024). The pace of life for forest trees. Science, 386(6717), 92–98. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adk9616

Bliege Bird, R., & Nimmo, D. (2018). Restore the lost ecological functions of people. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(7), 1050–1052. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0576-5

Brancalion, P. H. S., de Siqueira, L. P., Amazonas, N. T., Rizek, M. B., Mendes, A. F., Santiami, E. L., Rodrigues, R. R., Calmon, M., Benini, R., Tymus, J. R. C., Holl, K. D., & Chaves, R. B. (2022). Ecosystem restoration job creation potential in Brazil. People and Nature, 4(6), 1426–1434. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10370

Brancalion, P. H. S., Hua, F., Joyce, F. H., Antonelli, A., & Holl, K. D. (2025). Moving biodiversity from an afterthought to a key outcome of forest restoration. Nature Reviews Biodiversity, 1(4), 248–261.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00032-1

Brumberg, H., Margaret Hegwood, Eichhorst, W., LoPresti, A., Erbaugh, J. T., & Kroeger, T. (2025). Global analysis of constraints to natural climate solution implementation. PNAS Nexus, 4(6), Article pgaf173. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf173

Bukoski, J. J., Cook-Patton, S. C., Melikov, C., Ban, H., Chen, J. L., Goldman, E. D., Harris, N. L., & Potts, M. D. (2022). Rates and drivers of aboveground carbon accumulation in global monoculture plantation forests. Nature Communications, 13(1), Article 4206. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31380-7

Busch, J., Bukoski, J. J., Cook-Patton, S. C., Griscom, B., Kaczan, D., Potts, M. D., Yi, Y., & Vincent, J. R. (2024). Cost-effectiveness of natural forest regeneration and plantations for climate mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 14(9), 996–1002. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02068-1

Chaplin-Kramer, R., Ramler, I., Sharp, R., Haddad, N. M., Gerber, J. S., West, P. C., Mandle, L., Engstrom, P., Baccini, A., Sim, S., Mueller, C., & King, H. (2015). Degradation in carbon stocks near tropical forest edges. Nature Communications, 6(1), Article 10158. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10158

Chazdon, R. L., Falk, D. A., Banin, L. F., Wagner, M., J. Wilson, S., Grabowski, R. C., & Suding, K. N. (2024). The intervention continuum in restoration ecology: Rethinking the active–passive dichotomy. Restoration Ecology, 32(8), Article e13535. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13535

Chazdon, R. L., & Guariguata, M. R. (2016). Natural regeneration as a tool for large-scale forest restoration in the tropics: Prospects and challenges. Biotropica, 48(6), 716–730. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12381

Chazdon, R. L., Wilson, S. J., Brondizio, E., Guariguata, M. R., & Herbohn, J. (2021). Key challenges for governing forest and landscape restoration across different contexts. Land Use Policy, 104, Article 104854. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104854

Cook-Patton, S. C., Leavitt, S. M., Gibbs, D., Harris, N. L., Lister, K., Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Briggs, R. D., Chazdon, R. L., Crowther, T. W., Ellis, P. W., Griscom, H. P., Herrmann, V., Holl, K. D., Houghton, R. A., Larrosa, C., Lomax, G., Lucas, R., Madsen, P., Malhi, Y., … Griscom, B. W. (2020). Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth. Nature, 585(7826), 545–550. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x

Crouzeilles, R., Barros, F. S. M., Molin, P. G., Ferreira, M. S., Junqueira, A. B., Chazdon, R. L., Lindenmayer, D. B., Tymus, J. R. C., Strassburg, B. B. N., & Brancalion, P. H. S. (2019). A new approach to map landscape variation in forest restoration success in tropical and temperate forest biomes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 56(12), 2675–2686. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13501

Crouzeilles, R., Curran, M., Ferreira, M. S., Lindenmayer, D. B., Grelle, C. E. V., & Rey Benayas, J. M. (2016). A global meta-analysis on the ecological drivers of forest restoration success. Nature Communications, 7(1), Article 11666. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11666

Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A., & Hansen, M. C. (2018). Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science, 361(6407), 1108–1111. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau3445

Dhakal, S., J.C. Minx, F.L. Toth, A. Abdel-Aziz, M.J. Figueroa Meza, K. Hubacek, I.G.C. Jonckheere, Yong-Gun Kim, G.F. Nemet, S. Pachauri, X.C. Tan, T. Wiedmann, 2022: Emissions Trends and Drivers. 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. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.004

De Groot, R. S., Blignaut, J., Van Der Ploeg, S., Aronson, J., Elmqvist, T., & Farley, J. (2013). Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conservation Biology, 27(6), 1286–1293. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12158

de Souza, S. E. X. F., Vidal, E., Chagas, G. de F., Elgar, A. T., & Brancalion, P. H. S. (2016). Ecological outcomes and livelihood benefits of community-managed agroforests and second growth forests in Southeast Brazil. Biotropica, 48(6), 868–881. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12388

Di Sacco, A., Hardwick, K. A., Blakesley, D., Brancalion, P. H. S., Breman, E., Cecilio Rebola, L., Chomba, S., Dixon, K., Elliott, S., Ruyonga, G., Shaw, K., Smith, P., Smith, R. J., & Antonelli, A. (2021). Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits. Global Change Biology, 27(7), 1328–1348. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15498

Dib, V., Brancalion, P. H. S., Chan Chou, S., Cooper, M., Ellison, D., Farjalla, V. F., Filoso, S., Meli, P., Pires, A. P. F., Rodriguez, D. A., Iribarrem, A., Latawiec, A. E., Scarano, F. R., Vogl, A. L., de Viveiros Grelle, C. E., & Strassburg, B. (2023). Shedding light on the complex relationship between forest restoration and water services. Restoration Ecology, 31(5), Article e13890. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13890

dos Reis Oliveira, P. C., Gualda, G. A. F., Rossi, G. F., Camargo, A. F. M., Filoso, S., Brancalion, P. H., & Ferraz, S. F. de B. (2025). Forest restoration improves habitat and water quality in tropical streams: A multiscale landscape assessment. Science of The Total Environment, 963, Article 178256. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.178256

Fargione, J., Haase, D. L., Burney, O. T., Kildisheva, O. A., Edge, G., Cook-Patton, S. C., Chapman, T., Rempel, A., Hurteau, M. D., Davis, K. T., Dobrowski, S., Enebak, S., De La Torre, R., Bhuta, A. A. R., Cubbage, F., Kittler, B., Zhang, D., & Guldin, R. W. (2021). Challenges to the reforestation pipeline in the United States. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 4, Article 629198. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.629198

Fesenmyer, K. A., Poor, E. E., Terasaki Hart, D. E., Veldman, J. W., Fleischman, F., Choksi, P., Archibald, S., Armani, M., Fagan, M. E., Fricke, E. C., Terrer, C., Hasler, N., Williams, C. A., Ellis, P. W., & Cook-Patton, S. C. (2025). Addressing critiques refines global estimates of reforestation potential for climate change mitigation. Nature Communications, 16(1), Article 4572. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59799-8

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

Friedlingstein, P., O’Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., Landschützer, P., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Anthoni, P., … Zheng, B. (2023). Global carbon budget 2023. Earth System Science Data, 15(12), 5301–5369. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023

Gann, G. D., Walder, B., Gladstone, J., Manirajah, S. M., & Roe, S. (2022). Restoration project information sharing framework. Climate Focus and The Society for Ecological Restoration. Link to source: https://globalrestorationobservatory.com/restoration-project-information-sharing-framework/

Gardon, F. R., Toledo, R. M. de, Brentan, B. M., & Santos, R. F. dos. (2020). Rainfall interception and plant community in young forest restorations. Ecological Indicators, 109, Article 105779. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105779

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

Gibbs, D. A., Rose, M., Grassi, G., Melo, J., Rossi, S., Heinrich, V., & Harris, N. L. (2024). Revised and updated geospatial monitoring of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Earth System Science Data Discussions, 17(3), 1217-1243. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-397

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

Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S. V., Goetz, S. J., Loveland, T. R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C. O., & Townshend, J. R. G. (2013). High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science, 342(6160), 850–853. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693

Harris, N. L., Gibbs, D. A., Baccini, A., Birdsey, R. A., de Bruin, S., Farina, M., Fatoyinbo, L., Hansen, M. C., Herold, M., Houghton, R. A., Potapov, P. V., Suarez, D. R., Roman-Cuesta, R. M., Saatchi, S. S., Slay, C. M., Turubanova, S. A., & Tyukavina, A. (2021). Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nature Climate Change, 11(3), 234–240. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6

Hasler, N., Williams, C. A., Denney, V. C., Ellis, P. W., Shrestha, S., Terasaki Hart, D. E., Wolff, N. H., Yeo, S., Crowther, T. W., Werden, L. K., & Cook-Patton, S. C. (2024). Accounting for albedo change to identify climate-positive tree cover restoration. Nature Communications, 15(1), Article 2275. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46577-1

Herrera, D., Ellis, A., Fisher, B., Golden, C. D., Johnson, K., Mulligan, M., Pfaff, A., Treuer, T., & Ricketts, T. H. (2017). Upstream watershed condition predicts rural children’s health across 35 developing countries. Nature Communications, 8(1), Article 811. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00775-2

Hua, F., Bruijnzeel, L. A., Meli, P., Martin, P. A., Zhang, J., Nakagawa, S., Miao, X., Wang, W., McEvoy, C., Peña-Arancibia, J. L., Brancalion, P. H. S., Smith, P., Edwards, D. P., & Balmford, A. (2022). The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches. Science, 376(6595), 839–844. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl4649

Kabeja, C., Li, R., Guo, J., Rwatangabo, D. E. R., Manyifika, M., Gao, Z., Wang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2020). The impact of reforestation induced land cover change (1990–2017) on flood peak discharge using HEC-HMS hydrological model and satellite observations: A study in two mountain basins, China. Water, 12(5), Article 1347. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051347

Keesing, F., & Ostfeld, R. S. (2021). Impacts of biodiversity and biodiversity loss on zoonotic diseases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(17), Article e2023540118. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023540118

Kroeger, T., Erbaugh, J., Luo, Z., Brumberg, H., Eichhorst, W., Hegwood, M., LoPresti, A., Shyamsundar, P., Ellis, P., Oakes, L., Martin, D., Brancalion, P., Bourne, M., Jagadish, A., Austin, K., Kinzer, A., Sanjuán, M., McCullough, L., & Echavarria, M. (2025). Implementation constraints on natural climate solutions: A global literature review and survey. Research Square. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6890465/v1

Kübler, D., & Günter, S. (2024). Forest restoration for climate change mitigation and adaptation. In P. Katila, C. J. Pierce Colfer, W. de Jong, G. Galloway, P. Pacheco, & G. Winkel (Eds.), Restoring Forests and Trees for Sustainable Development: Policies, Practices, Impacts, and Ways Forward (p. 135-159). Oxford University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/9780197683958.003.0006

Kumar, C., Calmon, M., & Saint-Laurent, C. (Eds.) (with Begeladze, S.). (2015). Enhancing food security through forest landscape restoration: Lessons from Burkina Faso, Brazil, Guatemala, Viet Nam, Ghana, Ethiopia and Philippines. IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2015.FR.2.en

Lawrence, D., Coe, M., Walker, W., Verchot, L., & Vandecar, K. (2022). The unseen effects of deforestation: Biophysical effects on climate. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5, Article 756115. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.756115

Löfqvist, S., Kleinschroth, F., Bey, A., de Bremond, A., DeFries, R., Dong, J., Fleischman, F., Lele, S., Martin, D. A., Messerli, P., Meyfroidt, P., Pfeifer, M., Rakotonarivo, S. O., Ramankutty, N., Ramprasad, V., Rana, P., Rhemtulla, J. M., Ryan, C. M., Vieira, I. C. G., … Garrett, R. D. (2023). How social considerations improve the equity and effectiveness of ecosystem restoration. BioScience, 73(2), 134–148. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac099

Mariappan, M., & Zumbado, A. R. (2024). Global Restoration Commitments and Pledges: 2024 Report. International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

Melo, F. P. L., Parry, L., Brancalion, P. H. S., Pinto, S. R. R., Freitas, J., Manhães, A. P., Meli, P., Ganade, G., & Chazdon, R. L. (2021). Adding forests to the water–energy–food nexus. Nature Sustainability, 4(2), 85–92. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00608-z

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 

Naidoo, R., Gerkey, D., Hole, D., Pfaff, A., Ellis, A. M., Golden, C. D., Herrera, D., Johnson, K., Mulligan, M., Ricketts, T. H., & Fisher, B. (2019). Evaluating the impacts of protected areas on human well-being across the developing world. Science Advances, 5(4), Article eaav3006. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav3006

North, M. P., Stevens, J. T., Greene, D. F., Coppoletta, M., Knapp, E. E., Latimer, A. M., Restaino, C. M., Tompkins, R. E., Welch, K. R., York, R. A., Young, D. J. N., Axelson, J. N., Buckley, T. N., Estes, B. L., Hager, R. N., Long, J. W., Meyer, M. D., Ostoja, S. M., Safford, H. D., … Wyrsch, P. (2019). Tamm review: Reforestation for resilience in dry western U.S. forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 432, 209–224. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.09.007

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. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07602-x

Piffer, P. R., Rosa, M. R., Tambosi, L. R., Metzger, J. P., & Uriarte, M. (2022). Turnover rates of regenerated forests challenge restoration efforts in the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Environmental Research Letters, 17(4), Article 045009. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac5ae1

Poorter, L., van der Sande, M. T., Thompson, J., Arets, E. J. M. M., Alarcón, A., Álvarez-Sánchez, J., Ascarrunz, N., Balvanera, P., Barajas-Guzmán, G., Boit, A., Bongers, F., Carvalho, F. A., Casanoves, F., Cornejo-Tenorio, G., Costa, F. R. C., de Castilho, C. V., Duivenvoorden, J. F., Dutrieux, L. P., Enquist, B. J., … Peña-Claros, M. (2015). Diversity enhances carbon storage in tropical forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 24(11), 1314–1328. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12364

Reddington, C. L., Butt, E. W., Ridley, D. A., Artaxo, P., Morgan, W. T., Coe, H., & Spracklen, D. V. (2015). Air quality and human health improvements from reductions in deforestation-related fire in Brazil. Nature Geoscience, 8(10), 768–771. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2535

Reddington, C. L., Smith, C., Butt, E. W., Baker, J. C. A., Oliveira, B. F. A., Yamba, E. I., & Spracklen, D. V. (2025). Tropical deforestation is associated with considerable heat-related mortality. Nature Climate Change, 15(9), 992–999. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02411-0

Reytar, K., Ferreira-Ferreira, J., Alves, L., Oliveira Cordeiro, C. L. de, & Calmon, M. (2024, December 19). What can tree cover gain data tell us about restoration? Brazil case studies. Global Forest Watch. Link to source: https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/forest-insights/tree-cover-gain-restoration-brazil

Robinson, N., Drever, C. R., Gibbs, D. A., Lister, K., Esquivel-Muelbert, A., Heinrich, V., Ciais, P., Silva-Junior, C. H. L., Liu, Z., Pugh, T. A. M., Saatchi, S., Xu, Y., & Cook-Patton, S. C. (2025). Protect young secondary forests for optimum carbon removal. Nature Climate Change, 15, 793–800. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02355-5

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., … 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

Sankey, T., Belmonte, A., Massey, R., & Leonard, J. (2021). Regional-scale forest restoration effects on ecosystem resiliency to drought: A synthesis of vegetation and moisture trends on Google Earth Engine. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, 7(2), 259–274. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.186

Schimetka, L. R., Ruggiero, P. G. C., Carvalho, R. L., Behagel, J., Metzger, J. P., Nascimento, N., Chaves, R. B., Brancalion, P. H. S., Rodrigues, R. R., & Krainovic, P. M. (2024). Costs and benefits of restoration are still poorly quantified: Evidence from a systematic literature review on the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Restoration Ecology, 32(5), Article e14161. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14161

Seymour, F., Wolosin, M., & Gray, E. (2022, October 23). Policies underestimate forests’ full effect on the climate. World Resources Institute. Link to source: https://www.wri.org/insights/how-forests-affect-climate

Sims, M. J., Stanimirova, R., Raichuk, A., Neumann, M., Richter, J., Follett, F., MacCarthy, J., Lister, K., Randle, C., Sloat, L., Esipova, E., Jupiter, J., Stanton, C., Morris, D., Melhart Slay, C., Purves, D., & Harris, N. (2025). Global drivers of forest loss at 1 km resolution. Environmental Research Letters, 20(7), Article 074027. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/add606

Stanturf, J. A., Kleine, M., Mansourian, S., Parrotta, J., Madsen, P., Kant, P., Burns, J., & Bolte, A. (2019). Implementing forest landscape restoration under the Bonn Challenge: A systematic approach. Annals of Forest Science, 76(2), 1–21. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-019-0833-z

Teo, H. C., Raghavan, S. V., He, X., Zeng, Z., Cheng, Y., Luo, X., Lechner, A. M., Ashfold, M. J., Lamba, A., Sreekar, R., Zheng, Q., Chen, A., & Koh, L. P. (2022). Large-scale reforestation can increase water yield and reduce drought risk for water-insecure regions in the Asia-Pacific. Global Change Biology, 28(21), 6385–6403. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16404

van der Sande, M. T., Poorter, L., Kooistra, L., Balvanera, P., Thonicke, K., Thompson, J., Arets, E. J. M. M., Garcia Alaniz, N., Jones, L., Mora, F., Mwampamba, T. H., Parr, T., & Peña-Claros, M. (2017). Biodiversity in species, traits, and structure determines carbon stocks and uptake in tropical forests. Biotropica, 49(5), 593–603. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12453

Veldman, J. W., Overbeck, G. E., Negreiros, D., Mahy, G., Le Stradic, S., Fernandes, G. W., Durigan, G., Buisson, E., Putz, F. E., & Bond, W. J. (2015a). Tyranny of trees in grassy biomes. Science, 347(6221), 484–485. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.347.6221.484-c

Veldman, J. W., Overbeck, G. E., Negreiros, D., Mahy, G., Le Stradic, S., Fernandes, G. W., Durigan, G., Buisson, E., Putz, F. E., & Bond, W. J. (2015b). Where Tree Planting and Forest Expansion are Bad for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. BioScience, 65(10), 1011–1018. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv118

Verhoeven, D., Berkhout, E., Sewell, A., & van der Esch, S. (2024). The global cost of international commitments on land restoration. Land Degradation & Development, 35(16), 4864–4874. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.5263

Walker, W. S., Gorelik, S. R., Cook-Patton, S. C., Baccini, A., Farina, M. K., Solvik, K. K., Ellis, P. W., Sanderman, J., Houghton, R. A., Leavitt, S. M., Schwalm, C. R., & Griscom, B. W. (2022). The global potential for increased storage of carbon on land. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(23), Article e2111312119. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111312119

Walton, Z. L., Poudyal, N. C., Hepinstall-Cymerman, J., Johnson Gaither, C., & Boley, B. B. (2016). Exploring the role of forest resources in reducing community vulnerability to the heat effects of climate change. Forest Policy and Economics, 71, 94–102. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.09.001 

Wang, Y., Zhu, Y., Cook-Patton, S. C., Sun, W., Zhang, W., Ciais, P., Li, T., Smith, P., Yuan, W., Zhu, X., Canadell, J. G., Deng, X., Xu, Y., Xu, H., Yue, C., & Qin, Z. (2025). Land availability and policy commitments limit global climate mitigation from forestation. Science, 389(6763), 931–934. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adj6841

Williams, B. A., Beyer, H. L., Fagan, M. E., Chazdon, R. L., Schmoeller, M., Sprenkle-Hyppolite, S., Griscom, B. W., Watson, J. E. M., Tedesco, A. M., Gonzalez-Roglich, M., Daldegan, G. A., Bodin, B., Celentano, D., Wilson, S. J., Rhodes, J. R., Alexandre, N. S., Kim, D.-H., Bastos, D., & Crouzeilles, R. (2024). Global potential for natural regeneration in deforested tropical regions. Nature, 636(8041), 131–137. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08106-4

Zhang, Q., Barnes, M., Benson, M., Burakowski, E., Oishi, A. C., Ouimette, A., Sanders-DeMott, R., Stoy, P. C., Wenzel, M., Xiong, L., Yi, K., & Novick, K. A. (2020). Reforestation and surface cooling in temperate zones: Mechanisms and implications. Global Change Biology, 26(6), 3384–3401. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15069

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Avery Driscoll, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

We estimated that forest restoration can sequester 5.86–18.19 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr (Table 1), depending on the climate zone and type of intervention, as growing trees take up carbon through photosynthesis and store it in above- and below-ground biomass. Sequestration rates are highly variable globally; much of this variability is driven by climate, soil properties, forest type, and the type of restoration. 

For this solution, we used modeled carbon sequestration rates from natural regeneration to represent low-intensity restoration (Robinson et al., 2025) and modeled carbon sequestration rates from plantation forests to represent high-intensity carbon restoration, which we define as initiatives that include tree planting (Bukoski et al., 2022; Busch et al., 2024). We calculated carbon sequestration rates at the climate zone level (boreal, temperate, subtropical, and tropical) across the potential extent for each reforestation type.

Generally, high-intensity restoration has higher sequestration rates (median values 12.02–18.19 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr) than low-intensity restoration (median values 5.86–17.06 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr). Median effectiveness is also higher in tropical areas, where forest growth often continues year-round, than it is in other climate zones. These estimates reflect average sequestration rates over the first 30 years of forest growth. Carbon sequestration rates are also influenced by non-climatic factors. For example, higher tree species diversity is often associated with higher forest carbon storage and uptake (Bialic-Murphy et al., 2024; Poorter et al., 2015; van der Sande et al., 2017).

Table 1. Effectiveness of forest restoration at sequestering carbon.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-yr basis

Boreal 5.86
Temperate 11.49
Subtropical 11.53
Tropical 17.06

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-yr basis

Boreal 14.57
Temperate 12.74
Subtropical 12.02
Tropical 18.19
Left Text Column Width
Cost

We estimated the median cost of low-intensity forest restoration at US$23/t CO₂‑eq (2023 US$) and the median cost of high-intensity forest restoration at US$83/t CO₂‑eq (Table 2). The value given in the dashboard above is the average of the low- and high-intensity cost estimates (US$53/t CO₂‑eq). 

On a per-hectare basis, the estimated cost of low-intensity restoration ranges from US$213/ha (25th percentile) to US$739/ha (75th percentile), with a median cost of US$304/ha. The estimated cost of high-intensity restoration ranges from US$811/ha (25th percentile) to US$1,914/ha (75th percentile), with a median of US$1,348/ha. We derived these estimates from compilations of global restoration project cost data by Verhoeven et al. (2024) and Busch et al. (2024), supplemented with estimates from five additional publications, representing a total of 50 unique projects.

Estimates of restoration costs remain very uncertain, as data are scarce, costs and revenues are highly variable across geographies and projects, and costs are nonlinear, tending to increase under higher adoption scenarios (Austin et al., 2020; Schimetka et al., 2024). Moreover, the success of a project at establishing new forests drives the cost per metric ton of CO₂‑eq , but such success rates are rarely reported alongside costs. Because of data limitations, we did not separate cost estimates into climate zones. 

Our estimates do not account for any new revenues associated with forest restoration, such as carbon credits or provisioning of timber and non-timber forest products (Adams et al. 2016; Ager et al., 2017; Busch et al., 2024). They also do not account for the economic value of ecosystem services, such as increased biodiversity, improved water quality, local cooling, and reduced soil erosion, which have been estimated to outweigh the costs of forest restoration (De Groot et al., 2013).

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

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

Median 23

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

Median 83
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

We define a learning curve as falling costs with increased adoption. Reforestation has been practiced for many decades, and there is no evidence of a decrease in costs associated with increasing adoption. Therefore, there is no learning curve for this solution.

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

Barriers to effective forest restoration include challenges around governance, financing, technical capacity (including seed and seedling supply), labor availability, and site-specific knowledge for initial restoration and long-term management (Brumberg et al., 2024; Chazdon et al., 2016; Chazdon et al., 2021; Fargione et al., 2021; Kroeger et al., 2025). Additional research and monitoring are needed to identify locally relevant restoration strategies, reduce barriers, and evaluate the success of restoration projects (Crouzeilles et al., 2019).

Forest restoration also faces challenges around permanence and additionality. Carbon stored in vegetation and soils through forest restoration can be lost to climatic and environmental stressors like wildfire, drought, heat waves, pests, or disease. Young, regenerating forests can be particularly susceptible to these types of stressors. Restored forests are also at risk of clearing (e.g., Piffer et al., 2022), so forest restoration must be coupled with long-term, effective protections against clearing. Additionality refers to the degree to which carbon uptake associated with forest restoration would have occurred in the absence of a project, policy, or incentive. Evaluating additionality is challenging in the context of natural forest regeneration, some of which simply arises from land abandonment without any intervention.

Current Adoption

Data on current adoption of forest restoration are very limited. While there are extensive compilations of restoration pledges, estimates of the actual area being restored are noncentralized, typically rely on self-reporting without validation, do not have global coverage, use inconsistent definitions, often include establishment of plantations and agroforestry, and rarely separate estimates by ecosystem. Satellite-based data on tree cover gain are occasionally used as a proxy for restoration, but these do not differentiate among restoration, establishment of timber plantations, regeneration in the absence of human intervention, and plantation regrowth after timber harvest (Reytar et al., 2024). Moreover, they can fail to capture actual restoration areas (Begliomini & Brancalion, 2024).

Due to these limitations, we do not provide an estimate of the global area currently under forest restoration. However, we did compile current restoration estimates from three databases: The Mongabay Reforestation Catalog, The Restoration Initiative, and The Restoration Barometer. These databases are subject to the limitations discussed above. Assuming that there is no overlap in projects reported across these databases, including projects with an agroforestry component, and including projects across all ecosystems, we found 40.6 Mha currently being restored. Under more conservative assumptions, including removing projects with an agroforestry component, removing projects from countries that are reported across multiple databases, and discounting estimates to account for restoration in other ecosystems, we estimated that 9.2 Mha are currently being restored. These estimates provide context, but should not be interpreted as representative of the global area under forest restoration.

Adoption Trend

Despite extensive data on restoration pledges, comprehensive data on the actual implementation of restoration efforts are very limited and not often temporally resolved. The available data are insufficient to calculate an adoption trend for this solution.

Adoption Ceiling

We estimated that there are 96.8 Mha available for forest restoration, with 19.4 Mha in boreal regions, 19.0 Mha in temperate regions, 3.5 Mha in the subtropics, and 54.8 Mha in the tropics (Table 3a–e). In this solution, we only included cleared areas that were previously forests in the calculation of the adoption ceiling. To calculate the adoption ceiling, we started with a recent, conservative map of potential forest restoration areas (Fesenmeyer et al., 2025), which we masked to exclude areas classified as other ecosystems in other solutions (peatlands, grasslands and savannahs, and coastal wetlands). We then used a map of the cost-effectiveness of natural regeneration versus plantation establishment (Busch et al., 2024) to remove areas more suitable for plantation establishment from this solution, and assigned them instead to the Deploy Biomass Crops on Degraded Land solution.

Estimates of the area available for forest restoration vary widely due to differing definitions, ranging from 195 Mha (Fesenmeyer et al., 2025) to 900 Mha (Bastin et al., 2019), for example. Using base maps of forest restoration potential from Griscom et al. (2017) and Walker et al. (2022) gave an estimated global adoption ceiling of 426–434 Mha, after applying the same data processing approach to exclude other ecosystems and plantations. 

Because of the constrained scope of this solution, we find a smaller adoption ceiling relative to other studies, which often include plantation establishment, agroforestry, densification of existing forests, afforestation on grasslands, restoration of forests on peat soils, reforestation of croplands, and other activities sometimes classified as forest restoration. We leveraged the map from Fesenmeyer et al. (2025) for the estimates reported in Table 3 because its scope aligns most closely with our relatively narrow definition of forest restoration, is one of the most recent studies, includes a review of 89 other forest restoration maps, and incorporates safeguards against conflicts between restoration and biodiversity loss, water scarcity, albedo effects, and land use. However, we note that this estimate is lower than other published estimates of potential forest restoration area and that differences across studies are driven by subjective judgments on land suitability for restoration.

Table 3. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 19,400,000

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 19,000,000

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 3,500,000

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 54,800,000

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 96,800,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We assumed an achievable range of 50–75% of the adoption ceiling, equal to 48.4–72.6 Mha of forest restoration (Table 4a–e). Much of the adoption potential is located in the tropics, which we estimated to contain 27.4 Mha under the Achievable – Low Scenario and 41.1 Mha under the Achievable – High Scenario. We estimated similar achievable ranges of forest restoration area in boreal and temperate regions (9.7–14.6 Mha and 9.5–14.3 Mha, respectively), and an additional 1.7–2.6 Mha in subtropical regions.

Additional research is needed to determine more realistic estimates of the achievable adoption range, particularly differentiated across different restoration activities. National commitments to restoration, as with studies on the potential restoration area, include many activities that are beyond the scope of this solution, such as plantation establishment, agroforestry, and densification. Because of the inconsistency in definitions, we were unable to rely on restoration commitments to quantify the adoption achievable range. For context, the Global Restoration Commitments database (Mariappan & Zumbado, 2024) reports that, under the Rio Conventions, countries have committed to increasing forestland by 122 Mha, with an additional 154 Mha of commitments to restoring or improving forestland. Similarly, 210.1 Mha of land have been pledged for restoration across all ecosystems under the Bonn Challenge (Mariappan & Zumbado, 2024).

Table 4. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: ha

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 9,700,000
Achievable – high 14,600,000
Adoption ceiling 19,400,000

Unit: ha

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 9,500,000
Achievable – high 14,300,000
Adoption ceiling 19,000,000

Unit: ha

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 1,700,000
Achievable – high 2,600,000
Adoption ceiling 3,500,000

Unit: ha

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 27,400,000
Achievable – high 41,100,000
Adoption ceiling 54,800,000

Unit: ha

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 48,400,000
Achievable – high 72,600,000
Adoption ceiling 96,800,000
Left Text Column Width

We estimated that forest restoration could sequester 0.718 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the low-achievable adoption scenario, 1.077 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the high-achievable adoption scenario, and 1.437 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the adoption ceiling (Table 5a–e). Nearly 70% of the total climate impacts under these scenarios occur in tropical regions, where much of the current investment in restoration is focused.

Our climate impact estimates are lower than existing literature estimates due to our more constrained definition of this solution. Existing estimates also vary widely. For example, Cook-Patton et al. (2020) estimated that fully implemented national forest restoration commitments as of 2020 would take up 5.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported an economically feasible mitigation potential of 1.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Nabuurs et al., 2022), and Griscom et al. (2017) reported a technical mitigation potential of 10.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Recently, Wang et al. (2025) estimated an upper-end mitigation potential of 5.85 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (including afforestation and plantation establishment), with current commitments across all of these activities projected to take up 1.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Discrepancies between estimates are driven by the area considered suitable for restoration, types of restoration activities considered and their associated carbon uptake rates, and inclusion of cost constraints. Each of these individual estimates is also associated with substantial uncertainty, and further work is needed to standardize definitions of forest restoration and constrain the range of impact estimates.

Table 5. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 0.099
Achievable – high 0.149
Adoption ceiling 0.198

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 0.115
Achievable – high 0.173
Adoption ceiling 0.230

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 0.020
Achievable – high 0.031
Adoption ceiling 0.041

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 0.483
Achievable – high 0.725
Adoption ceiling 0.966

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 0.718
Achievable – high 1.077
Adoption ceiling 1.437
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Heat Stress

Forests help regulate local climate by reducing temperature extremes (Lawrence et al., 2022; Walton et al., 2016). Zhang et al. (2020) found the land surfaces of restored forests were 1–2 °C cooler than grasslands.

Extreme Weather Events

Forest restoration can improve biodiversity and health of the ecosystem, leading to more ecological resilience (DeGroot et al., 2013; Hua et al., 2022). Restored forests can intercept rainfall and attenuate flood risk during extreme rainfall events (Kabeja et al., 2020; Gardon et al., 2020). In some climates, certain reforestation methods could increase ecosystem resilience to wildfires (North et al., 2019).

Floods

For a description of the flood benefits, please refer to the “Extreme Weather Events” subsection. 

Droughts

Forest restoration may increase or decrease the ecosystem’s resilience to drought, depending on changes in factors such as evapotranspiration, precipitation, and water storage in vegetation (Andres et al., 2022; Sankey et al., 2020; Teo et al., 2022). For example, Teo et al. (2022) found that reforestation of degraded lands reduced the probability of experiencing extremely dry conditions in water-insecure regions of East Asia.

Income and Work

Forest restoration creates both temporary and permanent job opportunities, especially in rural areas (DeGroot et al., 2013). A study in Brazil found that restoration can generate about 0.42 jobs per hectare of forest undergoing restoration (Brancalion et al., 2022). Restoration of forests may also improve livelihoods and income opportunities based on the ecosystem services the forest provides. While these benefits vary substantially with household and community characteristics, in general, they include income diversification and the availability of food and fiber from forests (Adams et al., 2016). For example, in Burkina Faso, smallholders who restored lands through assisted regeneration diversified their income by harvesting resources such as fodder for livestock and small wildlife (Kumar et al., 2015). 

Food Security

Forests provide income and livelihoods for subsistence households and individuals (de Souza et al., 2016; Herrera et al., 2017; Naidoo et al., 2019). Forest restoration may improve food security for some households by improving incomes and livelihoods.

Health

Reforestation may promote the health of nearby communities. Herrera et al. (2017) found that in rural areas of low- and middle-income countries, household members living downstream of higher tree cover had a lower probability of diarrheal disease. Biodiverse forests are linked to a reduced risk of animal-to-human infections because zoonotic hosts tend to be less abundant in less disturbed ecosystems (Keesing & Ostfeld, 2021; Reddington et al., 2015).

Equality

Indigenous peoples have a long history of caring for and shaping landscapes that are rich with biodiversity (Fletcher et al., 2021), and restoring the health and function of forests is essential for protecting indigenous cultural values and practices. Indigenous communities provide vital ecological functions for preserving landscape health, such as seed dispersal and predation (Bliege Bird & Nimmo, 2018). Indigenous peoples also have spiritual and cultural ties to their lands (Garnett et al., 2018). Restoration must be implemented using an equity-centered approach that reduces power imbalances between stakeholders, ensures people are not displaced, and involves local actors (Löfqvist et al., 2023).

Nature Protection

Forests are home to a wide range of species and habitats and are essential for safeguarding biodiversity. Reforestation of native forests increases the biodiversity of an ecosystem relative to its previous cleared state (Brancalion et al., 2025; Hua et al., 2022). While many factors, such as the restoration method, time since restoration, and biophysical conditions, can impact restoration, studies of reforestation report increases in biodiversity and more species abundance after restoration, though the biodiversity typically remains below that of intact forests (Crouzeilles et al., 2016; Hua et al., 2022).

Water Quality

The impacts of reforestation on water quality vary based on factors such as geography and time since undergoing restoration (Dib et al., 2023). In general, forests act as natural water filters, maintaining and improving water quality (Dib et al., 2023; Melo et al., 2021). Restoration of forests is associated with improved water quality in streams compared with their previously degraded state (dos Reis Oliveira et al., 2025).

Risks

Forest restoration initiatives that are not responsive to local socioeconomic conditions risk displacing community land access and compromising local livelihoods. Effective forest restoration activities can be highly diverse, but must be targeted towards local environmental, sociopolitical, and economic conditions (Stanturf et al., 2019). 

If forest restoration encroaches on agricultural lands, it can trigger clearing of forests elsewhere to replace lost agricultural production. 

Planting trees in areas where they do not naturally occur, such as in grasslands and savannas, can alter hydrologic cycles and harm biodiversity (Veldman et al., 2015a; Veldman et al., 2015b). The estimates of potential forest restoration area that we use in this analysis are constrained to minimize these risks by including only land that was once forested and not allowing for forest restoration on croplands or in urban areas.

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Forest restoration can improve the health and function of adjacent ecosystems that are being protected or restored.

Competing

These solutions are all suitable to implement on degraded land, and thus are in competition for the available degraded land.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
09.4410.21median
units
Current Not Determined 09.7×10⁶1.46×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 0.0990.149
US$ per t CO₂-eq
53
Delayed

CO₂

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
010.1612.11median
units
Current Not Determined 09.5×10⁶1.43×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 0.1150.173
US$ per t CO₂-eq
53
Delayed

CO₂

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
09.6811.78median
units
Current Not Determined 01.7×10⁶2.6×10⁶
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 0.0210.031
US$ per t CO₂-eq
53
Delayed

CO₂

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
014.6717.63median
units
Current Not Determined 02.74×10⁷4.11×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 0.4830.725
US$ per t CO₂-eq
53
Delayed

CO₂

Trade-offs

Forest restoration can divert resources from other climate solutions, including protecting intact forests. Humans clear approximately 0.4% of forests annually (Curtis et al., 2018; Hansen et al., 2013; Sims et al., 2025), and halting further deforestation is an urgent priority with huge benefits for the climate, biodiversity, and other ecosystem services (see Protect Forests). While restoration provides carbon sequestration over a period of decades, preventing deforestation reduces emissions immediately and is typically more cost-effective. Restoration should therefore complement, rather than compete with, efforts to reduce deforestation.

Forest restoration can also decrease the albedo, or reflectivity, of Earth’s surface. This can increase temperatures as more of the sun’s energy is absorbed and reradiated as thermal energy. Albedo effects are most pronounced in boreal and dryland regions, where they reduce the net climate benefits of forest restoration (Hasler et al., 2024).

t CO2-eq/ha/yr
025

CO2 sequestration potential from low-intensity forest restoration on suitable lands

Regrowth of deforested areas can sequester carbon in biomass. Here we show potential annual carbon sequestration by natural regrowth in areas where at least 5% of the landscape is deforested and where forest restoration would not adversely impact food production or existing communities. Green shaded areas indicate locations where this solution is effective; zoom in for details.

Fesenmyer, K. A., Poor, E. E., Terasaki Hart, D. E., Veldman, J. W., Fleischman, F., Choksi, P., Archibald, S., Armani, M., Fagan, M. E., Fricke, E. C., Terrer, C., Hasler, N., Williams, C. A., Ellis, P. W., & Cook-Patton, S. C. (2025). Addressing critiques refines global estimates of reforestation potential for climate change mitigation. Nature Communications, 16(1), Article 4572. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59799-8 

Global Forest Watch (2023). Global peatlands [Data set]. Retrieved December 6, 2024, from Link to source: https://data.globalforestwatch.org/datasets/gfw::global-peatlands/about 

Robinson, N., Drever, C. R., Gibbs, D. A., Lister, K., Esquivel-Muelbert, A., Heinrich, V., Ciais, P., Silva-Junior, C. H. L., Liu, Z., Pugh, T. A. M., Saatchi, S., Xu, Y., & Cook-Patton, S. C. (2025). Protect young secondary forests for optimum carbon removal. Nature Climate Change, 15, 793–800. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02355-5 

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, 112 Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0444-4 

UNEP-WCMC (2025). Ocean+ habitats (version 1.3) [Data set]. Retrieved November 2024, from habitats.oceanplus.org

t CO2-eq/ha/yr
025

CO2 sequestration potential from low-intensity forest restoration on suitable lands

Regrowth of deforested areas can sequester carbon in biomass. Here we show potential annual carbon sequestration by natural regrowth in areas where at least 5% of the landscape is deforested and where forest restoration would not adversely impact food production or existing communities. Green shaded areas indicate locations where this solution is effective; zoom in for details.

Fesenmyer, K. A., Poor, E. E., Terasaki Hart, D. E., Veldman, J. W., Fleischman, F., Choksi, P., Archibald, S., Armani, M., Fagan, M. E., Fricke, E. C., Terrer, C., Hasler, N., Williams, C. A., Ellis, P. W., & Cook-Patton, S. C. (2025). Addressing critiques refines global estimates of reforestation potential for climate change mitigation. Nature Communications, 16(1), Article 4572. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59799-8 

Global Forest Watch (2023). Global peatlands [Data set]. Retrieved December 6, 2024, from Link to source: https://data.globalforestwatch.org/datasets/gfw::global-peatlands/about 

Robinson, N., Drever, C. R., Gibbs, D. A., Lister, K., Esquivel-Muelbert, A., Heinrich, V., Ciais, P., Silva-Junior, C. H. L., Liu, Z., Pugh, T. A. M., Saatchi, S., Xu, Y., & Cook-Patton, S. C. (2025). Protect young secondary forests for optimum carbon removal. Nature Climate Change, 15, 793–800. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02355-5 

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, 112 Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0444-4 

UNEP-WCMC (2025). Ocean+ habitats (version 1.3) [Data set]. Retrieved November 2024, from habitats.oceanplus.org

Maps Introduction

Tropical regions have particularly large potential for forest restoration. Regrowing forests tend to have higher rates of carbon uptake in the tropics, particularly in humid areas, than in regions where shorter growing seasons and water limitations can constrain growth (e.g., Cook-Patton et al., 2020, Bernal et al., 2018). Our estimates of effectiveness suggest that carbon uptake rates in the tropics are almost 20% higher than those in temperate and subtropical regions. 

There are also large areas of recently deforested land in the tropics that are suitable for restoration. Recently deforested lands tend to have larger seed stocks in the soil and may be in proximity to intact forest patches, conditions that can improve the success of low-intensity restoration efforts (Chazon et al., 2016). Using three existing maps of potential forest restoration extent, our estimates suggest that ~43% of the adoption ceiling for forest restoration is located in tropical regions. 

Temperate regions, which have historically experienced widespread and severe deforestation, have the second-most area available for forest restoration. Some deforested areas have already been returned to forest cover, and some have been converted to permanent cropland or urban development, land-cover classes that are excluded from this analysis because they are typically not considered suitable for restoration in large-scale studies (Fesenmeyer et al., 2025). Temperate regions contain an additional ~28% of the area suitable for forest restoration.

Locally, forest restoration efforts that are targeted towards expanding and improving connectivity of existing forests may provide the largest carbon benefits by reducing edge effects (Chaplin-Kramer et al., 2015). Forest connectivity and patch size are also important predictors of the benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services (Beltrão et al., 2024; Di Sacco et al., 2020). Additionally, areas close to existing forests are often more suitable for natural regeneration, which can be cheaper and more efficient to implement than tree planting (Busch et al., 2024; Di Sacco et al., 2020; Williams et al., 2024).

In addition to sequestering carbon, forest restoration can influence the climate by changing albedo, or the reflectivity of Earth’s surface. In places where increasing tree cover makes the surface less reflective, the resultant biophysical warming can offset the climate benefits of carbon sequestration (Betts, 2000; Hasler et al., 2024). These effects tend to be particularly large in drylands, which have low native vegetation cover, and boreal regions, which have persistent snow cover. Therefore, some studies omit boreal regions from their estimates of potential forest restoration (Griscom et al., 2017).

Action Word
Restore
Solution Title
Forests
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Set achievable targets and pledges for forest restoration with clear effectiveness goals; regularly measure and report on restoration progress, area under restoration, challenges, and related data points.
  • Help develop definitions at the international level for forest restoration and degradation along with frameworks for measurement and monitoring; design indicators to capture long-term impacts, including metrics to capture social and biodiversity impacts.
  • Ensure public procurement uses deforestation-free products and sustainable products from reforested areas.
  • Create strong regulatory frameworks with clear definitions for active and passive restoration and/or related terms such as reforestation, regeneration, improving forest functionality, and increasing forest cover; ensure the framework is gender responsive and seeks to include women throughout the restoration process.
  • Coordinate forest protection and restoration policies horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts); seek to align social and environmental safeguards with protection and reforestation policies and goals.
  • Develop regional and transboundary coordination mechanisms for protection and restoring forests, especially, when working across international borders; consider using coordination methods from adjacent issue areas such as water management and/or working closely with existing coordination bodies for relevant watersheds.
  • Prioritize forest protection first and restoring forests second; ensure areas under restoration are classified as protected lands.
  • Create financial incentives for both active and passive restoration techniques, such as direct payments, payment for ecosystem services (PES), property tax breaks, rebates, subsidies, and cash prizes for meeting tree and/or vegetative growth metrics; ensure incentives allow for long timelines; provide similar incentives to reduce fertilizer use; ensure equitable access to incentives for low- and middle-income communities.
  • Provide financial incentives for businesses that support restoration by developing sustainable products.
  • Create disincentives by taxing or fining land clearance, deforestation, poor land management, and agricultural pollution.
  • Remove harmful agriculture and logging subsidies, particularly those that incentivize livestock, biofuels, land encroachment, and overuse of fertilizers.
  • Seek to designate lands for reforestation that are adjacent to or connect with already protected areas, intact lands, and/or watersheds.
  • Delegate the authority to allocate direct payments for fiscal incentives to local governments.
  • Use tax revenues from extractive industries to pay for restoration.
  • Use taxes from beneficiaries of forest services to pay for nearby restoration (e.g., use taxes from downstream users to improve practices upstream); before instituting such a tax regime, consult with stakeholders, clearly define tax arrangements, and put into place strict enforcement measures.
  • Create an ongoing, equity-centered community engagement process; ensure local communities help shape local projects and receive benefits.
  • Strengthen land and tree tenure rights; grant Indigenous communities’ full property rights and autonomy.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC); codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Ensure regulations allow and encourage a variety of legal models for reforestation efforts, such as cooperatives.
  • Prioritize reducing food loss and waste and improving diets.
  • Invest in R&D to identify best practices, where reforestation is viable, and how to improve the local enabling environment(s).
  • When possible, use social science research to determine the best interventions, incentives, and community engagement models before beginning restoration projects.
  • Create programs to monitor for activity and market leakage from reforestation sites; adjust enforcement and policies to reduce leakage, if necessary.
  • Foster national pride for the natural landscape and reforestation efforts through communication campaigns.
  • Work with public universities and other educational institutions to develop degree and certification programs in forest restoration; encourage them to offer subspecialities, such as protected lands governance, management, policy, and finance.
  • Create educational programs that work with schools, universities, NGOs, and the general public to inform communities how to participate in restoration efforts, benefits, and opportunities; expand extension services to develop local capacity in forest restoration, especially in community-led monitoring and evaluation; establish knowledge-sharing initiatives with Indigenous peoples.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, restoration activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify restoration activity and sustainable use of forest products.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Set achievable targets and pledges for forest restoration with clear effectiveness goals.
  • Help develop regulatory frameworks with clear definitions for active and passive restoration and/or related terms such as reforestation, regeneration, improving forest functionality, and increasing forest cover; ensure the framework is gender responsive and seeks to include women throughout the restoration process.
  • Help develop definitions at the international level for forest restoration and degradation along with frameworks for measurement and monitoring; design indicators to capture long term impacts, including metrics to capture social and biodiversity impacts.
  • Help develop or advocate for regional and transboundary coordination mechanisms for restoring forests, especially, when working across international borders; consider using coordination methods from adjacent issue areas such as water management and/or working closely with existing coordination bodies for relevant watersheds.
  • Offer or take advantage of financial incentives such as direct payments or PES; if necessary, advocate for public incentives for both active and passive restoration, such as property tax breaks, rebates, subsidies, and cash prizes for meeting tree and/or vegetative growth metrics; help ensure incentives allow for long timelines; help ensure equitable access to incentives for low- and middle-income communities.
  • Seek to designate lands for reforestation that are adjacent to or connect with already protected areas, intact lands, and/or watersheds.
  • Create an ongoing, equity-centered community engagement process; ensure local communities help shape local projects and receive benefits.
  • Advocate for strong land and tree tenure rights; support Indigenous property rights and autonomy.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; help codify FPICinto legal systems.
  • Help create high-integrity carbon markets with long durations; use dynamic baselines for more accurate additionality assessments.
  • Create programs to monitor for activity and market leakage from reforestation sites; advocate for adjustments to enforcement and policies to reduce leakage, if necessary.
  • Develop markets for native species products and other sustainable uses of reforested lands.
  • Develop or support opportunities for ecotourism industries in locally restored forests.
  • Explore and use alternative legal models for reforestation, such as cooperatives.
  • Invest in R&D to identify best practices, where reforestation is viable, and how to improve the local enabling environment(s).
  • When possible, use social science research to determine the best interventions, incentives, and community engagement models before beginning restoration projects.
  • Help foster pride for natural landscape and reforestation efforts through communication campaigns.
  • Work with educational institutions to develop degree and certification programs in forest restoration; encourage them to offer subspecialities such as protected lands governance, management, policy, and finance.
  • Create educational programs that work with schools, NGOs, and the general public to inform communities how to participate in restoration efforts, benefits, and opportunities; advocate for expanded extension services to develop local capacity in forest restoration, especially in community-led monitoring and evaluation; establish knowledge-sharing initiatives with Indigenous peoples.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, restoration activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify restoration activity and sustainable use of forest products.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Create deforestation-free supply chains, using data, information, and the latest technology to inform product sourcing.
  • Develop markets and supply chains for native species products; innovate other sustainable uses for resources from reforested lands.
  • Integrate deforestation-free business and investment policies and practices into your net-zero strategies.
  • Develop or support opportunities for ecotourism in restored forests.
  • Offer company grants to suppliers or others to improve resource management and support reforestation within your supply chain.
  • Offer incubator services for those restoring forests; offer pro bono business advice or general support for community restoration projects.
  • Enter into outgrower schemes to support smallholder farmers restoring their land; make long-term commitments to help stabilize projects.
  • Contribute to local restoration efforts; use an internal carbon fee or set aside a percentage of revenue to fund reforestation.
  • Only purchase carbon credits from high-integrity, verifiable carbon markets, and do not use them as replacements for reducing emissions.
  • Help create high-integrity carbon markets with long durations; use dynamic baselines for additionality assessments.
  • Help shift the public narrative around carbon markets as integrity increases to boost education, dialogue, and awareness.
  • Develop financial instruments to invest in reforestation, focusing on supporting Indigenous communities.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Offer employee professional development funds to be used for certification in reforestation or related fields such as curricular economies.
  • Create company volunteer opportunities such as annual-tree planting days; consider partnering with a relevant local non-profit.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, restoration activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify restoration activity and sustainable use of forest products.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Use deforestation-free products and sustainable products from reforested areas.
  • Help manage restoration projects; consider using alternatives to corporate business structures such as cooperatives to facilitate management and legal structures.
  • Advocate for achievable public targets and pledges for forest restoration with clear effectiveness goals.
  • Help develop regulatory frameworks with clear definitions for active and passive restoration and/or related terms such as reforestation, regeneration, improving forest functionality, and increasing forest cover; ensure the framework is gender responsive and seeks to include women throughout the restoration process.
  • Help develop definitions at the international level for forest restoration and degradation along with frameworks for measurement and monitoring; design indicators to capture long-term impacts, including social and biodiversity impacts.
  • Help develop or advocate for regional and transboundary coordination mechanisms for restoring forests, especially, when working across international borders; consider using coordination methods from adjacent issue areas such as water management and/or working closely with existing coordination bodies for relevant watersheds.
  • Offer or take advantage of financial incentives such as direct payments or PES; if necessary, advocate for public incentives such as property tax breaks, rebates, subsidies, and cash prizes for meeting tree and/or vegetative growth metrics; help ensure incentives allow for long timelines; help ensure equitable access to incentives.
  • Seek to designate lands for reforestation that are adjacent to or connect with already protected areas, intact lands, and/or watersheds.
  • Advocate to remove harmful agriculture and logging subsidies, particularly those that incentivize livestock, biofuels, land encroachment, and overuse of fertilizers.
  • Call on governments and administrators of reforestation projects to use transparent, inclusive, and ongoing community engagement processes to co-design restoration projects; help solicit community feedback on area designations, finance, monitoring, and distribution of benefits; help ensure projects address relevant sociological, agricultural, and ecological considerations.
  • Advocate for strong land and tree tenure rights; support Indigenous property rights and autonomy.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FIPC; help codify FIPC into legal systems.
  • Help create high-integrity, long-lasting carbon markets; use dynamic baselines for more accurate additionality assessments.
  • Help monitor reforestation projects for success metrics such as vegetative growth, biodiversity, and water quality using high-resolution data and active remote sensing if possible.
  • Help translate reforestation materials into locally relevant languages.
  • Conduct cost-benefit analyses of potential local interventions to identify optimal strategies.
  • Develop markets and supply chains for native species products; innovate other sustainable uses for resources from reforested lands.
  • Develop or support opportunities for ecotourism in restored forests.
  • Facilitate investment in reforestation; create economic models to help maintain long-term financing; identify priorities for financing and help distribute incentives.
  • Help identify local sources of degradation and distribute findings to policymakers and the public; document and share best practices for reforestation.
  • Help establish outgrower schemes and negotiate favorable contracts for smallholder farmers.
  • Create programs to monitor for activity and market leakage from reforestation sites; advocate for adjustments to enforcement and policies to reduce leakage, if necessary.
  • Support high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Help shift the public narrative around carbon markets as integrity increases to boost education, dialogue, and awareness.
  • 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, administration, and public relations.
  • When possible, use social science research to determine the best interventions, incentives, and community engagement models before beginning restoration projects.
  • Help foster national pride for the natural landscape and reforestation efforts through communication campaigns.
  • Work with educational institutions to develop degree and certification programs in forest restoration; encourage them to offer subspecialities such as protected lands governance, management, policy, and finance.
  • Create educational programs that work with schools, NGOs, and the general public to inform communities how to participate in restoration efforts, benefits, and opportunities; advocate for expanded extension services to develop local capacity in forest restoration, especially in community-led monitoring and evaluation; establish knowledge-sharing initiatives with Indigenous peoples.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, restoration activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify restoration activity and sustainable use of forest products.

Further information:

Investors
  • Create deforestation-free investment portfolios.
  • Apply environmental and social standards to existing investments; divest from destructive industries and/or work with portfolio companies to improve practices.
  • Offer specific credit lines for reforestation projects with long-term timelines; offer low-interest loans, microfinancing, and specific financial products for medium-sized projects.
  • Own equity in sustainable projects that manage or support reforestation, especially during the early and middle phases.
  • Offer incubator services for those working on forest restoration projects; offer pro bono business advice or general support for community restoration projects.
  • Offer insurance and risk mitigation products for reforestation projects, especially, to farmers transitioning their lands.
  • Provide catalytic financing for businesses developing sustainable products made from native species, ecotourism, or other sustainable uses of reforested lands.
  • Invest in green bonds or high-integrity carbon credits for reforestation.
  • Support reforestation, other investors, and NGOs by sharing data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid investments that drive deforestation.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, restoration activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Use deforestation-free products and sustainable products from reforested areas.
  • Offer grants or credit lines for reforestation projects with long-term timelines; offer low-interest loans, microfinancing options, and favorable financial products for medium-sized projects.
  • Own equity in sustainable projects that manage or support reforestation, especially during the early and middle phases.
  • Offer incubator services for those working on forest restoration; offer pro bono business advice or general support for community restoration projects.
  • Offer insurance and risk mitigation products for reforestation projects, especially, to farmers transitioning their lands.
  • Provide catalytic financing for businesses developing sustainable products made from native species, local ecotourism, or other sustainable uses of reforested lands.
  • Advocate for achievable public targets and pledges for forest restoration with clear effectiveness goals.
  • Help develop regulatory frameworks with clear definitions for active and passive restoration and/or related terms such as reforestation, regeneration, improving forest functionality, and increasing forest cover; ensure the framework is gender responsive and seeks to include women throughout the restoration process.
  • Help develop definitions at the international level for forest restoration and degradation along with frameworks for measurement and monitoring; design indicators to capture long-term impacts, including metrics to capture social and biodiversity impacts.
  • Help develop or advocate for regional and transboundary coordination mechanisms for restoring forests, especially, when working across international borders; consider using coordination methods from adjacent issue areas such as water management and/or working closely with existing coordination bodies for relevant watersheds.
  • Offer or take advantage of financial incentives such as PES; if necessary, advocate for public incentives for both active and passive restoration techniques such as property tax breaks, rebates, subsidies, and cash prizes for meeting tree and/or vegetative growth metrics; help ensure incentives allow for long timelines; help ensure equitable access to incentives.
  • Seek to designate lands for reforestation that are adjacent to or connect with already protected areas, intact lands, and/or watersheds.
  • Advocate to remove harmful agriculture and logging subsidies, particularly those that incentivize livestock, biofuels, land encroachment, and overuse of fertilizers.
  • Call on governments and administrators to use transparent, inclusive, and ongoing community engagement to co-design restoration projects; help solicit community feedback on area designations, finance, monitoring, and distribution of benefits; help ensure projects address relevant sociological, agricultural, and ecological considerations.
  • Advocate for strong land and tree tenure rights; support Indigenous property rights and autonomy.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; help codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Help create high-integrity carbon markets with long durations; use dynamic baselines for more accurate additionality assessments.
  • Help monitor reforestation projects using high-resolution data and active remote sensing if possible.
  • Help translate reforestation materials into local relevant languages.
  • Conduct cost-benefit analysis of potential local interventions to identify optimal reforestation strategies.
  • Develop markets and supply chains for native species products; innovate other sustainable uses for resources from reforested lands.
  • Develop or support opportunities for ecotourism industries in locally restored forests.
  • Facilitate investment strategies among stakeholders; create economic models to help maintain long-term financing; identify priorities for financing and help to distribute both financial and nonfinancial incentives to stakeholders.
  • Help identify local sources of degradation and distribute findings to policymakers and the public; document and share best practices for reforestation.
  • Help establish outgrower schemes and negotiate contracts for smallholder farmers to ensure they receive the most favorable terms possible.
  • Create programs to monitor for activity and market leakage from reforestation sites; advocate for adjustments to enforcement and policies to reduce leakage if necessary.
  • Support high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Help shift the public narrative around carbon markets as integrity increases to boost education, dialogue, and awareness.
  • 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, administration, and public relations.
  • When possible, use social science research to determine the best interventions, incentives, and community engagement models before beginning restoration projects.
  • Work with educational institutions to develop degree and certification programs in forest restoration; encourage them to offer subspecialities such as protected lands governance, management, policy, and finance.
  • Create educational programs that work with schools, NGOs, and the general public to inform communities of how to participate in restoration efforts, benefits, and opportunities; advocate for expanded extension services to develop local capacity in forest restoration, especially in community-led monitoring and evaluation; establish knowledge-sharing initiatives with Indigenous peoples.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, restoration activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify restoration activity and sustainable use of forest products.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • If possible, conduct restoration projects on your property; work with local experts, share your experience, and document your progress.
  • Advocate for achievable public targets and pledges for forest restoration with clear effectiveness goals.
  • Help develop regulatory frameworks with clear definitions for active and passive restoration and/or related terms such as reforestation, regeneration, improving forest functionality, and increasing forest cover; ensure the framework is gender responsive and seeks to include women throughout the restoration process.
  • Help develop definitions at the international level for forest restoration and degradation along with frameworks for measurement and monitoring; design indicators to capture long-term impacts, including metrics to capture social and biodiversity impacts.
  • Help develop or advocate for regional and transboundary coordination mechanisms for restoring forests, especially, when working across international borders; consider using coordination methods from adjacent issue areas such as water management and/or working closely with existing coordination bodies for relevant watersheds.
  • Take advantage of and/or advocate for public incentives for both active and passive restoration techniques such as direct payments, PES, property tax breaks, rebates, subsidies, and cash prizes for meeting tree and/or vegetative growth metrics; help ensure incentives allow for long timelines; help ensure equitable access to incentives.
  • Seek to designate lands for reforestation that are adjacent to or connect with already protected areas, intact lands, and/or watersheds.
  • Advocate to remove harmful agriculture and logging subsidies, particularly those that incentivize livestock, biofuels, land encroachment, and overuse of fertilizers.
  • Call on governments and administrators to use transparent, inclusive, and ongoing community engagement processes to co-design restoration projects; help solicit community feedback on area designations, finance, monitoring, and distribution of benefits; help ensure projects address relevant sociological, agricultural, and ecological considerations.
  • Advocate for strong land and tree tenure rights; support Indigenous property rights and autonomy.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; help codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Help create high-integrity carbon markets with long durations; use dynamic baselines for more accurate additionality assessments.
  • Help identify local sources of degradation and distribute findings to policymakers and the public; document and share best practices for reforestation.
  • Support high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Help shift the public narrative around carbon markets as integrity increases to boost education, dialogue, and awareness.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Work with educational institutions to develop degree and certification programs in forest restoration; encourage them to offer subspecialities such as protected lands governance, management, policy, and finance.
  • Create educational programs that work with schools, NGOs, and the general public to inform communities of how to participate in restoration efforts, benefits, and opportunities; advocate for expanded extension services to develop local capacity in forest restoration, especially in community-led monitoring and evaluation; establish knowledge-sharing initiatives with Indigenous peoples.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, restoration activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify restoration activity and sustainable use of forest products.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Examine and compare a wide range of interventions, ideally in local sites, to inform reforestation.
  • Help document and examine local knowledge as it relates to reforestation; help integrate Indigenous and local knowledge into restoration science and technology.
  • Help develop local spatial models to identify sites suitable for restoration with low risk of being recleared.
  • Use or improve Artificial Intelligence models and satellite imagery to help develop early warning systems and predictive models for degraded forests and illegal deforestation.
  • Use AI and satellite data to monitor and evaluate restoration activities; map practices and identify locally relevant interventions.
  • Develop web-based platforms and applications to support large-scale forest restoration; include peer-reviewed studies that map risks and amounts of buffer pools available for each disturbance.
  • Research locally viable risk management strategies in restoration; study and identify social risks and related mitigation strategies.
  • Create a database to measure reforestation progress against global commitments.
  • Develop or improve techniques to monitor for activity and market leakage from reforestation sites.
  • Examine and compare a wide range of local incentive structures to identify optimal policies.
  • Conduct long-term documentation of socioeconomic and biodiversity outcomes for restoration projects; identify challenges and opportunities; distill best practices for a global audience.
  • Conduct social ground truthing for local restoration projects to gather data, test models, and develop potential interventions.
  • Conduct research on native species found in restored forests and potential uses for sustainable commercial development.
  • Evaluate the relationships among large-scale forest restoration, food security, and wood demand; develop recommendations for land and resource allocation among these activities.
  • Improve understanding of forest dynamics, including how they relate to cloud feedbacks, volatile organic compounds, aerosol effects, and black carbon.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • If possible, restore forests on your property; work with local experts, share your experience, and document your progress.
  • Help establish and participate in local restoration efforts; volunteer with a local nonprofit or establish one if none exists.
  • If degraded forests are in your area and no action is being taken, speak to local officials, hand out fliers, or otherwise advocate for restoration.
  • Reduce and/or eliminate use of chemicals on your lawn and/or property; set up a sign that indicates your lawn is chemical-free.
  • Prioritizing reducing your household’s food waste and improving your diet to incorporate more plant-rich meals.
  • Have community conversations about local forests, agriculture, and lawn maintenance practices; seek to reduce harmful practices such as overuse of fertilizers and pesticides and to initiate restoration efforts; educate friends and neighbors about local degraded forests and potential solutions.
  • Contribute to local restoration efforts.
  • When traveling, look for opportunities to support reforestation projects and ecotourism.
  • Help document and develop knowledge-sharing opportunities for Indigenous and local knowledge.
  • Help identify local sources of degradation and distribute findings to policymakers and the public; document and share best practices for reforestation.
  • Try to purchase sustainable forest products that support local reforestation.
  • Take advantage of and/or advocate for public incentives for restoration techniques such as direct payments, PES, property tax breaks, rebates, subsidies, and cash prizes for meeting tree and/or vegetative growth metrics; help ensure incentives allow for long timelines; help ensure equitable access to incentives.
  • Seek to designate lands for reforestation that are adjacent to or connect with already protected areas, intact lands, and/or watersheds.
  • Advocate to remove harmful agriculture and logging subsidies, particularly those that incentivize livestock, biofuels, land encroachment, and overuse of fertilizers.
  • Call on governments and administrators to use transparent, inclusive, and ongoing community engagement processes to co-design restoration projects; help solicit community feedback on area designations, finance, monitoring, and distribution of benefits; help ensure projects address relevant sociological, agricultural, and ecological considerations.
  • Advocate for strong land and tree tenure rights; support Indigenous property rights and autonomy.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; help codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Create educational programs that work with schools, NGOs, and the general public to inform communities how to participate in restoration efforts, benefits, and opportunities; advocate for expanded extension services to develop local capacity in forest restoration, especially in community-led monitoring and evaluation; establish knowledge-sharing initiatives with Indigenous peoples.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, restoration activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify restoration activity and sustainable use of forest products.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in enhancing carbon removal: High

Many scientific studies have evaluated the potential for forest restoration, consistently reporting that forest restoration has potential to provide substantial carbon removal. The effectiveness of forest restoration in terms of carbon uptake per hectare is highly spatially variable, with over 100-fold variability in uptake rates globally (Cook-Patton et al., 2020). These uptake rates have been extensively modeled, though estimates vary with respect to restoration activity (e.g., natural regeneration or plantation establishment) and carbon pools included (e.g., above-ground biomass only, above- and below-ground biomass, or total biomass and soil carbon). For forests undergoing natural regeneration, estimates of effectiveness ranged from 1.0 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr for biomass in boreal forests (Cook-Patton et al., 2020) to 18.8 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr for biomass and soils in humid tropical forests in South America (Bernal et al., 2018).

Estimates of the potential climate impacts of forest restoration vary widely, with differences driven largely by variability in the estimates of land area available for forest restoration. The IPCC reported a global technical mitigation potential of 3.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr with an uncertainty range of 0.5–10.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, and an economically feasible mitigation potential of 1.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr with an uncertainty range of 0.5–3.0 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Nabuurs et al., 2022). Cook-Patton et al. (2020) estimated a maximum mitigation potential of 8.91 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr and a mitigation potential of 5.87 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr under existing national commitments. Roe et al. (2021) estimated a technical mitigation potential of 8.47 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr and a cost-effective mitigation potential of 1.53 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Griscom et al. (2017) reported a technical mitigation potential of 10.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, though the uncertainty estimates spanned 2.7–17.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Using a more conservative estimate of the area available for forest restoration than previous studies, Fesenmeyer et al. (2025) estimated that sequestration of 2.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr is feasible.

The quantitative results presented in this assessment synthesize findings from 16 global datasets supplemented by four national-scale studies. 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.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Improve Annual Cropping

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

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

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

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

Minimal Soil Disturbance

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

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

Permanent Soil Cover

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellows

  • Avery Driscoll

  • Erika Luna

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Eric Toensmeier

  • Aishwarya Venkat, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Emily Cassidy

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

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

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

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

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

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions and removing carbon.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

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

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

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

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

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis

Median 47.80
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

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

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

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

Current Adoption

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

Table 3. Current (2025) adoption level.

Unit: Mha of improved annual cropping

Estimate 267.4
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

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

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

Unit: Mha adopted/yr

Mean 9.99
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

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

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mha

Adoption ceiling 1,067
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

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

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

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mha

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

Unit: Mha installed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 8. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

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

(from nitrous oxide)

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

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

(from SOC)

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

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

Extreme Weather Events

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

Droughts

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

Income and Work

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

Food Security

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

Nature Protection

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

Land Resources

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

Water Quality

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

Risks

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

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

Interactions with Other Solutions

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

COMPETING

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

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

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

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

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha cropland

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

Climate Impact

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

CO₂ , N₂O

Trade-offs

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

t CO2-eq/ha
0≥ 400

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

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

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

t CO2-eq/ha
0≥ 400

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

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

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

Maps Introduction

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

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

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

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Annual Cropping
Classification
Highly Recommended

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness of cover cropping for sequestering carbon: 

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

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

Consensus of effectiveness of reduced tillage for sequestering carbon: Mixed

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

Nitrous oxide reduction: Mixed

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

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

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Improve Nutrient Management

Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean (FALO)
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Agriculture Practices
Image
Farm equipment applying fertilizer selectively
Coming Soon
Off

Key Takeaways

  • Nitrogen is essential for crop growth, but over-application results in release of nitrous oxide emissions, a potent GHG for which agriculture is the predominant anthropogenic source. 
  • Applying "4R" principles (right rate, right time, right place, and right source) when using fertilizer reduces emissions of nitrous oxide and also alleviates air and water pollution.
  • High achievable adoption of improved nutrient management could reduce GHG emissions by 0.54 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr without compromising crop yields.
Summary

We define the Improve Nutrient Management solution as reducing excessive nitrogen use on croplands. Nitrogen is critical for crop production and is added to croplands as synthetic or organic fertilizers and through microbial activity. However, farmers often add more nitrogen to croplands than crops can use. Some of that excess nitrogen is emitted to the atmosphere as nitrous oxide, a potent GHG. 

Droughts
Income & work,Food security,Health
Nature protection
Description for Social and Search
Improve Nutrient Management is a Highly Recommended climate solution. Wise use of fertilizers reduces GHG emissions as well as air and water pollution while ensuring crops get nutrients they need.
Overview

Agriculture is the dominant source of human-caused emissions of nitrous oxide (Tian et al., 2020). Nitrogen is critical for plant growth and is added to croplands in synthetic forms, such as urea, ammonium nitrate, or anhydrous ammonia; in organic forms, such as manure or compost; and by growing legume crops, which host microbes that capture nitrogen from the air and add it to the soil (Adalibieke et al., 2023; Ludemann et al., 2024). If more nitrogen is added than crops can use, the excess can be converted to other forms, including nitrous oxide, through microbial processes called denitrification and nitrification (Figure 1; Reay et al., 2012).

Figure 1. The agricultural nitrogen cycle represents the key pathways by which nitrogen is added to croplands and lost to the environment, including as nitrous oxide. The “4R” nutrient management principles – right source, right rate, right time, right place – increase the proportion of nitrogen taken up by the plant, therefore reducing nitrogen losses to the environment.

Diagram of agricultural nitrogen cycle.

Illustrations: BioRender CC-BY 4.0

Farmers can reduce nitrous oxide emissions from croplands by using the right amount and the right type of fertilizer at the right time and in the right place (Fixen, 2020; Gao & Cabrera Serrenho, 2023). Together, these four “rights” increase nitrogen use efficiency – the proportion of applied nitrogen that the crop uses (Congreves et al., 2021). Improved nutrient management is often a win-win for the farmer and the environment, reducing fertilizer costs while also lowering nitrous oxide emissions (Gu et al., 2023).

Improving nutrient management involves reducing the amount of nitrogen applied to match the crop’s requirements in areas where nitrogen is currently overapplied. A farmer can implement the other three principles – type, time, and place – in a number of ways. For example, fertilizing just before planting instead of after the previous season’s harvest better matches the timing of nitrogen addition to that of plant uptake, reducing nitrous oxide emissions before the crop is planted. Certain types of fertilizers are better suited for maximizing plant uptake, such as extended-release fertilizers, which allow the crop to steadily absorb nutrients over time. Techniques such as banding, in which farmers apply fertilizers in concentrated bands close to the plant roots instead of spreading them evenly across the soil surface, also reduce nitrous oxide emissions. Each of these practices can increase nitrogen use efficiency and decrease the amount of excess nitrogen lost as nitrous oxide (Gao & Cabrera Serrenho, 2023; Gu et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024; You et al., 2023).

For this solution, we estimated a target rate of nitrogen application for major crops as the 20th percentile of the current rate of nitrogen application (in t N/t crop) in areas where yields are near a realistic ceiling. Excess nitrogen was defined as the amount of nitrogen applied beyond the target rate (see Adoption and Appendix for more details). Our emissions estimates include nitrous oxide from croplands, fertilizer runoff, and fertilizer volatilization. They do not include emissions from fertilizer manufacturing, which are addressed in the Deploy Low-Emission Industrial Feedstocks and Boost Industrial Efficiency solutions. We excluded nutrient management on pastures from this solution due to data limitations and address nutrient management in paddy rice systems in the Improve Rice Production solution instead. 

References

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

Almaraz, M., Bai, E., Wang, C., Trousdell, J., Conley, S., Faloona, I., & Houlton, B. Z. (2018). Agriculture is a major source of NOx pollution in California. Science Advances, 4(1), eaao3477. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao3477

Antil, R. S., & Raj, D. (2020). Integrated nutrient management for sustainable crop production and improving soil health. In R. S. Meena (Ed.), Nutrient Dynamics for Sustainable Crop Production (pp. 67–101). Springer. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8660-2_3

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

Chivenge, P., Saito, K., Bunquin, M. A., Sharma, S., & Dobermann, A. (2021). Co-benefits of nutrient management tailored to smallholder agriculture. Global Food Security, 30, 100570. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100570

Deng, J., Guo, L., Salas, W., Ingraham, P., Charrier-Klobas, J. G., Frolking, S., & Li, C. (2018). Changes in irrigation practices likely mitigate nitrous oxide emissions from California cropland. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 32(10), 1514–1527. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GB005961

Domingo, N. G. G., Balasubramanian, S., Thakrar, S. K., Clark, M. A., Adams, P. J., Marshall, J. D., Muller, N. Z., Pandis, S. N., Polasky, S., Robinson, A. L., Tessum, C. W., Tilman, D., Tschofen, P., & Hill, J. D. (2021). Air quality–related health damages of food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(20), e2013637118. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013637118

Elberling, B. B., Kovács, G. M., Hansen, H. F. E., Fensholt, R., Ambus, P., Tong, X., Gominski, D., Mueller, C. W., Poultney, D. M. N., & Oehmcke, S. (2023). High nitrous oxide emissions from temporary flooded depressions within croplands. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), 1–9. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01095-8

Fixen, P. E. (2020). A brief account of the genesis of 4R nutrient stewardship. Agronomy Journal, 112(5), 4511–4518. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20315

Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N. D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D. K., West, P. C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E. M., Carpenter, S. R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., … Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337–342. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452

Gao, Y., & Cabrera Serrenho, A. (2023). Greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogen fertilizers could be reduced by up to one-fifth of current levels by 2050 with combined interventions. Nature Food, 4(2), 170–178. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00698-w

Gerber, J. S., Carlson, K. M., Makowski, D., Mueller, N. D., Garcia de Cortazar-Atauri, I., Havlík, P., Herrero, M., Launay, M., O’Connell, C. S., Smith, P., & West, P. C. (2016). Spatially explicit estimates of nitrous oxide emissions from croplands suggest climate mitigation opportunities from improved fertilizer management. Global Change Biology, 22(10), 3383–3394. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13341

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 

Gong, C., Tian, H., Liao, H., Pan, N., Pan, S., Ito, A., Jain, A. K., Kou-Giesbrecht, S., Joos, F., Sun, Q., Shi, H., Vuichard, N., Zhu, Q., Peng, C., Maggi, F., Tang, F. H. M., & Zaehle, S. (2024). Global net climate effects of anthropogenic reactive nitrogen. Nature, 632(8025), 557–563. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07714-4

Gu, B., Zhang, X., Lam, S. K., Yu, Y., van Grinsven, H. J. M., Zhang, S., Wang, X., Bodirsky, B. L., Wang, S., Duan, J., Ren, C., Bouwman, L., de Vries, W., Xu, J., Sutton, M. A., & 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, Å., MacDonald, J. D., Ogle, S. M., Regina, K., & van der Weerden, T. J. (2019). Chapter 11: nitrous oxide Emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application (2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/pdf/4_Volume4/19R_V4_Ch11_Soils_nitrous oxide_CO2.pdf

Hergoualc’h, K., Mueller, N., Bernoux, M., Kasimir, Ä., van der Weerden, T. J., & Ogle, S. M. (2021). Improved accuracy and reduced uncertainty in greenhouse gas inventories by refining the IPCC emission factor for direct nitrous oxide emissions from nitrogen inputs to managed soils. Global Change Biology, 27(24), 6536–6550. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15884

IPCC, 2019. Summary for Policymakers. In: 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 [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.)].

Lam, S. K., Suter, H., Mosier, A. R., & Chen, D. (2017). Using nitrification inhibitors to mitigate agricultural nitrous oxide emission: A double-edged sword? Global Change Biology, 23(2), 485–489. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13338

Lawrence, N. C., Tenesaca, C. G., VanLoocke, A., & Hall, S. J. (2021). Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils challenge climate sustainability in the US Corn Belt. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(46), e2112108118. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2112108118

Ludemann, C. I., Wanner, N., Chivenge, P., Dobermann, A., Einarsson, R., Grassini, P., Gruere, A., Jackson, K., Lassaletta, L., Maggi, F., Obli-Laryea, G., van Ittersum, M. K., Vishwakarma, S., Zhang, X., & Tubiello, F. N. (2024). A global FAOSTAT reference database of cropland nutrient budgets and nutrient use efficiency (1961–2020): Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Earth System Science Data, 16(1), 525–541. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-525-2024

Menegat, S., Ledo, A., & Tirado, R. (2022). Greenhouse gas emissions from global production and use of nitrogen synthetic fertilisers in agriculture. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 14490. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18773-w

Michaelowa, A., Hermwille, L., Obergassel, W., & Butzengeiger, S. (2019). Additionality revisited: Guarding the integrity of market mechanisms under the Paris Agreement. Climate Policy, 19(10), 1211–1224. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1628695

Mueller, N. D., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Ray, D. K., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J. A. (2012). Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature, 490(7419), Article 7419. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11420

Patel, N., Srivastav, A. L., Patel, A., Singh, A., Singh, S. K., Chaudhary, V. K., Singh, P. K., & Bhunia, B. (2022). Nitrate contamination in water resources, human health risks and its remediation through adsorption: A focused review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(46), 69137–69152. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22377-2

Pinder, R. W., Davidson, E. A., Goodale, C. L., Greaver, T. L., Herrick, J. D., & Liu, L. (2012). Climate change impacts of US reactive nitrogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(20), 7671–7675. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114243109

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

Qiao, C., Liu, L., Hu, S., Compton, J. E., Greaver, T. L., & Li, Q. (2015). How inhibiting nitrification affects nitrogen cycle and reduces environmental impacts of anthropogenic nitrogen input. Global Change Biology, 21(3), 1249–1257. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12802

Qin, Z., Deng, S., Dunn, J., Smith, P., & Sun, W. (2021). Animal waste use and implications to agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 16(6), 064079. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac04d7

Reay, D. S., Davidson, E. A., Smith, K. A., Smith, P., Melillo, J. M., Dentener, F., & Crutzen, P. J. (2012). Global agriculture and nitrous oxide emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2(6), 410–416. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1458

Rockström, J., Williams, J., Daily, G., Noble, A., Matthews, N., Gordon, L., Wetterstrand, H., DeClerck, F., Shah, M., Steduto, P., de Fraiture, C., Hatibu, N., Unver, O., Bird, J., Sibanda, L., & Smith, J. (2017). Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio, 46(1), 4–17. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0793-6

Rurinda, J., Zingore, S., Jibrin, J. M., Balemi, T., Masuki, K., Andersson, J. A., Pampolino, M. F., Mohammed, I., Mutegi, J., Kamara, A. Y., Vanlauwe, B., & Craufurd, P. Q. (2020). Science-based decision support for formulating crop fertilizer recommendations in sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems, 180, 102790. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102790

Scavia, D., David Allan, J., Arend, K. K., Bartell, S., Beletsky, D., Bosch, N. S., Brandt, S. B., Briland, R. D., Daloğlu, I., DePinto, J. V., Dolan, D. M., Evans, M. A., Farmer, T. M., Goto, D., Han, H., Höök, T. O., Knight, R., Ludsin, S. A., Mason, D., … Zhou, Y. (2014). Assessing and addressing the re-eutrophication of Lake Erie: Central basin hypoxia. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 40(2), 226–246. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2014.02.004

Selim, M. M. (2020). Introduction to the integrated nutrient management strategies and their contribution to yield and soil properties. International Journal of Agronomy, 2020(1), 2821678. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2821678

Shcherbak, I., Millar, N., & Robertson, G. P. (2014). Global metaanalysis of the nonlinear response of soil nitrous oxide (nitrous oxide) emissions to fertilizer nitrogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(25), 9199–9204. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1322434111

Shindell, D. T., Faluvegi, G., Koch, D. M., Schmidt, G. A., Unger, N., & Bauer, S. E. (2009). Improved attribution of climate forcing to emissions. Science, 326(5953), 716–718. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1174760

Sobota, D. J., Compton, J. E., McCrackin, M. L., & Singh, S. (2015). Cost of reactive nitrogen release from human activities to the environment in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 10(2), 025006. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/2/025006

Tian, H., Xu, R., Canadell, J. G., Thompson, R. L., Winiwarter, W., Suntharalingam, P., Davidson, E. A., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Prather, M. J., Regnier, P., Pan, N., Pan, S., Peters, G. P., Shi, H., Tubiello, F. N., Zaehle, S., Zhou, F., … Yao, Y. (2020). A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks. Nature, 586(7828), 248–256. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2780-0

van Grinsven, H. J. M., Bouwman, L., Cassman, K. G., van Es, H. M., McCrackin, M. L., & Beusen, A. H. W. (2015). Losses of ammonia and nitrate from agriculture and their effect on nitrogen recovery in the European Union and the United States between 1900 and 2050. Journal of Environmental Quality, 44(2), 356–367. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2014.03.0102

Vanlauwe, B., Descheemaeker, K., Giller, K. E., Huising, J., Merckx, R., Nziguheba, G., Wendt, J., & Zingore, S. (2015). Integrated soil fertility management in sub-Saharan Africa: Unravelling local adaptation. SOIL, 1(1), 491–508. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-1-491-2015

Wang, C., Shen, Y., Fang, X., Xiao, S., Liu, G., Wang, L., Gu, B., Zhou, F., Chen, D., Tian, H., Ciais, P., Zou, J., & Liu, S. (2024). Reducing soil nitrogen losses from fertilizer use in global maize and wheat production. Nature Geoscience, 17(10), 1008–1015. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-024-01542-x

Wang, Y., Li, C., Li, Y., Zhu, L., Liu, S., Yan, L., Feng, G., & Gao, Q. (2020). Agronomic and environmental benefits of Nutrient Expert on maize and rice in Northeast China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(22), 28053–28065. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09153-w

Ward, M. H., Jones, R. R., Brender, J. D., de Kok, T. M., Weyer, P. J., Nolan, B. T., Villanueva, C. M., & van Breda, S. G. (2018). Drinking water nitrate and human health: an updated review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1557. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071557

Withers, P. J. A., Neal, C., Jarvie, H. P., & Doody, D. G. (2014). Agriculture and eutrophication: where do we go from here? Sustainability, 6(9), Article 9. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su6095853

You, L., Ros, G. H., Chen, Y., Shao, Q., Young, M. D., Zhang, F., & de Vries, W. (2023). Global mean nitrogen recovery efficiency in croplands can be enhanced by optimal nutrient, crop and soil management practices. Nature Communications, 14(1), 5747. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41504-2

Zaehle, S., Ciais, P., Friend, A. D., & Prieur, V. (2011). Carbon benefits of anthropogenic reactive nitrogen offset by nitrous oxide emissions. Nature Geoscience, 4(9), 601–605. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1207

Zhang, X., Fang, Q., Zhang, T., Ma, W., Velthof, G. L., Hou, Y., Oenema, O., & Zhang, F. (2020). Benefits and trade-offs of replacing synthetic fertilizers by animal manures in crop production in China: A meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 26(2), 888–900. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14826

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Avery Driscoll

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

  • Eric Toensmeier

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

Effectiveness

We relied on the 2019 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emissions factors to calculate the emissions impacts of improved nutrient management. These are disaggregated by climate zone (“wet” vs. “dry”) and by fertilizer type (“organic” vs. “synthetic”). Nitrogen use reductions in wet climates, which include ~65% of the cropland area represented in this analysis (see Appendix for details), have the largest impact. In these areas, a 1 t reduction in nitrogen use reduces emissions by 8.7 t CO₂‑eq on average for synthetic fertilizers and by 5.0 t CO₂‑eq for organic fertilizers. Emissions savings are lower in dry climates, where a 1 t reduction in nitrogen use reduces emissions by 2.4 t CO₂‑eq for synthetic fertilizers and by 2.6 t CO₂‑eq for organic fertilizers. While these values reflect the median emissions reduction for each climate zone and fertilizer type, they are associated with large uncertainties because emissions are highly variable depending on climate, soil, and management conditions. 

Based on our analysis of the adoption ceiling for each climate zone and fertilizer type (see Appendix), we estimated that a 1 t reduction in nitrogen use reduces emissions by 6.0 t CO₂‑eq at the global median (Table 1). This suggests that ~1.4% of the applied nitrogen is emitted as nitrous oxide at the global average, which is consistent with existing estimates (IPCC, 2019). 

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

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

25th percentile 4.2
Median (50th percentile) 6.0
75th percentile 7.7
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Improving nutrient management typically reduces fertilizer costs while maintaining or increasing yields, resulting in a net financial benefit to the producer. Gu et al. (2023) found that a 21% reduction in global nitrogen use would be economically beneficial, notably after accounting for increased fertilizer use in places that do not currently have adequate access. Using data from their study, we evaluated the average cost of reduced nitrogen application considering the following nutrient management practices: increased use of high-efficiency fertilizers, organic fertilizers, and/or legumes; optimizing fertilizer rates; altering the timing and/or placement of fertilizer applications; and use of buffer zones. Implementation costs depend on the strategy used to improve nutrient management. For example, optimizing fertilizer rates requires soil testing and the ability to apply different fertilizer rates to different parts of a field. Improving timing can involve applying fertilizers at two different times during the season, increasing labor and equipment operation costs. Furthermore, planting legumes incurs seed purchase and planting costs. 

Gu et al. (2023) estimated that annual reductions of 42 Mt of nitrogen were achievable globally using these practices, providing total fertilizer savings of US$37.2 billion and requiring implementation costs of US$15.9 billion, adjusted for inflation to 2023. A 1 t reduction in excess nitrogen application, therefore, was estimated to provide an average of US$507.80 of net cost savings, corresponding to a savings of US$85.21 per t CO₂‑eq of emissions reductions (Table 2).

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact, 100-yr basis.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq

Mean -85.21
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

The improved nutrient management strategies considered for this solution are already well established and widely deployed (Fixen, 2020). Large nitrogen excesses are relatively easy to mitigate through simple management changes with low implementation costs. As nitrogen use efficiency increases, further reductions may require increasingly complex mitigation practices and increasing marginal costs. Therefore, a learning curve was not quantified for this solution.

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

Emissions reductions from improved nutrient management are permanent, though they may not be additional in all cases.

Permanence

As this solution reduces emissions rather than enhancing sequestration, permanence is not applicable.

Additionality

Additionality requires that the emissions benefits of the practice are attributable to climate-related incentives and would not have occurred in the absence of incentives (Michaelowa et al., 2019). If they are not contingent on external incentives, fertilizer use reductions implemented solely to maximize profits do not meet the threshold for additionality. However, fertilizer reductions may be additional if incentives are required to provide access to the technical knowledge and soil testing required to identify optimal rates. Other forms of nutrient management (e.g., applying nitrification inhibitors, using extended-release or organic fertilizers, or splitting applications between two time points) may involve additional costs, substantial practice change, and technical expertise. Thus, these practices are likely to be additional.

Current Adoption

Given that improved nutrient management takes a variety of forms and data on the adoption of individual practices are very limited, we leveraged several global datasets related to nitrogen use and yields to directly assess improvements in nitrogen use efficiency (see Appendix for details).

First, we calculated nitrogen use per metric ton of crop produced using global maps of nitrogen fertilizer use (Adalibieke et al., 2023) and global maps of crop yields (Gerber et al., 2024) for 17 major crops (see Appendix). Next, we determined a target nitrogen use rate (t nitrogen/t crop) for each crop, corresponding to the 20th percentile of nitrogen use rates observed in croplands with yield gaps at or below the 20th percentile, meaning that actual yields were close to an attainable yield ceiling (Gerber et al., 2024). Areas with large yield gaps were excluded from the calculation of target nutrient use efficiency because insufficient nitrogen supply may be compromising yields (Mueller et al., 2012). Yield data were not available for a small number of crops; for these, we assumed reductions in nitrogen use to be proportional to those of other crops.

We considered croplands that had achieved the target rate and had yield gaps lower than the global median to have adopted the solution. We calculated the amount of excess nitrogen use avoided from these croplands as the difference in total nitrogen use under current fertilization rates relative to median fertilizer application rates. As of 2020, croplands that had achieved the adoption threshold for improved nutrient management avoided 10.45 Mt of nitrogen annually relative to the median nitrogen use rate (Table 3), equivalent to 11% of the adoption ceiling.

Table 3. Current (2020) adoption level.

Unit: t nitrogen/yr

Estimate 10,450,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Global average nitrogen use efficiency increased from 47.7% to 54.6% between 2000 and 2020, a rate of approximately 0.43%/yr (Ludemann et al., 2024). This increase accelerated somewhat in the latter decade, from an average rate of 0.38%/yr to 0.53%/yr. Underlying this increase were increases in both the amount of nitrogen used and the amount of excess nitrogen. Total nitrogen additions increased by approximately 2.64 Mt/yr, with the amount of nitrogen used increasing more rapidly (1.99 Mt/yr) than the amount of excess nitrogen (0.65 Mt/yr) between 2000 and 2020 (Ludemann et al., 2024). Although nitrogen use increased between 2000 and 2020 as yields increased, the increase in nitrogen use efficiency suggests uptake of this solution.

Adoption Ceiling

We estimated the adoption ceiling of improved nutrient management to be 95.13 Mt avoided excess nitrogen use/year, not including current adoption (Table 4). This value reflects our estimate of the maximum potential reduction in nitrogen application while avoiding large yield losses and consists of the potential to avoid 62.25 Mt of synthetic nitrogen use and 32.88 Mt of manure and other organic nitrogen use, in addition to current adoption. In total, this is equivalent to an additional 68% reduction in global nitrogen use. The adoption ceiling was calculated as the difference between total nitrogen use at the current rate and total nitrogen use at the target rate (as described in Current Adoption), assuming no change in crop yields. For nitrogen applied to crops for which yield data were not available, the potential reduction in nitrogen use was assumed to be proportional to that of crops for which full data were available.

Table 4. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: t nitrogen/yr

Estimate 105,580,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We estimated that fertilizer use reductions of 69.85–91.06 Mt of nitrogen are achievable, reflecting current adoption plus nitrogen savings due to the achievement of nitrogen application rates equal to the median and 30th percentile of nitrogen application rates occurring in locations where yield gaps are small (Table 5).

This range is more ambitious than a comparable recent estimate by Gu et al. (2023), who found that reductions of approximately 42 Mt of nitrogen are avoidable via cost-effective implementation of similar practices. Differences in target nitrogen use efficiencies underlie differences between our estimates and those of Gu et al., whose findings correspond to an increase in global average cropland nitrogen use efficiency from 42% to 52%. Our estimates reflect higher target nitrogen use efficiencies. Nitrogen use efficiencies greater than 52% have been widely achieved through basic practice modification without compromising yields or requiring prohibitively expensive additional inputs. For instance, You et al. (2023) estimated that the global average nitrogen use efficiency could be increased to 78%. Similarly, cropland nitrogen use efficiency in the United States in 2020 was estimated to be 71%, and substantial opportunities for improved nitrogen use efficiency are still available within the United States (Ludemann et al., 2024), though Lu et al. (2019) and Swaney et al. (2018) report slightly lower estimates. These findings support our slightly more ambitious range of achievable nitrogen use reductions for this solution.

Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: t nitrogen/yr

Current adoption 10,450,000
Achievable – low 69,850,000
Achievable – high 91,060,000
Adoption ceiling 105,580,000
Left Text Column Width

We estimated that improved nutrient management has the potential to reduce emissions by 0.63 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, with achievable emissions reductions of 0.42–0.54 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Table 6). This is equivalent to an additional 56–76% reduction in total nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer use, based on the croplands represented in our analysis.

We estimated avoidable emissions by multiplying our estimates of adoption ceiling and achievable adoption by the relevant IPCC 2019 emissions factors, disaggregated by climate zone and fertilizer type. Under the adoption ceiling scenario, approximately 70% of emissions reductions occurred in wet climates, where emissions per t of applied fertilizer are higher. Reductions in synthetic fertilizer use, which are larger than reductions in organic fertilizer use, contributed about 76% of the potential avoidable emissions. We estimated that the current implementation of improved nutrient management was associated with 0.06 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr of avoided emissions. 

Our estimates are slightly more optimistic but well within the range of the IPCC 2021 estimates, which found that improved nutrient management could reduce nitrous oxide emissions by 0.06–0.7 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.

Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂-eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.06
Achievable – low 0.42
Achievable – high 0.54
Adoption ceiling 0.63
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Droughts

Balanced nutrient concentration contributes to long-term soil fertility and improved soil health by enhancing organic matter content, microbial diversity, and nutrient cycling (Antil & Raj, 2020; Selim, 2020). Healthy soil experiences reduced erosion and has higher water content, which increases its resilience to droughts and extreme heat (Rockström et al., 2017).

Income and Work

Better nutrient management reduces farmers' input costs and increases profitability (Rurinda et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). It is especially beneficial to smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, where site-specific nutrient management programs have demonstrated a significant increase in yield (Chivenge et al., 2021). A review of 61 studies across 11 countries showed that site-specific nutrient management resulted in an average increase in yield by 12% and increased farmer’s’ income by 15% while improving nitrogen use efficiency (Chivenge et al., 2021). 

Food Security

While excessive nutrients cause environmental problems in some parts of the world, insufficient nutrients are a significant problem in others, resulting in lower agricultural yields (Foley et al., 2011). Targeted, site-specific, efficient use of fertilizers can improve crop productivity (Mueller et al., 2012; Vanlauwe et al., 2015), improving food security globally. 

Health

Domingo et al. (2021) estimated about 16,000 premature deaths annually in the United States are due to air pollution from the food sector and found that more than 3,500 premature deaths per year could be avoided through reduced use of ammonia fertilizer, a secondary particulate matter precursor. Better agriculture practices overall can reduce particulate matter-related premature deaths from the agriculture sector by 50% (Domingo et al., 2021). Nitrogen oxides from fertilized croplands are another source of agriculture-based air pollution, and improved management can lead to decreased respiratory and cardiovascular disease (Almarez et al., 2018; Sobota et al., 2015). 

Nitrate contamination of drinking water due to excessive runoff from agriculture fields has been linked to several health issues, including blood disorders and cancer (Patel et al., 2022; Ward et al., 2018). Reducing nutrient runoff through better management is critical to minimize these risks (Ward et al., 2018). 

Nature Protection

Nutrient runoff from agricultural systems is a major driver of water pollution globally, leading to eutrophication and hypoxic zones in aquatic ecosystems (Bijay-Singh & Craswell, 2021). Nitrogen pollution also harms terrestrial biodiversity through soil acidification and increases productivity of fast-growing species, including invasives, which can outcompete native species (Porter et al., 2013). Improved nutrient management is necessary to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loads to water bodies (Withers et al., 2014; van Grinsven et al., 2019) and terrestrial ecosystems (Porter et al., 2013). These practices have been effective in reducing harmful algal blooms and preserving biodiversity in sensitive water systems (Scavia et al., 2014). 

Risks

Although substantial reductions in nitrogen use can be achieved in many places with no or minimal impacts on yields, reducing nitrogen application by too much can lead to yield declines, which in turn can boost demand for cropland, causing GHG-producing land use change. Reductions in only excess nitrogen application will prevent substantial yield losses.

Some nutrient management practices are associated with additional emissions. For example, nitrification inhibitors reduce direct nitrous oxide emissions (Qiao et al., 2014) but can increase ammonia volatilization and subsequent indirect nitrous oxide emissions (Lam et al., 2016). Additionally, in wet climates, nitrous oxide emissions may be reduced through the use of manure instead of synthetic fertilizers (Hergoualc’h et al., 2019), though impacts vary across sites and studies (Zhang et al., 2020). Increased demand for manure could increase livestock production, which has high associated GHG emissions. Emissions also arise from transporting manure to the site of use (Qin et al., 2021).

Although nitrous oxide has a strong direct climate-warming effect, fertilizer use can cool the climate through emissions of other reactive nitrogen-containing compounds (Gong et al., 2024). First, aerosols from fertilizers scatter heat from the sun and cool the climate (Shindell et al., 2009; Gong et al., 2024). Moreover, other reactive nitrogen compounds from fertilizers shorten the lifespan of methane in the atmosphere, reducing its warming effects (Pinder et al., 2012). Finally, nitrogen fertilizers that leave farm fields through volatilization or runoff are ultimately deposited elsewhere, enhancing photosynthesis and storing more carbon in plants and soils (Zaehle et al., 2011; Gong et al., 2024). Improved nutrient management would reduce these cooling effects.

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Improved nutrient management will reduce emissions from the production phase of biomass crops, increasing their benefit.

(mixed) Improving nutrient management can reduce nutrient pollution in nearby and downstream ecosystems, aiding in their protection or restoration. However, this interaction can be mixed as fertilizer can also enhance terrestrial primary productivity and carbon sequestration in some landscapes.

Competing

Improved nutrient management will reduce the GHG production associated with each calorie and, therefore, the impacts of the Improve Diets and Reduce Food Loss and Waste solutions will be reduced. 

Each of these solutions could decrease emissions associated with fertilizer production, but improved nutrient management will reduce total demand for fertilizers.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

t avoided excess nitrogen application

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
04.26median
units/yr
Current 1.045×10⁷ 06.985×10⁷9.106×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.06 0.420.54
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-85
Gradual

N₂O

t CO2-eq/ha/yr
01

The problem: nitrous oxide emissions from over-fertilized soils

The world’s agricultural lands can emit high levels of nitrous oxide, the third most powerful greenhouse gas. These emissions stem from overusing nitrogen-based fertilizers, especially in regions in China, India, Western Europe, and central North America (in red). While crops absorb some of the nitrogen fertilizer we apply, much of what remains is lost to the atmosphere as nitrous oxide pollution or to local waterways as nitrate pollution. Using fertilizers more wisely can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution while maintaining high levels of crop production.

Project Drawdown

t CO2-eq/ha/yr
01

The problem: nitrous oxide emissions from over-fertilized soils

The world’s agricultural lands can emit high levels of nitrous oxide, the third most powerful greenhouse gas. These emissions stem from overusing nitrogen-based fertilizers, especially in regions in China, India, Western Europe, and central North America (in red). While crops absorb some of the nitrogen fertilizer we apply, much of what remains is lost to the atmosphere as nitrous oxide pollution or to local waterways as nitrate pollution. Using fertilizers more wisely can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution while maintaining high levels of crop production.

Project Drawdown

Maps Introduction

Improved nutrient management will have the greatest emissions reduction if it is targeted at areas with the largest excesses of nitrogen fertilizer use. In 2020, China, India, and the United States alone accounted for 52% of global excess nitrogen application (Ludemann et al., 2024). Improved nutrient management could be particularly beneficial in China and India, where nutrient use efficiency is currently lower than average (Ludemann et al., 2024). You et al. (2023) also found potential for large increases in nitrogen use efficiency in parts of China, India, Australia, Northern Europe, the United States Midwest, Mexico, and Brazil under standard best management practices. Gu et al. (2024) found that nitrogen input reductions are economically feasible in most of Southern Asia, Northern and Western Europe, parts of the Middle East, North America, and Oceania.

In addition to regional patterns in the adoption ceiling, greater nitrous oxide emissions reductions are possible in wet climates or on irrigated croplands compared to dry climates. Nitrous oxide emissions tend to peak when nitrogen availability is high and soil moisture is in the ~70–90% range (Betterbach-Bahl et al., 2013; Elberling et al., 2023; Hao et al., 2025; Lawrence et al., 2021), though untangling the drivers of nitrous oxide emissions is complex (Lawrence et al., 2021). Water management to avoid prolonged periods of soil moisture in this range is an important complement to nutrient management in wet climates and on irrigated croplands (Deng et al., 2018).

Importantly, improved nutrient management, as defined here, is not appropriate for implementation in areas with nitrogen deficits or negligible nitrogen surpluses, including much of Africa. In these areas, crop yields are constrained by nitrogen availability, and an increase in nutrient inputs may be needed to achieve target yields. Additionally, nutrient management in paddy (flooded) rice systems is not included in this solution but rather in the Improve Rice Production solution.

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Nutrient Management
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Focus policies and regulations on the four nutrient management principles – right rate, type, time, and place.
  • Create dynamic nutrient management policies that account for varying practices, environments, drainage, historical land use, and other factors that may require adjusting nutrient regulations.
  • Offer financial assistance responsive to local soil and weather conditions, such as grants and subsidies, insurance programs, and tax breaks, to encourage farmers to comply with regulations.
  • Mandate insurance schemes that allow farmers to reduce fertilizer use.
  • Mandate nutrient budgets or ceilings that are responsive to local yield, weather, and soil conditions.
  • Require farmers to formulate nutrient management and fertilizer plans.
  • Mandate efficiency rates for manure-spreading equipment.
  • Ensure access to and require soil tests to inform fertilizer application.
  • Invest in research on alternative organic nutrient sources.
  • Create and expand education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Use the four nutrient management principles – right rate, type, time, and place – to guide fertilizer application.
  • Utilize or advocate for financial assistance and tax breaks for farmers to improve nutrient management techniques.
  • Create and adhere to nutrient and fertilizer management plans.
  • Conduct soil tests to inform fertilizer application.
  • Use winter cover crops, crop rotations, residue retention, and split applications for fertilizer.
  • Improve the efficiency of, and regularly calibrate, manure-spreading equipment.
  • Leverage agroecological practices such as nutrient recycling and biological nitrogen fixation.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving nutrient management.
  • Take advantage of education programs, support groups, and extension services focused on improved nutrient management.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Provide incentives for farmers in primary sourcing regions to adopt best management practices for reducing nitrogen application.
  • Invest in companies that use improved nutrient management techniques or produce equipment or research for fertilizer application and testing.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved nutrient management techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving nutrient management practices.
  • Promote products produced with improved nutrient management techniques and educate consumers about the importance of the practice.
  • Create or support education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance.
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Start model farms to demonstrate improved nutrient management techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Conduct and share research on improved nutrient management techniques, alternative organic fertilizers, or local policy options.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved nutrient management techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor water quality and soil health.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving nutrient management practices.
  • Create or support education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance.
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

Further information:

Investors
  • Invest in companies developing technologies that support improved nutrient management such as precision fertilizer applicators, alternative fertilizers, soil management equipment, and software.
  • Invest in ETFs and ESG funds that hold companies committed to improved nutrient management techniques in their portfolios.
  • Encourage companies in your investment portfolio to adopt improved nutrient management.
  • Provide access to capital at reduced rates for farmers adhering to improved nutrient management.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Provide financing for farmers to improve nutrient management.
  • Start model farms to demonstrate nutrient management techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Conduct and share research on improved nutrient management, alternative organic fertilizers, or local policy options.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved nutrient management techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor water quality and soil health.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving nutrient management practices.
  • Create or support education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance.
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Start model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Conduct and share research on improved nutrient management, alternative organic fertilizers, or local policy options.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved nutrient management techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor water quality and soil health.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships dedicated to improving nutrient management practices.
  • Create or support education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance.
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

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 and develop the application of AI and robotics for precise fertilizer application.
  • Improve data and analytics to monitor soil and water quality, assist farmers, support policymaking, and assess the impacts of policies.
  • Develop education and training applications to promote improved nutrient management and provide real-time feedback.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Create or join community-supported agriculture programs that source from farmers who used improved nutrient management practices.
  • Conduct soil tests on your lawn and garden and reduce fertilizer use if you are over-fertilizing.
  • Volunteer for soil and water quality monitoring and restoration projects.
  • Start model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved nutrient management techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor water quality and soil health.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships dedicated to improving nutrient management.
  • Create or support education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance.
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing nitrous oxide emissions from croplands: High

There is high scientific consensus that reducing nitrogen surpluses through improved nutrient management reduces nitrous oxide emissions from croplands. 

Nutrient additions to croplands produce an estimated 0.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (range 0.7–1.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ) of direct nitrous oxide emissions from fields, plus approximately 0.3 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr of emissions from fertilizers that runoff into waterways or erode (Tian et al., 2020). Nitrous oxide emissions from croplands are directly linked to the amount of nitrogen applied. Furthermore, the amount of nitrous oxide emitted per unit of applied nitrogen is well quantified for a range of different nitrogen sources and field conditions (Reay et al., 2012; Shcherbak et al., 2014; Gerber et al., 2016; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2019; Hergoualc’h et al., 2021). Tools to improve nutrient management have been extensively studied, and practices that improve nitrogen use efficiency through right rate, time, place, and type principles have been implemented in some places for several decades (Fixen, 2020; Ludemann et al., 2024).

Recently, Gao & Cabrera Serrenho (2023) estimated that fertilizer-related emissions could be reduced up to 80% by 2050 relative to current levels using a combination of nutrient management and new fertilizer production methods. You et al. (2023) found that adopting improved nutrient management practices would increase nitrogen use efficiency from a global average of 48% to 78%, substantially reducing excess nitrogen. Wang et al. (2024) estimated that the use of enhanced-efficiency fertilizers could reduce nitrogen losses to the environment 70–75% for maize and wheat systems. Chivenge et al. (2021) found comparable results in smallholder systems in Africa and Asia.

The results presented in this document were produced through analysis of global datasets. We recognize that geographic biases can influence the development of global datasets and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Appendix

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

Emissions Factors

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

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

Current, Target, and Avoidable Nitrogen Inputs and Emissions

Using highly disaggregated data on nitrogen inputs from Adalibieke et al. (2024) for 21 crop groups (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.

Table S1. Crops represented by the source data on nitrogen inputs (Adalibieke et al., 2024) and estimated and attainable yields (Gerber et al., 2024). Crop groups included consistently in both datasets are marked as “both,” and crop groups represented in the nitrogen input data but not in the yield datasets are marked as “nitrogen only.”

Crop Dataset(s)
BarleyBoth
CassavaBoth
CottonBoth
MaizeBoth
MilletBoth
Oil palmBoth
PotatoBoth
RiceBoth
RyeBoth
RapeseedBoth
SorghumBoth
SoybeanBoth
SugarbeetBoth
SugarcaneBoth
SunflowerBoth
Sweet potatoBoth
WheatBoth
GroundnutNitrogen only
FruitsNitrogen only
VegetablesNitrogen only
OtherNitrogen only
Left Text Column Width
Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Protect Coastal Wetlands

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

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

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

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

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

Types of wetlands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Christina Richardson, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • Avery Driscoll

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

  • Paul West, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Avery Driscoll

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

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

Equation 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

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

Estimate 1

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

Estimate 2

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

Estimate -6

Negative value indicates cost savings.

Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

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

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

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

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

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

Current Adoption

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

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

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

Unit: million ha protected

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

Unit: million ha protected

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

Unit: million ha protected

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

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

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

Unit: ha/yr protected

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

Unit: ha/yr protected

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

Unit: ha/yr protected

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

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

Credit: Project Drawdown

Enable Download
Off
Adoption Ceiling

We estimate an adoption ceiling of 54.6 million ha of coastal wetlands globally, which includes 15.7 million ha of mangroves, 7.50 million ha of salt marshes, and 31.4 million ha of seagrasses (Tables 5a–c). This estimate is in line with recent existing global estimates of coastal wetlands (36–185 million ha), which have large ranges due to uncertainties surrounding seagrass and salt marsh distributions (Macreadie et al., 2021, Krause et al., 2025). The adoption ceiling of our solution is therefore a conservative estimate of potential climate impact if global areas are indeed larger than calculated. While the protection of all existing coastal wetlands is highly unlikely, these values are used to represent the technical limits of adoption of this solution.

Table 5. Adoption ceiling: upper limit for adoption of legal protection of ecosystems.

Unit: million ha protected

Estimate 15.7

Unit: million ha protected

Estimate 7.50

Unit: million ha protected

Estimate 31.4
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We defined the lower end of the achievable range for coastal wetland protection (under IUCN categories I–IV) as 50% of the adoption ceiling and the higher end of the achievable range as 70% of the adoption ceiling for each ecosystem (Tables 6a–c). These numbers are ambitious but precedent exists to support them. For instance, roughly 11 countries already protect over 70% of their mangroves (Dabalà et al., 2023), and the global “30 by 30” target aims to protect 30% of ecosystems on land and in the ocean by 2030 (Roberts et al., 2020). Further, a significant extent of existing global coastal wetland areas already fall under non-strict protection categories not included in our analysis (V–VI and “Other”). These are prime candidates for conversion to stricter protection categories, so long as the designation confers real conservation benefits; recent work suggests that stricter protection can coincide with increased degradation in some mangroves (Heck et al., 2024).

Current adoption of PAs and MPAs in many countries with the highest land areas of coastal wetlands is low. For example, protection levels (IUCN I–IV) in countries with the top 10 greatest mangrove areas ranges between less than 1% (India, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Papua New Guinea) to 8.8–21.2% (Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Mexico;Dabalà et al., 2023). Expansion of PAs, particularly under IUCN I–IV categories, is a significant challenge with real implementation barriers due to competing land uses and local reliance on these areas for livelihoods. Further, protection does not guarantee conservation benefits, and significant funding is required to maintain/enforce these areas or they run the risk of becoming “paper parks” (Di Minin & Toivonen, 2015). Strong policy and financial incentives for conservation will be necessary to achieve these ambitious goals. Pathways for operationalizing protection could include finance, governance, and stakeholder alignment and will likely require a combination of these tactics around the world. 

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels for ecosystems.

Unit: million ha protected

Current adoption 2.94
Achievable – low 7.85
Achievable – high 11.0
Adoption ceiling 15.7

Unit: million ha protected

Current adoption 1.24
Achievable – low 3.75
Achievable – high 5.25
Adoption ceiling 7.50

Unit: million ha protected

Current adoption 3.86
Achievable – low 15.7
Achievable – high 22.0
Adoption ceiling 31.4
Left Text Column Width

We estimated that coastal wetland protection currently avoids approximately 0.04 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, with potential impacts of 0.27 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the adoption ceiling (Table 7a–c, see Appendix for more information on the calculations). The lower-end achievable scenario (50% protection) would avoid 0.14 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, and the upper-end achievable scenario (70% protection) would avoid 0.20 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Tables 7a–c). These values are in line with Macreadie et al. (2021), who estimated a maximum mitigation potential from avoided emissions due to degradation (land conversion) of 0.30 (range: 0.14–0.47) Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for mangrove, salt marsh, and seagrass ecosystems. Our estimate was slightly lower, but within their range, and differed in a few key ways. We accounted for the effectiveness of protection at reducing degradation (53–59%, instead of assuming 100%), included retained carbon sequestration with each hectare protected, and used slightly different loss rates and ecosystem areas.

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption for ecosystems.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.02
Achievable – low 0.06
Achievable – high 0.09
Adoption ceiling 0.12

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.01
Achievable – low 0.02
Achievable – high 0.03
Adoption ceiling 0.04

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.01
Achievable – low 0.06
Achievable – high 0.08
Adoption ceiling 0.11
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Extreme Weather Events

Wetlands buffer coastal communities from waves and storm surge due to extreme weather and have important roles in disaster risk mitigation (Sheng et al., 2022; Guannel et al., 2016). Mangroves slow the flow of water and reduce surface waves to protect more than 60 million people in low-lying coastal areas, mainly in low- and middle-income countries (McIvor et al., 2012; Hochard et al., 2021). Wetlands also protect structures against damage during storms and lead to savings in insurance claims (Barbier et al., 2013; Sheng et al., 2022). Mangroves provide an estimated US$65 billion in flood protection globally (Menéndez et al., 2020). A study of the damages of Hurricane Sandy found that wetlands in the northeastern United States avoided US$625 million in direct flood damages (Narayan et al., 2017).

Income and Work

Wetlands are a contributor to local livelihoods, providing employment for coastal populations via the fisheries and tourism that they support. Coastal ecosystems, such as mangroves, are crucial for subsistence fisheries as they sustain approximately 4.1 million small-scale fishers (Leal and Spalding, 2022). Wetlands provide sources of income for low-income coastal communities as they make small-scale fishing accessible, requiring limited gear and materials to fish (Cullen-Unsworth & Unsworth, 2018). The economic value of mangrove ecosystem services is estimated at US$33,000–57,000/ha/yr and is a major contributor to the national economies of low- and middle-income countries with mangroves (UNEP, 2014).

Food Security

Mangroves support the development of numerous commercially important fish species and strengthen overall fishery productivity. For example, research conducted across 6,000 villages in Indonesia found that rural coastal households near high and medium-density mangroves consumed more fish and aquatic animals than households without mangroves nearby (Ickowitz et al., 2023). Seagrasses also support fisheries as 20% of the world’s largest fisheries rely on seagrasses for habitats (Jensen, 2022). The amount and diversity of species within seagrasses also provide important nutrition for fishery species (Cullen-Unsworth & Unsworth, 2018).

Equality

Coastal wetlands are significant in cultural heritages and identities for nearby people. They can be associated with historical, religious, and spiritual values for communities and especially for Indigenous communities (UNEP, 2014). For example, a combination of sea-level rise and oil and gas drilling have contributed to the decline of coastal wetlands in Louisiana, which threatens livelihoods and deep spiritual ties of local Indigenous tribes (Baniewicz, 2020; Hutchinson, 2022). Indigenous people have a long history of managing and protecting coastal wetlands (Mathews & Turner, 2017). Efforts to protect these areas must include legal recognition of Indigenous ownership to support a just and sustainable conservation process (Fletcher et al., 2021).

Nature Protection

Coastal wetlands are integral in supporting the biodiversity of surrounding watersheds. High species diversity of mangroves and seagrasses provide a unique habitat for marine life, birds, insects, and mammals, and contain numerous threatened or endangered species (Green and Short, 2003; U.S. EPA, 2025a). A variety of species rely on wetlands for food and shelter, and they can provide temporary habitats for species during critical times in their life cycles, such as migration and breeding (Unsworth et al., 2022). Wetlands can improve water quality, making the surrounding ecosystem more favorable to supporting marine life (Cullen-Unsworth & Unsworth, 2018). Seagrasses can improve coral health by filtering water and reducing pathogens that could cause disease (Cullen-Unsworth & Unsworth, 2018).

Land Resources

Wetlands reduce coastal erosion which can benefit local communities during strong storms (Jensen, 2022). Wetlands mitigate erosion impacts by absorbing wave energy that would degrade sand and other marine sediments (U.S. EPA, 2025b). Specifically, mangroves reduce erosion through their aerial root structure that retain sediments that would otherwise degrade the shoreline (Thampanya et al., 2006).

Water Quality

Coastal wetlands improve the water quality of watersheds by filtering chemicals, particles (including microplastics), sediment, and cycling nutrients (Unsworth et al. 2022). There is even evidence that wetlands can remove viruses and bacteria from water, leading to better sanitation and health for marine wildlife and humans (Lamb et al., 2017).

Risks

There are several risks associated with coastal wetland protection. Leakage, wherein protection in one region could prompt degradation of another, could reduce climate benefits (Renwick et al., 2015). Strict conservation of coastal wetlands could impact local economies, creating “poverty traps” if protection threatens livelihoods (McNally et al., 2011). Conservation projects also risk unequal distribution of benefits (Lang et al., 2023). In places where habitats are fragmented or existing infrastructure limits landward migration, even protected coastal wetlands are at risk of being lost with climate change (commonly known as “the coastal squeeze”; Borchert et al., 2018). Funding gaps risk reversal of climate benefits despite initial conservation efforts; most MPAs and PAs report a lack of funding (Balmford et al., 2004; Bruner et al., 2004). If coastal wetlands are subjected to human impacts that protection cannot prevent, such as upgradient nutrient pollution, there could also be a risk of increased GHG emissions (Feng et al., 2025) and ecosystem degradation.

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Other ecosystems often occur adjacent to areas of coastal wetlands, and the health of nearby ecosystems can be improved by the services provided by intact coastal wetlands (and vice versa). 

Competing

Mangrove deforestation can occur for fuel wood needs. Fuel wood sourced from mangroves could be replaced with wood sourced from other forested ecosystems.

Protecting coastal wetlands could limit near-shore land availability for renewable energy technologies and competes with the following solution for land:

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
07.647.88median
units
Current 2.94×10⁶ 07.85×10⁶1.1×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.02 0.060.09
US$ per t CO₂-eq
1
Emergency Brake

CO₂

Solution Basics

ha protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
04.384.78median
units
Current 1.24×10⁶ 03.75×10⁶5.25×10⁶
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.01 0.020.03
US$ per t CO₂-eq
2
Emergency Brake

CO₂

Solution Basics

ha protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
03.153.56median
units
Current 3.86×10⁶ 01.57×10⁷2.2×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.01 0.060.08
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-6
Emergency Brake

CO₂

Trade-offs

Trade-offs associated with protection of coastal wetlands include emission of other GHGs not quantified in this solution that have higher global warming potentials (GWP) than CO₂. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions can be measurable in coastal wetland ecosystems, though it is important to recognize that degradation can significantly impact the magnitude and types of effluxes, too. In mangroves, methane evasion can offset carbon burial by almost 20% based on a 20-yr GWP (Rosentreter et al., 2018). In seagrasses, methane and nitrous oxide effluxes can offset burial on average, globally, by 33.4% based on a 20-yr GWP and 7.0% based on a 100-yr GWP (Eyre et al., 2023). Finally, conservation of coastal land can also restrict development of desirable coastal property for other uses.

% mangroves
> 0100

Global mangrove ecosystem distribution

Mangrove ecosystems cover approximately 15.7 million ha globally; just five countries (Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and Nigeria) contain nearly 50% of the world’s mangrove ecosystem area (FAO, 2020). Green shaded areas indicate the general location of mangrove ecosystems; zoom in for details.

Liu, L., Zhang, X., & Zhao, T. (2022). GWL_FCS30: global 30 m wetland map with fine classification system using multi-sourced and time-series remote sensing imagery in 2020 [Data set, Version 1]. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7340516

% mangroves
> 0100

Global mangrove ecosystem distribution

Mangrove ecosystems cover approximately 15.7 million ha globally; just five countries (Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and Nigeria) contain nearly 50% of the world’s mangrove ecosystem area (FAO, 2020). Green shaded areas indicate the general location of mangrove ecosystems; zoom in for details.

Liu, L., Zhang, X., & Zhao, T. (2022). GWL_FCS30: global 30 m wetland map with fine classification system using multi-sourced and time-series remote sensing imagery in 2020 [Data set, Version 1]. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7340516

Maps Introduction

The current adoption, potential adoption, and effectiveness of coastal wetland protection is ecosystem-dependent (mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses) and geographically variable. While coastal wetland protection can help avoid GHG emissions anywhere they occur, ecosystems with high rates of loss from human activity, and large unprotected areas have the greatest potential for avoiding emissions via protection. 

For instance, seagrass ecosystems have the lowest current adoption of protection, ~12%, and highest adoption ceiling (31.4 Mha) (Tables 3 and 6). Protecting seagrasses also potentially can save money (–US$23/ha, Table 2) because they do not generally require land purchase (McCrea-Strub et al., 2011). Protection of seagrasses could therefore provide meaningful climate impact as well as substantial economic and ecologic benefits (Unsworth et al., 2022). 

For seagrasses, countries like Australia (~10 Mha), Indonesia (~3 Mha), the United States (~0.5 Mha), and regions such as the Gulf of Mexico (~2 Mha) and the Western Mediterranean (~0.4 Mha), could be good initial targets for protection due to their significant seagrass extents (Green and Short, 2003). Countries that contain the top 10 largest areas of mangroves (Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Myanmar, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea) might have the greatest potential to significantly expand adoption and scale climate impact (Dabalà et al., 2023). Likewise, salt marsh protection might be most beneficial in countries with the greatest extent, such as the United States (~1.7 Mha), Australia (~1.3 Mha), Russia (~0.7 Mha), and China (~0.6 Mha) (Mcowen et al., 2017).

Action Word
Protect
Solution Title
Coastal Wetlands
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Grant Indigenous communities full property rights and autonomy; support them in monitoring, managing, and enforcing MPAs/PAs/IPLs.
  • Ensure effective enforcement and monitoring of existing PAs using real-time and satellite data, if available.
  • Create or strengthen legislative protections for coastal wetlands, requiring their consideration during land use planning and allowing for local decision-making.
  • Start expanding PAs by first designating coastal wetlands adjacent to existing MPAs/PAs/IPLs.
  • Increase designated PAs and MPAs and consider all benefits (e.g., climate, human well-being, biodiversity) and dynamics (e.g., water flows, soil, agriculture) when designating PAs to ensure maximum benefits.
  • Ensure PAs and MPAs don’t displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information; create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Integrate river, watershed, and dam management into coastal wetland protection.
  • Streamline regulations and legal requirements, when possible to simplify management and designation of MPAs/PAs/IPLs.
  • Use financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, payments for ecosystem services (PES), and debt-for-nature swaps to protect coastal wetlands from development.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid roads and other development projects that might interfere with MPAs and PAs.
  • Coordinate MPA and PA efforts horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts), ensuring an inclusive process for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Incorporate MPAs/PAs/IPLs into local, national, and international climate plans (i.e., Nationally Determined Contributions).
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain coastal wetlands.
  • Create processes for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution.
  • Create sustainable use regulations for protected coastal wetland areas that provide resources to local communities.
  • Empower local communities to manage coastal wetlands and ensure a participatory approach to designating and managing MPAs and PAs.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on MPA regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Avoid draining or degrading coastal wetlands.
  • Avoid developing intact coastal wetlands, including small-scale shoreline developments such as docks.
  • Invest in coastal wetland conservation, restoration, sustainable management practices, specialized research facilities, and other R&D efforts.
  • Participate in stakeholder engagements and help policymakers designate coastal wetlands, create regulations, and implement robust monitoring and enforcement.
  • Grant Indigenous communities full property rights and autonomy and support them in monitoring, managing, and enforcing PAs.
  • Ensure protected coastal wetlands don’t displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Integrate river, watershed, and dam management into coastal wetland protection.
  • Use real-time monitoring and satellite data to manage and enforce PA and MPA regulations.
  • Create sustainable use regulations for protected coastal wetland areas that provide resources to the local community.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with protected coastal wetlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs and MPAs.
  • Advocate for or use financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to protect coastal wetlands from development.
  • Utilize financial mechanisms such as biodiversity offsets, PES, high-integrity voluntary carbon markets, and debt-for-nature swaps to fund coastal wetland protection.
  • Help classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information as well as create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Coordinate PA and MPA efforts horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts), ensuring an inclusive process for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain coastal wetlands.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on MPA/PA/IPL regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Ensure operations, development, and supply chains are not degrading coastal wetlands or interfering with PA or MPA management.
  • Integrate coastal wetland protection into net-zero strategies, if relevant.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Only purchase carbon credits from high-integrity, verifiable carbon markets, and do not use them as replacements for less carbon-intensive operations or claim them as offsets.
  • Consider donating to established coastal wetland protection funds in place of carbon credits.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to coastal wetlands from development.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Leverage political influence to advocate for stronger coastal wetland protection policies at national and international levels.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid roads and other development projects that might interfere with PAs and MPAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing MPAs/PAs/IPLs, expansion of new MPAs/PAs/IPLs, and more public investments.
  • Help manage and monitor protected coastal wetlands using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Provide financial support for MPAs/PAs/IPLs, monitoring, and enforcement.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with protected coastal wetlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or MPAs.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support the capacity of Indigenous and local communities for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Use or advocate for financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to protect coastal wetlands from development.
  • Help classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information as well as create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain coastal wetlands.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on MPA/PA/IPL regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.

Further information:

Investors
  • Ensure investment portfolios do not degrade coastal wetlands or interfere with MPAs/PAs/IPLs, using data, information, and the latest technology to inform investments.
  • Invest in coastal wetland protection, monitoring, management, and enforcement mechanisms.
  • Use financial mechanisms such as credible biodiversity offsets, PES, voluntary high-integrity carbon markets, and debt-for-nature swaps to fund coastal wetland protection.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for legal protection and public relations.
  • Share data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid investments that drive coastal wetland destruction with other investors and nongovernmental organizations.
  • Provide favorable loans to Indigenous communities and entrepreneurs and businesses protecting wetlands.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing MPAs/PAs/IPLs, expansion of new MPAs/PAs/IPLs, and public investments.
  • Help manage and monitor protected coastal wetlands, using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Provide technical and financial assistance to low- and middle-income countries and communities to protect coastal wetlands.
  • Provide financial support to organizations and institutions developing and deploying monitoring technology and conducting wetland research.
  • Help manage and monitor protected coastal wetlands using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with protected coastal wetlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or MPAs.
  • Help classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information as well as create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain coastal wetlands.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on MPA/PA/IPL regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing MPAs/PAs/IPLs, expansion of new MPAs/PAs/IPLs, and for public investments.
  • Advocate for or use financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, PES, and debt-for-nature swaps to protect coastal wetlands from development.
  • Help manage and monitor protected coastal wetlands using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with protected coastal wetlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or MPAs.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon and biodiversity markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for legal protection, management, and public relations.
  • Help classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information as well as create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.
  • Create programs that educate the public on MPA/PA/IPL regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Study ecosystem services provided by coastal wetlands and catalogue the benefits.
  • Improve mapping of coastal wetland areas, carbon content and dynamics, tidal impacts, degradation types and levels, and emissions data – specifically methane and nitrous oxide.
  • Improve monitoring methods using field measurements, models, satellite imagery, and GIS tools.
  • Research adjacent technologies and practices such as seaweed farm management, kelp forest conservation, sediment management, and biodiversity restoration.
  • Conduct meta-analyses or synthesize existing literature on coastal wetlands and protection efforts.
  • Explore ways to use smart management systems for PAs and MPAs, including the use of real-time and satellite data.
  • Develop land-use planning tools that help avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with PAs and MPAs or incentivize drainage.
  • Create tools for local communities to monitor coastal wetlands, such as mobile apps, e-learning platforms, and mapping tools.
  • Develop verifiable carbon credits using technology such as blockchain to improve the integrity of carbon markets.
  • Develop supply chain tracking software for investors and businesses seeking to create sustainable portfolios and products.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Avoid draining or degrading coastal wetlands.
  • Avoid developing intact coastal wetlands, including small-scale shoreline developments such as docks.
  • Help manage and monitor protected coastal wetlands using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Establish coordinating bodies for farmers, developers, landowners, policymakers, dam operators, and other stakeholders to holistically manage PAs.
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing MPAs/PAs/IPLs, expansion of new MPAs/PAs/IPLs, and public investments.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with protected coastal wetlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or MPAs.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon and biodiversity markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Support Indigenous communities' capacity for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Use or advocate for financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to protect coastal wetlands from development.
  • Help classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information as well as create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Ensure PAs and MPAs don’t displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain coastal wetlands.
  • Participate or volunteer in local coastal wetland protection efforts.
  • Plant native species to help improve the local ecological balance and stabilize the soil – especially on waterfront property.
  • Use nontoxic cleaning and gardening supplies, purchase unbleached paper products, and recycle to help keep pollution and debris out of wetlands.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on MPA/PA/IPL regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing emissions and maintaining carbon removal: High

There is high scientific consensus that coastal wetland protection is an important strategy for reducing wetland loss due to degradation and that degradation results in carbon stock loss from coastal wetlands. Rates of wetland loss are generally lower inside PAs than outside them. An analysis of over 4,000 PAs (wetland and non-wetland area) showed 59% of sites are in “sound management,” which generally reflects PAs with strong enforcement, management implementation, and conservation outcome indicators (Leverington et al., 2010). Here we used a conservative effectiveness of 59% for salt marshes and mangroves that are under legal protection, consistent with the value from Leverington et al. (2010). Other regional studies show similar PA effectiveness values, with 25–50% of wetland PAs in China exhibiting moderate to very high conservation effectiveness (Lu et al., 2016).

Seagrasses differ from mangroves and salt marshes in that they fall under MPA designation because they are subtidal, or submerged. In an analysis of effectiveness of 66 MPAs in 18 countries, nearly 53% of MPAs reported positive or slightly positive ecosystem outcomes (Rodríguez-Rodríguez & Martínez-Vega, 2022). Less is known about MPA effectiveness for seagrass meadows specifically; we assumed an effectiveness of 53% – similar to other MPAs.

Prevention of degradation via legal coastal wetlands protection avoids emissions by preserving carbon stocks while also retaining carbon sequestration capacity. Degradation of coastal wetlands results in measurable loss of short- and long-lived carbon stocks, with emissions that vary based on ecosystem and degradation type (Donato et al., 2011, Holmquist et al., 2023, Lovelock et al., 2017, Mcleod et al., 2011, Pendleton et al., 2012). Estimates of existing carbon stocks in coastal wetlands are substantial, ranging between 8.97–32.7 Gt of carbon (32.9–120 Gt CO₂‑eq ), most of which is likely susceptible to degradation (Macreadie et al., 2021).

The results presented in this document synthesize findings from 14 global datasets. We recognize that geographic bias in the information underlying global data products creates bias and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions and understudied ecosystems.

Appendix

In this analysis, we integrated global land cover data; shapefiles of PAs, MPAs, and IPLs; and ecosystem type (mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses) data on carbon emissions and sequestration rates to calculate currently protected coastal wetland area, total global coastal wetland area, and avoided emissions and additional sequestration from coastal wetland protection by ecosystem type (mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrasses).

Land Cover Data

We used two land cover data products to estimate coastal wetland extent by ecosystem type (mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses) inside and outside of PAs, MPAs, and IPLs: 1) a global 30 m wetland map, GWL_FCS30, for mangroves and salt marshes (Zhang et al., 2023), and 2) the global distribution of seagrasses map from UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC & Short, 2021).

Protected Coastal Wetland Areas

The IUCN defines PAs, including MPAs, as geographically distinct areas managed primarily for the long-term conservation of nature and ecosystem services. They are further disaggregated into six levels of protection, ranging from strict wilderness preserves to sustainable use areas that allow for some natural resource extraction (including logging). We calculated all levels of protection but only considered protection categories I–IV in our analysis of adoption. We recognized that other protection categories might provide conservation benefits. We excluded categories labeled as “Not Applicable (NAP),” “Not Reported (NR),” “Not Assigned (NAS),” as well as categories VI and VII. We also estimated IPL area based on available data, but emphasized that much of their extent has not been fully mapped nor recognized for its conservation benefits (Garnett et al., 2018). Additionally, the IPL dataset only covered land and therefore did not include seagrass ecosystems explicitly beyond the extent that ecosystems bordering terrestrial IPL areas were captured within the 1 km pixels of analysis. Coastal wetlands also lack data on the effectiveness of protection with IPLs, so we did not include IPL data as currently protected in our estimates.

We identified protected coastal wetland areas using the World Database on PAs (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2024), which contains boundaries for each PA or MPA and additional information, including their establishment year and IUCN management category (Ia to VI, NAP, NR, and NAS). For each PA or MPA polygon, we extracted the coastal wetland area based on the datasets in the Land Cover Data section. Our spatial analysis required the center point of the pixel of each individual ecosystem under consideration to be covered by the PA or MPA polygon in order to be classified as protected, which is a relatively strict spatial extraction technique that likely leads to lower estimates of conservation compared to previous work with differing techniques (Dabalà et al., 2023).

We used the maps of IPLs from Garnett et al. (2018) to identify IPLs that were not inside of established PAs. We calculated the total coastal wetland area within IPLs (excluding PAs and MPAs) using the same coastal wetland data sources.

Coastal Wetland Loss, Additional Sequestration, and Emissions Factors

We aggregated coastal wetland loss rates by ecosystem type (mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses). We used data on PA and MPA effectiveness to calculate the difference in coastal wetland loss rates attributable to protection (Equation A1). We compiled baseline estimates of current rates of coastal wetland degradation from all causes (%/yr) from existing literature as shown in the “Detailed coastal wetland loss data” tab of the Supporting Data spreadsheet and used in conjunction with estimates of reductions in loss, 53–59%, associated with protection.

Equation A1.

\[ Wetland\text{ }loss_{avoided}=(Wetland\text{ }loss_{baseline}\times Reduction\text{ }in\text{ }loss) \]

We then used the ratio of coastal wetland loss in unprotected areas versus PAs to calculate avoided CO₂ emissions and additional carbon sequestration for each adoption unit. Specifically, we estimated the carbon benefits of avoided coastal wetland loss by multiplying avoided coastal wetland loss by avoided CO₂ emissions (30-yr time horizon; Equation A2) and carbon sequestration rates (30-yr time horizon; Equation A3) for each ecosystem type. Importantly, the emissions factors we used account for carbon in above- and below-ground biomass and generally do not assume 100% loss of carbon stocks because many land use impacts may retain some stored carbon, some of which is likely resistant to degradation (see the “2. current state effectiveness tab” in the spreadsheet for more information). We derived our estimates of retained carbon sequestration from global databases on sediment organic carbon burial rates in each ecosystem (see the “2. current state effectiveness tab” in the spreadsheet for more information).

Equation A2.

\[ Avoided\text{ } emissions = Wetland\text{ }loss_{avoided} \times \sum_{t=1}^{30}{Emissions} \]

Equation A3.

\[ Sequestration = Wetland\text{ }loss_{avoided} \times \sum_{t=1}^{30}{Sequestration} \]

We then estimated effectiveness (Equation A4) as the avoided CO₂ emissions and the retained carbon sequestration capacity attributable to the reduction in wetland loss conferred by protection estimated in Equations S1–S3.

Equation A4.

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

Finally, we calculated climate impact (Equation A5) by multiplying the adoption area under consideration by the estimated effectiveness from Equation A4.

Equation A5.

\[ Climate\text{ }impact = Effectiveness \times Adoption \]

Appendix References

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

UNEP-WCMC, & Short, F. T. (2021). Global distribution of seagrasses (version 7.1) [Data set]. UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre. https://doi.org/10.34892/x6r3-d211

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

Zhang, X., Liu, L., Zhao, T., Chen, X., Lin, S., Wang, J., Mi, J., & Liu, W. (2023). GWL_FCS30: a global 30 m wetland map with a fine classification system using multi-sourced and time-series remote sensing imagery in 2020. Earth System Science Data, 15(1), 265–293. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-265-2023

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Protect Grasslands & Savannas

Sector
FALO & Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Cut Emissions and Remove Carbon
Cluster
Protect & Manage Ecosystems
Image
Boreal grassland
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

This solution focuses on the legal protection of grassland and savanna ecosystems through the establishment of protected areas (PAs), which are managed with the primary goal of conserving nature, and land tenure for Indigenous peoples. These protections reduce grassland degradation, which preserves carbon stored in soils and vegetation and enables continued carbon sequestration by healthy grasslands.

This solution only includes non-coastal grasslands and savannas on mineral soils in areas that do not naturally support forests. Salt marshes are included in the Protect Coastal Wetlands solution, grasslands on peat soils are included in the Protect Peatlands solution, grasslands that are the product of deforestation are included in the Restore Forests solution, and grasslands that have been converted to other uses are included in the Restore Grasslands and Savannas solution.

Floods,Droughts
Income & work,Food security,Equality
Nature protection,Land resources,Water resources
Description for Social and Search
The Protect Grasslands & Savannas solution is coming soon.
Overview

Grasslands, also called steppes (Europe and Asia), pampas (South America), and prairies (North America), are ecosystems dominated by herbaceous plants that have relatively low tree or shrub cover. Savannas are ecosystems characterized by low-density tree cover that allows for a grass subcanopy (Bardgett et al., 2021; Parente et al., 2024). Grasslands and savannas span arid to mesic climates from the tropics to the tundra; many depend on periodic fires and grazing by large herbivores. The dataset used to define grassland extent for this analysis classifies areas with sparse vegetation, including some shrublands, deserts, and tundra, as grasslands (Parente et al., 2024), but excludes planted and intensively managed livestock pastures. Hereafter we refer to all of these ecosystems, including savannas, as “grasslands.” 

Historically, grasslands covered up to 40% of global land area, depending on the definition used (Bardgett et al., 2021; Parente et al., 2024; Suttie et al., 2005). An estimated 46% of temperate grasslands and 24% of tropical grasslands have been converted to cropland or lost to afforestation or development (Hoekstra et al., 2004). Nearly half of remaining grasslands are estimated to be degraded due to over- or undergrazing, woody plant encroachment, climate change, invasive species, addition of fertilizers or legumes for forage production, and changing fire regimes (Bardgett et al., 2021; Briggs et al., 2005; Gang et al., 2014; Ratajczak et al., 2012). 

Grasslands store carbon primarily in soils and below-ground biomass (Bai & Cotrufo, 2022). A large fraction of the carbon that grasses take up is allocated to root growth, which over time is incorporated into soil organic matter (Bai & Cotrufo, 2022). When native vegetation is removed and land is tilled to convert grasslands to croplands, carbon from biomass and soils is lost as CO₂.  

Estimates of total carbon stocks in grasslands range from 388–1,257 Gt CO₂‑eq (Conant et al., 2017; Goldstein et al., 2020; Poeplau, 2021). Soil carbon generally persists over long timescales and takes decades to rebuild, with one study estimating that 132 Gt CO₂‑eq in grasslands is vulnerable to loss, and that 25 Gt CO₂‑eq of that would be irrecoverable over a 30-year timeframe (Goldstein et al., 2020). Our analysis did not quantify the impacts of grazing or woody plant encroachment on grassland carbon stocks, which can be mixed, though grazing is discussed further in the Improve Livestock Grazing solution (Barger et al., 2011; Conant et al., 2017; Jackson et al., 2002; Stanley et al., 2024). 

Long-term legal protection of grasslands through PAs and Indigenous peoples’ land tenure reduces conversion and therefore avoids conversion-related pulses of GHG emissions from plowing soils and removing biomass. We consider grasslands to be protected if they are 1) formally designated as PAs (United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre [UNEP-WCMC] and International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources [IUCN], 2024), or 2) mapped as Indigenous peoples’ lands (IPLs) by Garnett et al. (2018) (Appendix). PAs vary in their allowed uses, ranging from strict wilderness preserves to sustainable-use areas that allow for some natural resource extraction; all levels were included in this analysis (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2024). 

IPLs and PAs reduce, but do not eliminate, ecosystem loss (Baragwanath et al., 2020; Blackman & Viet 2018; Li et al., 2024; McNicol et al., 2023; Sze et al. 2022; Wolf et al., 2023; Wade et al., 2020). Improving management to further reduce land use change within PAs and ensure ecologically appropriate grazing and fire regimes is a critical component of grassland protection (Jones et al., 2018; Meng et al., 2023; Vijay et al., 2018; Visconti et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2014). Additionally, market-based strategies and other policies can complement legal protection by reducing incentives for grassland conversion (e.g., Garett et al., 2019; Golub et al., 2021; Heilmayr et al., 2020; Lambin et al., 2018; Levy et al., 2023; Macdonald et al., 2024; Marin et al., 2022; Villoria et al., 2022; West et al., 2023). Our analyses are based on legal protection because the impact of market-based strategies is difficult to quantify, but these strategies will be further discussed in an additional appendix (coming soon).

References

Adams, V. M., Iacona, G. D., & Possingham, H. P. (2019). Weighing the benefits of expanding protected areas versus managing existing ones. Nature Sustainability, 2(5), 404–411. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0275-5

Ahlering, M., Fargione, J., & Parton, W. (2016). Potential carbon dioxide emission reductions from avoided grassland conversion in the northern Great Plains. Ecosphere, 7(12), Article e01625. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1625

Asamoah, E. F., Beaumont, L. J., & Maina, J. M. (2021). Climate and land-use changes reduce the benefits of terrestrial protected areas. Nature Climate Change, 11(12), 1105–1110. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01223-2

Bai, Y., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2022). Grassland soil carbon sequestration: Current understanding, challenges, and solutions. Science, 377(6606), 603–608. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo2380

Baragwanath, K., & Bayi, E. (2020). Collective property rights reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(34), 20495–20502. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917874117

Bardgett, R. D., Bullock, J. M., Lavorel, S., Manning, P., Schaffner, U., Ostle, N., Chomel, M., Durigan, G., L. Fry, E., Johnson, D., Lavallee, J. M., Le Provost, G., Luo, S., Png, K., Sankaran, M., Hou, X., Zhou, H., Ma, L., Ren, W., … Shi, H. (2021). Combating global grassland degradation. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2(10), 720–735. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00207-2

Barger, N. N., Archer, S. R., Campbell, J. L., Huang, C., Morton, J. A., & Knapp, A. K. (2011). Woody plant proliferation in North American drylands: A synthesis of impacts on ecosystem carbon balance. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 116(G4), Article G00K07. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JG001506

Barnes, M. D., Glew, L., Wyborn, C., & Craigie, I. D. (2018). Prevent perverse outcomes from global protected area policy. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(5), 759–762. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0501-y

Bengtsson, J., Bullock, J. M., Egoh, B., Everson, C., Everson, T., O’Connor, T., O’Farrell, P. J., Smith, H. G., & Lindborg, R. (2019). Grasslands—More important for ecosystem services than you might think. Ecosphere, 10(2), Article e02582. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2582

Berg, A., & McColl, K. A. (2021). No projected global drylands expansion under greenhouse warming. Nature Climate Change, 11(4), 331–337. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01007-8

Blackman, A., & Veit, P. (2018). Titled Amazon Indigenous communities cut forest carbon emissions. Ecological Economics, 153, 56–67. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.016

Briggs, J. M., Knapp, A. K., Blair, J. M., Heisler, J. L., Hoch, G. A., Lett, M. S., & McCarron, J. K. (2005). An ecosystem in transition: Causes and consequences of the conversion of mesic grassland to shrubland. BioScience, 55(3), 243–254. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0243:AEITCA]2.0.CO;2

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

Carbutt, C., Henwood, W. D., & Gilfedder, L. A. (2017). Global plight of native temperate grasslands: Going, going, gone? Biodiversity and Conservation, 26(12), 2911–2932. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1398-5

Chang, J., Ciais, P., Gasser, T., Smith, P., Herrero, M., Havlík, P., Obersteiner, M., Guenet, B., Goll, D. S., Li, W., Naipal, V., Peng, S., Qiu, C., Tian, H., Viovy, N., Yue, C., & Zhu, D. (2021). Climate warming from managed grasslands cancels the cooling effect of carbon sinks in sparsely grazed and natural grasslands. Nature Communications, 12(1), Article 118. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20406-7

Conant, R. T., Cerri, C. E. P., Osborne, B. B., & Paustian, K. (2017). Grassland management impacts on soil carbon stocks: A new synthesis. Ecological Applications, 27(2), 662–668. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1473

Craine, J. M., Ocheltree, T. W., Nippert, J. B., Towne, E. G., Skibbe, A. M., Kembel, S. W., & Fargione, J. E. (2013). Global diversity of drought tolerance and grassland climate-change resilience. Nature Climate Change, 3(1), 63–67. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1634

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

ESA CCI (2019). Copernicus Climate Change Service, Climate Data Store: Land cover classification gridded maps from 1992 to present derived from satellite observation. Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS). Accessed November 2024. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.006f2c9a

Feng, S., & Fu, Q. (2013). Expansion of global drylands under a warming climate. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 13(19), 10081–10094. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10081-2013

Gang, C., Zhou, W., Chen, Y., Wang, Z., Sun, Z., Li, J., Qi, J., & Odeh, I. (2014). Quantitative assessment of the contributions of climate change and human activities on global grassland degradation. Environmental Earth Sciences, 72(11), 4273–4282. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3322-6

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

Garrett, R. D., Levy, S., Carlson, K. M., Gardner, T. A., Godar, J., Clapp, J., Dauvergne, P., Heilmayr, R., le Polain de Waroux, Y., Ayre, B., Barr, R., Døvre, B., Gibbs, H. K., Hall, S., Lake, S., Milder, J. C., Rausch, L. L., Rivero, R., Rueda, X., … Villoria, N. (2019). Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments. Global Environmental Change, 54, 135–147. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.003

Goldstein, A., Turner, W. R., Spawn, S. A., Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Cook-Patton, S., Fargione, J., Gibbs, H. K., Griscom, B., Hewson, J. H., Howard, J. F., Ledezma, J. C., Page, S., Koh, L. P., Rockström, J., Sanderman, J., & Hole, D. G. (2020). Protecting irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems. Nature Climate Change, 10(4), 287–295. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0738-8

Golub, A., Herrera, D., Leslie, G., Pietracci, B., & Lubowski, R. (2021). A real options framework for reducing emissions from deforestation: Reconciling short-term incentives with long-term benefits from conservation and agricultural intensification. Ecosystem Services, 49, Article 101275. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101275

Graham, V., Geldmann, J., Adams, V. M., Negret, P. J., Sinovas, P., & Chang, H.-C. (2021). Southeast Asian protected areas are effective in conserving forest cover and forest carbon stocks compared to unprotected areas. Scientific Reports, 11(1), Article 23760. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-03188-w

Grasslands, Rangelands, Savannahs and Shrublands (GRaSS) Alliance. (2023). Valuing Grasslands: Critical ecosystems for nature, climate, and people [Discussion paper]. Link to source: https://www.birdlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Valuing-Grasslands-Report-Dec-2023.pdf

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

Heilmayr, R., Rausch, L. L., Munger, J., & Gibbs, H. K. (2020). Brazil’s Amazon Soy Moratorium reduced deforestation. Nature Food, 1(12), 801–810. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00194-5

Hoekstra, J. M., Boucher, T. M., Ricketts, T. H., & Roberts, C. (2005). Confronting a biome crisis: Global disparities of habitat loss and protection. Ecology Letters, 8(1), 23–29. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00686.x

Huang, J., Yu, H., Guan, X., Wang, G., & Guo, R. (2016). Accelerated dryland expansion under climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6(2), 166–171. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2837

Huang, X., Ibrahim, M. M., Luo, Y., Jiang, L., Chen, J., & Hou, E. (2024). Land use change alters soil organic carbon: Constrained global patterns and predictors. Earth’s Future, 12(5), Article e2023EF004254. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF004254

IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. (2019). Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (Calvo Buendia, E., Tanabe, K., Kranjc, A., Baasansuren, J., Fukuda, M., Ngarize S., Osako, A., Pyrozhenko, Y., Shermanau, P. and Federici, S., Eds.). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Link to source: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/pdf/0_Overview/19R_V0_00_Cover_Foreword_Preface_Dedication.pdf 

Isbell, F., Craven, D., Connolly, J., Loreau, M., Schmid, B., Beierkuhnlein, C., Bezemer, T. M., Bonin, C., Bruelheide, H., de Luca, E., Ebeling, A., Griffin, J. N., Guo, Q., Hautier, Y., Hector, A., Jentsch, A., Kreyling, J., Lanta, V., Manning, P., … Eisenhauer, N. (2015). Biodiversity increases the resistance of ecosystem productivity to climate extremes. Nature, 526(7574), 574–577. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15374

Jackson, R. B., Banner, J. L., Jobbágy, E. G., Pockman, W. T., & Wall, D. H. (2002). Ecosystem carbon loss with woody plant invasion of grasslands. Nature, 418(6898), 623–626. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature00910

Jones, K. R., Venter, O., Fuller, R. A., Allan, J. R., Maxwell, S. L., Negret, P. J., & Watson, J. E. M. (2018). One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science, 360(6390), 788–791. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9565

Kachler, J., Benra, F., Bolliger, R., Isaac, R., Bonn, A., & Felipe-Lucia, M. R. (2023). Can we have it all? The role of grassland conservation in supporting forage production and plant diversity. Landscape Ecology, 38(12), 4451–4465. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01729-4

Kemp, D. R., Guodong, H., Xiangyang, H., Michalk, D. L., Fujiang, H., Jianping, W., & Yingjun, Z. (2013). Innovative grassland management systems for environmental and livelihood benefits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(21), 8369–8374. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208063110

Kim, J. H., Jobbágy, E. G., & Jackson, R. B. (2016). Trade-offs in water and carbon ecosystem services with land-use changes in grasslands. Ecological Applications, 26(6), 1633–1644. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0863.1

Knapp, A. K., Chen, A., Griffin-Nolan, R. J., Baur, L. E., Carroll, C. J. W., Gray, J. E., Hoffman, A. M., Li, X., Post, A. K., Slette, I. J., Collins, S. L., Luo, Y., & Smith, M. D. (2020). Resolving the Dust Bowl paradox of grassland responses to extreme drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(36), 22249–22255. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922030117

Lambin, E. F., Gibbs, H. K., Heilmayr, R., Carlson, K. M., Fleck, L. C., Garrett, R. D., le Polain de Waroux, Y., McDermott, C. L., McLaughlin, D., Newton, P., Nolte, C., Pacheco, P., Rausch, L. L., Streck, C., Thorlakson, T., & Walker, N. F. (2018). The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nature Climate Change, 8(2), 109–116. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0061-1

Lefcheck, J. S., Byrnes, J. E. K., Isbell, F., Gamfeldt, L., Griffin, J. N., Eisenhauer, N., Hensel, M. J. S., Hector, A., Cardinale, B. J., & Duffy, J. E. (2015). Biodiversity enhances ecosystem multifunctionality across trophic levels and habitats. Nature Communications, 6(1), Article 6936. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7936

Levy, S. A., Cammelli, F., Munger, J., Gibbs, H. K., & Garrett, R. D. (2023). Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon could be halved by scaling up the implementation of zero-deforestation cattle commitments. Global Environmental Change, 80, Article 102671. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102671

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

Li, J., Huang, L., Cao, W., Wang, J., Fan, J., Xu, X., & Tian, H. (2023). Benefits, potential and risks of China’s grassland ecosystem conservation and restoration. Science of The Total Environment, 905, Article 167413. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167413

Liechti, K., & Biber, J.-P. (2016). Pastoralism in Europe: Characteristics and challenges of highland-lowland transhumance. Revue Scientifique Et Technique (International Office of Epizootics), 35(2), 561–575. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.35.2.2541

Macdonald, K., Diprose, R., Grabs, J., Schleifer, P., Alger, J., Bahruddin, Brandao, J., Cashore, B., Chandra, A., Cisneros, P., Delgado, D., Garrett, R., & Hopkinson, W. (2024). Jurisdictional approaches to sustainable agro-commodity governance: The state of knowledge and future research directions. Earth System Governance, 22, Article 100227. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2024.100227

Marin, F. R., Zanon, A. J., Monzon, J. P., Andrade, J. F., Silva, E. H. F. M., Richter, G. L., Antolin, L. A. S., Ribeiro, B. S. M. R., Ribas, G. G., Battisti, R., Heinemann, A. B., & Grassini, P. (2022). Protecting the Amazon forest and reducing global warming via agricultural intensification. Nature Sustainability, 5, 1018–1026. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00968-8

McNicol, I. M., Keane, A., Burgess, N. D., Bowers, S. J., Mitchard, E. T. A., & Ryan, C. M. (2023). Protected areas reduce deforestation and degradation and enhance woody growth across African woodlands. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), Article 392. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01053-4

Meng, Z., Dong, J., Ellis, E. C., Metternicht, G., Qin, Y., Song, X.-P., Löfqvist, S., Garrett, R. D., Jia, X., & Xiao, X. (2023). Post-2020 biodiversity framework challenged by cropland expansion in protected areas. Nature Sustainability, 6(7), 758–768. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01093-w

Michalk, D. L., Kemp, D. R., Badgery, W. B., Wu, J., Zhang, Y., & Thomassin, P. J. (2019). Sustainability and future food security—A global perspective for livestock production. Land Degradation & Development, 30(5), 561–573. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3217

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

Nugent, D. T., Baker-Gabb, D. J., Green, P., Ostendorf, B., Dawlings, F., Clarke, R. H., & Morgan, J. W. (2022). Multi-scale habitat selection by a cryptic, critically endangered grassland bird—The Plains-wanderer (Pedionomus torquatus): Implications for habitat management and conservation. Austral Ecology, 47(3), 698–712. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.13157

Olson, D. M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E. D., Burgess, N. D., Powell, G. V. N., Underwood, E. C., D’amico, J. A., Itoua, I., Strand, H. E., Morrison, J. C., Loucks, C. J., Allnutt, T. F., Ricketts, T. H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J. F., Wettengel, W. W., Hedao, P., & Kassem, K. R. (2001). Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on Earth: A new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience, 51(11), 933–938. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0.CO;2

Parente, L., Sloat, L., Mesquita, V., Consoli, D., Stanimirova, R., Hengl, T., Bonannella, C., Teles, N., Wheeler, I., Hunter, M., Ehrmann, S., Ferreira, L., Mattos, A. P., Oliveira, B., Meyer, C., Şahin, M., Witjes, M., Fritz, S., Malek, Z., & Stolle, F. (2024a). Annual 30-m maps of global grassland class and extent (2000–2022) based on spatiotemporal Machine Learning. Scientific Data, 11(1), Article 1303. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-04139-6

Parente, L., Sloat, L., Mesquita, V., Consoli, D., Stanimirova, R., Hengl, T., Bonannella, C., Teles, N., Wheeler, I., Hunter, M., Ehrmann, S., Ferreira, L., Mattos, A. P., Oliveira, B., Meyer, C., Şahin, M., Witjes, M., Fritz, S., Malek, Ž., & Stolle, F. (2024b). Global Pasture Watch—Annual grassland class and extent maps at 30-m spatial resolution (2000—2022) (Version v1) [Data set]. Zenodo. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13890417

Pelser, A., Redelinghuys, N., & Kernan, A.-L. (2015). Protected Areas and ecosystem services—Integrating grassland conservation with human well-being in South Africa. In Biodiversity in Ecosystems—Linking Structure and Function. IntechOpen. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5772/59015

Petermann, J. S., & Buzhdygan, O. Y. (2021). Grassland biodiversity. Current Biology, 31(19), R1195–R1201. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.06.060

Poeplau, C. (2021). Grassland soil organic carbon stocks along management intensity and warming gradients. Grass and Forage Science, 76(2), 186–195. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12537

Poggio, L., de Sousa, L. M., Batjes, N. H., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Kempen, B., Ribeiro, E., & Rossiter, D. (2021). SoilGrids 2.0: Producing soil information for the globe with quantified spatial uncertainty. SOIL, 7(1), 217–240. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-7-217-2021

Ratajczak, Z., Nippert, J. B., & Collins, S. L. (2012). Woody encroachment decreases diversity across North American grasslands and savannas. Ecology, 93(4), 697–703. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1199.1

Resare Sahlin, K., Gordon, L. J., Lindborg, R., Piipponen, J., Van Rysselberge, P., Rouet-Leduc, J., & Röös, E. (2024). An exploration of biodiversity limits to grazing ruminant milk and meat production. Nature Sustainability, 7(9), 1160–1170. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01398-4

Saura, S., Bertzky, B., Bastin, L., Battistella, L., Mandrici, A., & Dubois, G. (2019). Global trends in protected area connectivity from 2010 to 2018. Biological Conservation, 238, Article 108183. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.07.028

Sloat, L., Balehegn, M., & Johnson, P. (2025, May 2). Grasslands Are Some of Earth’s Most Underrated Ecosystems. World Resources Institute. Link to source: https://www.wri.org/insights/grassland-benefits

Smith, M. D., Wilkins, K. D., Holdrege, M. C., Wilfahrt, P., Collins, S. L., Knapp, A. K., Sala, O. E., Dukes, J. S., Phillips, R. P., Yahdjian, L., Gherardi, L. A., Ohlert, T., Beier, C., Fraser, L. H., Jentsch, A., Loik, M. E., Maestre, F. T., Power, S. A., Yu, Q., … Zuo, X. (2024). Extreme drought impacts have been underestimated in grasslands and shrublands globally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(4), Article e2309881120. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2309881120

Spawn, S. A., Sullivan, C. C., Lark, T. J., & Gibbs, H. K. (2020). Harmonized global maps of above and belowground biomass carbon density in the year 2010. Scientific Data, 7(1), Article 112. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0444-4

Stanley, P. L., Wilson, C., Patterson, E., Machmuller, M. B., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2024). Ruminating on soil carbon: Applying current understanding to inform grazing management. Global Change Biology, 30(3), Article e17223. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17223

Su, X., Han, W., Liu, G., Zhang, Y., & Lu, H. (2019). Substantial gaps between the protection of biodiversity hotspots in alpine grasslands and the effectiveness of protected areas on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 278, 15–23. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.03.013

Suttie, J. M., Reynolds, S. G., & Batello, C. (Eds.). (2005). Grasslands of the world (Vol. 34). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/4/y8344e/y8344e00.htm 

Sze, J. S., Carrasco, L. R., Childs, D., & Edwards, D. P. (2021). Reduced deforestation and degradation in Indigenous Lands pan-tropically. Nature Sustainability, 5(2), 123–130. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00815-2

United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, & International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2024). Protected planet: The world database on protected areas (WDPA) and world database on other effective area-based conservation measures (WD-OECM) [Data set]. Retrieved November 2024 from Link to source: https://www.protectedplanet.net

Vijay, V., Fisher, J. R. B., & Armsworth, P. R. (2022). Co-benefits for terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem services available from contrasting land protection policies in the contiguous United States. Conservation Letters, 15(5), Article e12907. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12907

Villoria, N., Garrett, R., Gollnow, F., & Carlson, K. (2022). Leakage does not fully offset soy supply-chain efforts to reduce deforestation in Brazil. Nature Communications, 13(1), Article 5476. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33213-z

Visconti, P., Butchart, S. H. M., Brooks, T. M., Langhammer, P. F., Marnewick, D., Vergara, S., Yanosky, A., & Watson, J. E. M. (2019). Protected area targets post-2020. Science, 364(6437), 239–241. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav6886

Wade, C. M., Austin, K. G., Cajka, J., Lapidus, D., Everett, K. H., Galperin, D., Maynard, R., & Sobel, A. (2020). What is threatening forests in Protected Areas? A global assessment of deforestation in Protected Areas, 2001–2018. Forests, 11(5), Article 539. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/f11050539

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

Ward, M., Saura, S., Williams, B., Ramírez-Delgado, J. P., Arafeh-Dalmau, N., Allan, J. R., Venter, O., Dubois, G., & Watson, J. E. M. (2020). Just ten percent of the global terrestrial protected area network is structurally connected via intact land. Nature Communications, 11(1), Article 4563. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18457-x

Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B., & Hockings, M. (2014). The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature, 515(7525), 67–73. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13947

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

Williams, M., Reay, D., & Smith, P. (2023). Avoiding emissions versus creating sinks—Effectiveness and attractiveness to climate finance. Global Change Biology, 29(8), 2046–2049. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16598

Wolf, C., Levi, T., Ripple, W. J., Zárrate-Charry, D. A., & Betts, M. G. (2021). A forest loss report card for the world’s protected areas. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(4), 520–529. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01389-0

Yao, J., Liu, H., Huang, J., Gao, Z., Wang, G., Li, D., Yu, H., & Chen, X. (2020). Accelerated dryland expansion regulates future variability in dryland gross primary production. Nature Communications, 11(1), Article 1665. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15515-2

Yu, Q., Xu, C., Wu, H., Ke, Y., Zuo, X., Luo, W., Ren, H., Gu, Q., Wang, H., Ma, W., Knapp, A. K., Collins, S. L., Rudgers, J. A., Luo, Y., Hautier, Y., Wang, C., Wang, Z., Jiang, Y., Han, G., … Han, X. (2025). Contrasting drought sensitivity of Eurasian and North American grasslands. Nature, 639(8053), 114–118. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08478-7

Zhu, K., Chiariello, N. R., Tobeck, T., Fukami, T., & Field, C. B. (2016). Nonlinear, interacting responses to climate limit grassland production under global change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(38), 10589–10594. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606734113

Zhu, K., Song, Y., Lesage, J. C., Luong, J. C., Bartolome, J. W., Chiariello, N. R., Dudney, J., Field, C. B., Hallett, L. M., Hammond, M., Harrison, S. P., Hayes, G. F., Hobbs, R. J., Holl, K. D., Hopkinson, P., Larios, L., Loik, M. E., & Prugh, L. R. (2024). Rapid shifts in grassland communities driven by climate change. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 8(12), 2252–2264. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02552-z

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Avery Driscoll

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Christina Richardson, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

We estimated that protecting 1 ha of grasslands avoids 0.06–0.90 t CO₂‑eq/yr, with emissions reductions tending to be higher in boreal and temperate regions than tropical and subtropical regions (100-yr GWP; Table 1a–d; Appendix).

We estimated effectiveness as the avoided emissions attributable to the reduction in grassland conversion conferred by protection (Equation 1; Appendix), assuming that converted grasslands are used as croplands due to data constraints. Although some grasslands are converted to intensively managed pastures or urban development, we assumed that the total land area converted to infrastructure is relatively small and emissions associated with conversion to planted pastures are comparable to those from conversion to cropland.

We aggregated estimates of avoided grassland conversion attributable to PAs from Li et al. (2024) to the biome level (Grassland lossavoided), then multiplied the result by the total emissions over 30 years from 1 ha of grassland converted to cropland. These emissions include the change in biomass and soil carbon on conversion to cropland (Carbonemissions), 30 years of lost carbon sequestration potential (Carbonuptake), and nitrous oxide emissions associated with soil carbon loss, which is a small component of total emissions (see Appendix for details; Chang et al. 2021; Huang et al., 2024; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2019; Poggio et al., 2021; Spawn et al., 2020).

Equation 1.

\[Effectiveness=(Grassland\text{ }loss_{avoided}) \times (Carbon_{emissions} + Carbon_{uptake}) \]

The effectiveness of grassland protection as defined here reflects only a small percentage of the carbon stored in grasslands because we accounted for the likelihood that the grassland would be converted without protection. Grassland protection is particularly impactful for areas at high risk of conversion.

Table 1a–d. Effectiveness of grassland protection at avoiding emissions and sequestering carbon. Regional differences in values are driven by variation in carbon stocks, baseline rates of grassland conversion, and the effectiveness of PAs at reducing conversion.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/ha/yr

Estimate 0.90

Unit: t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/ha/yr

Estimate 0.54

Unit: t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/ha/yr

Estimate 0.13

Unit: t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis)/ha/yr

Estimate 0.06
Left Text Column Width
Cost

The costs of grassland protection include up-front costs of land acquisition and ongoing costs of management and enforcement. The market price of land reflects the opportunity cost of not using the land for other purposes, such as agriculture or urban development. Data related to the costs of grassland protection are very limited. 

We estimated that grassland protection provides a net cost savings of approximately US$0.53/ha/yr, or US$1.58/t CO₂‑eq avoided (Table 2). This estimate reflects global averages rather than regionally specific values, and some data are not specific to grasslands. Costs and revenues are highly variable across regions, depending on the costs of land and enforcement and the potential for tourism. 

Dienerstein et al. (2024) estimated the initial cost of establishing a PA for 60 high-biodiversity ecoregions. Amongst the 20 regions that contain grasslands, the median acquisition cost was US$897/ha, which we amortized over 30 years. Costs of PA maintenance were estimated at US$9–17/ha/yr (Bruner et al., 2004; Waldron et al., 2020), though these estimates were not specific to grasslands. Additionally, these estimates reflect the costs of effective enforcement and management, but many existing PAs lack adequate funds for effective enforcement (Adams et al., 2019; Barnes et al., 2018; Burner et al., 2004). 

Protecting grasslands can generate revenue through increased tourism. Waldron et al. (2020) estimated that, across all ecosystems, tourism revenues directly attributable to PA establishment were US$43 ha/yr, not including downstream revenues from industries that benefit from increased tourism. Inclusion of a tourism multiplier would substantially increase the estimated economic benefits of grassland protection.

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact for grassland protection. Negative value indicates cost savings.

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

Median -1.58
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

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

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

Permanence

Permanence is a caveat for emissions avoidance through grassland protection that is not addressed in this analysis. Protected grasslands could be converted to agricultural uses or other development if legal protections are reversed or inadequately enforced, resulting in the loss of stored carbon. Many PAs allow for some human uses, and PA management that is not tailored to grazing needs, fire dependency, or woody plant encroachment can reduce carbon stocks within PAs (Barger et al., 2011; Chang et al., 2021; Conant et al, 2017; Jackson et al., 2002; Kemp et al., 2013; Popleau et al., 2011). Climate change is also causing widespread degradation of grasslands, including reductions in vegetation productivity that may reduce carbon storage over the long term even in the absence of additional disturbance (Chang et al., 2021; Gang et al., 2014; Li et al., 2023; Zhu et al., 2016). Climate change and aridification may also cause expansion of grassland extent (Berg & McColl, 2021; Feng & Fu, 2014; Huang et al., 2016), with mixed but overall negative impacts on terrestrial carbon uptake (Yao et al., 2020).

Additionality

Additionality is another important caveat for emissions avoidance through ecosystem protection (Ahlering et al., 2016; Williams et al., 2023). In this analysis, additionality was addressed by using baseline rates of grassland conversion in calculating effectiveness. Evaluating additionality is challenging and remains an active area of research.

Current Adoption

A total of 555 Mha of grasslands (excluding grasslands on peat soils, grasslands that are also coastal wetlands, and grasslands created through deforestation) are currently located within PAs, and an additional 832 Mha are located on IPLs not classified as PAs (Table 3e). That means that ~48% of grasslands are under some form of protection globally, with 6% in strict PAs, 13% in non-strict PAs, and 29% on IPLs that are not also PAs. As of 2023, tropical regions had the largest extent of protected grasslands (583 Mha), followed by boreal regions (339 Mha), and subtropical regions (293 Mha). In temperate regions, only 24% of grasslands (172 Mha) were under any form of protection (Table 3a–d).

Table 3a–e. Grassland under protection by biome (circa 2023). Estimates are provided for three different forms of protection: “strict” protection, including IUCN classes I and II; “non-strict” protection, including all other IUCN categories; and IPLs outside of PAs. Regional values may not sum to global totals due to rounding.

Unit: ha protected

Strict PAs 52,564,000
Non-strict PAs 82,447,000
IPLs 203,579,000

Unit: ha protected

Strict PAs 30,242,000
Non-strict PAs 51,033,000
IPLs 90,973,000

Unit: ha protected

Strict PAs 31,949,000
Non-strict PAs 83,745,000
IPLs 177,301,000

Unit: ha protected

Strict PAs 56,233,000
Non-strict PAs 166,356,000
IPLs 359,997,000

Unit: ha protected

Strict PAs 170,988,000
Non-strict PAs 383,581,000
IPLs 831,850,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

We calculated the annual rate of new grassland protection based on the year of PA establishment for areas established in 2000–2020. The median annual increase in grassland protection was 8.1 Mha (mean 11.4 Mha; Table 4e). This represents a roughly 1.5%/yr increase in grasslands within PAs, or protection of an additional 0.3%/yr of total global grasslands. Grassland protection has proceeded more quickly in tropical regions (median increase of 4.0 Mha/yr) than in other climate zones (median increases of 1.2–1.6 Mha/yr) (Table 4a–d). 

Table 4a–e. Adoption trend for grassland protection in PAs of any IUCN class (2000–2020). The 25th and 75th percentiles reflect only interannual variance (ha grassland protected/yr). IPLs are not included in this analysis due to a lack of data.

Unit: ha grassland protected/yr

25th percentile 659,000
Median (50th percentile) 1,338,000
Mean 2,152,000
75th percentile 3,007,000

Unit: ha grassland protected/yr

25th percentile 692,000
Median (50th percentile) 1,178,000
Mean 1,728,000
75th percentile 1,715,000

Unit: ha grassland protected/yr

25th percentile 940,000
Median (50th percentile) 1,580,000
Mean 2,791,000
75th percentile 3,226,000

Unit: ha grassland protected/yr

25th percentile 2,628,000
Median (50th percentile) 4,044,000
Mean 4,711,000
75th percentile 5,774,000

Unit: ha grassland protected/yr

25th percentile 4,919,000
Median (50th percentile) 8,140,000
Mean 11,382,000
75th percentile 13,722,000
Left Text Column Width

Figure 1. Trend in grassland protection by climate zone (2000-2020) in terms of total hectares protected (left) and the percent of the current adoption ceiling protected (right). These values reflect only the area located within PA. Grasslands located in IPLs, which were not included in the calculation of the adoption trend due to a lack of data, are excluded. Data from Project Drawdown.

Enable Download
On
Adoption Ceiling

Including grasslands that are currently protected, we estimated that there are approximately 2,891 Mha of natural grasslands that are not counted in a different solution (Table 5e). This ceiling includes 1,505 Mha that are not currently under any form of protection. This includes 533 Mha of eligible grasslands in boreal regions, 723 Mha in temperate regions, 626 Mha in the subtropics, and 1,008 Mha in the tropics (Table 5a–d). 

To develop these estimates, we relied on the global grassland map from Parente et al. (2024), excluded areas that were included in the Protect Forests, Protect Peatlands, and Protect Coastal Wetlands solutions, and excluded areas that were historically forested according to the Terrestrial Ecoregions of The World dataset (Olson et al., 2001; Appendix). While it is not socially, politically, or economically realistic that all remaining grasslands could be protected, these values represent the technical upper limit to adoption of this solution.

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

Unit: ha protected

Estimate 533,033,000

Unit: ha protected

Estimate 723,429,000

Unit: ha protected

Estimate 626,474,000

Unit: ha protected

Estimate 1,008,375,000

Unit: ha protected

Estimate 2,891,311,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We assigned a low achievable level of a minimum of 50% of grasslands in each climate zone (Table 6a–e). For boreal and tropical regions, in which 64% and 58%, respectively, of grasslands are already protected, we assumed no change in the area under protection (Table 6a, d). For temperate areas, the low achievable target reflects an increase of 189 Mha, or more than a doubling of the current PA extent (Table 6b). In subtropical zones, this target reflects an additional 20 Mha under protection (Table 6c). We assigned a high achievable level of 70% of grasslands in each climate zone, reflecting an additional 637 Mha of protected grasslands globally, or a 46% increase in the current PA extent (Table 6a–e).

Table 6a–e. Range of achievable adoption of grassland protection by biome.

Unit: ha protected

Current adoption 338,590,000
Achievable – low 338,590,000
Achievable – high 373,123,000
Adoption ceiling 533,033,000

Unit: ha protected

Current adoption 172,248,000
Achievable – low 361,715,000
Achievable – high 506,400,000
Adoption ceiling 723,429,000

Unit: ha protected

Current adoption 292,995,000
Achievable – low 313,237,000
Achievable – high 438,532,000
Adoption ceiling 626,474,000

Unit: ha protected

Current adoption 582,586,000
Achievable – low 582,586,000
Achievable – high 705,863,000
Adoption ceiling 1,008,375,000

Unit: ha protected

Current adoption 1,386,419,000
Achievable – low 1,596,128,000
Achievable – high 2,023,918,000
Adoption ceiling 2,891,311,000
Left Text Column Width

We estimated that PAs currently reduce GHG emissions from grassland conversion by 0.468 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Table 7a–e). Achievable levels of grassland protection have the potential to reduce emissions 0.572–0.704 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, with a technical upper bound of 1.006 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Table 7a–e). This indicates that further emissions reductions of 0.105–0.237 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr are achievable. For these benefits to be realized, grazing, fire, and woody plant management must be responsive to local grassland needs and compatible with the maintenance of carbon stocks. The solutions Improve Livestock Grazing and Deploy Silvopasture address the climate impacts of some aspects of grassland management.

Few other sources explicitly quantify the climate impacts of grassland protection, but the available data are roughly aligned with our estimates of additional mitigation potential. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that avoided conversion of grasslands to croplands could reduce emissions by 0.03–0.7 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Nabuurs et al., 2022). Griscom et al. (2017) estimated that avoided grassland conversion could save 0.12 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr emissions from soil carbon only (not counting loss of vegetation, sequestration potential, or nitrous oxide), though their analysis did not account for current protection and relied on older estimates of grassland conversion. 

Table 7a–e. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.305
Achievable – low 0.305
Achievable – high 0.336
Adoption ceiling 0.481

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.093
Achievable – low 0.195
Achievable – high 0.273
Adoption ceiling 0.390

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.037
Achievable – low 0.039
Achievable – high 0.055
Adoption ceiling 0.078

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.033
Achievable – low 0.033
Achievable – high 0.040
Adoption ceiling 0.057

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption 0.468
Achievable – low 0.572
Achievable – high 0.704
Adoption ceiling 1.006
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Floods

Grassland plants often have deep root systems, leading to high soil carbon stocks (Sloat et al., 2025). These roots can absorb water and reduce discharge into surrounding water bodies during periods of excessive rain (GRaSS, 2024).

Droughts

Different grassland plant species respond differently to drought. Variations in precipitation seasonality due to drought may allow some grass species to dominate over others (Knapp et al., 2020). Evidence suggests that higher species diversity can enhance grassland resilience to drought (Smith et al., 2024; Yu et al., 2025).  Additionally, the deep root systems of grassland plants contribute to the drought resilience of these ecosystems (Sloat et al., 2025). More resilient, biodiverse grasslands are associated with greater ecosystem stability and productivity, and can maintain ecosystem services during periods of extreme weather, such as drought (Isbell et al, 2015; Lefcheck et al., 2015).

Income and Work

Grasslands are an important source of income for surrounding communities through tourism and other ecosystem services (Bengtsson et al., 2019). Protecting grasslands sustains the long-term health of the ecosystem, which is especially important for subsistence livelihoods that depend on intact landscapes for incomes (Pelser, 2015). Sources of income that are directly generated from grasslands include: meat, milk, wool, and leather and thatching materials to make brooms, hats, and baskets (GRaSS, 2024; Pelser, 2015). People living near grasslands often rely on grazing livestock for food and income (GRaSS, 2024, Kemp 2013, Su et al., 2019). Grasslands in China support the livelihoods of about 16 million people, many of whom live in poverty (Kemp et al., 2013). The Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau is especially important for grazing livestock (Su et al., 2019). Evidence has shown that declines in grassland productivity are also linked to declines in income (Kemp et al., 2013).

Food Security

Grasslands can contribute to food security by providing food for livestock and supporting pollinators for nearby agriculture (Sloat et al., 2025). Grassland-based grazing systems are important sources of food for populations in low and middle-income countries, particularly in Oceania, Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East, North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa (Resare Sahlin et al., 2023). Grasslands can support the food security of smallholder farmers and pastoralists in these regions by providing meat and milk (GRaSS, 2024; Michalk, 2018). 

Equality

Grasslands are central to many cultures, and grassland protection can support shared cultural and spiritual values for many populations. They can be sources of identity for people living in or near grassland ecosystems who have strong connections with the land (Bengtsson et al., 2019, GRaSS, 2024). In Mongolia, for example, grasslands sustain horses, which are central to the cultural identities and livelihoods of communities, particularly nomadic populations (Kemp et al., 2014). Grasslands can also be an important source of shared identity for pastoralists who move herds to graze based on seasonal cycles during the year (Liechti & Biber, 2016).

Nature Protection

Many grasslands are biodiversity hot spots (Petermann & Buzhdygan, 2021; Su et al., 2019). Numerous plant and animal species are endemic to grasslands, meaning they have limited habitat ranges and can easily become endangered with habitat degradation (Sloat et al., 2025). In Germany, grasslands in PAs were found to have higher plant diversity than in non-PAs (Kachler et al., 2023). Grasslands are important habitats for bird species that rely on them for breeding grounds (GRaSS, 2024; Nugent et al., 2022).

Land Resources

The unique, deep root structures of some grassland plants can improve soil stability and reduce soil erosion (Bengtsson et al., 2019; GRaSS, 2024; Kemp et al., 2013).

Water Resources

Grasslands can regulate water flows and water storage. The root systems can help rainwater reach deep underground, recharging groundwater stores (Bengtsson et al., 2019; GRaSS, 2024).

Risks

Relying on grassland protection as an emissions reduction strategy can be undermined if ecosystem conversion that is not allowed inside a PA simply takes place outside of it instead (Aherling et al., 2016; Asamoah et al., 2021). If such leakage leads to conversion of ecosystems that have higher carbon stocks, such as forests, peatlands, or coastal wetlands, total emissions may increase. Combining grassland protection with policies to reduce incentives for ecosystem conversion can help avoid leakage.

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

PAs often include multiple ecosystems. Grassland protection will likely lead to protection of other ecosystems within the same areas, and the health of nearby ecosystems is improved by the services provided by intact grasslands. 

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

Competing

Protecting grasslands & savannas could limit land availability for renewable energy technologies and raw material and food production and therefore competes with the following solutions for land:

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha of grassland or savanna protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
0.9
units
Current 3.386×10⁸ 03.386×10⁸3.731×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.305 0.3050.336
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-2
Emergency Brake

CO₂,  N₂O

Solution Basics

ha of grassland or savanna protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
0.54
units
Current 1.722×10⁸ 03.617×10⁸5.064×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.093 0.1950.273
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-2
Emergency Brake

CO₂,  N₂O

Solution Basics

ha of grassland or savanna protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
0.13
units
Current 2.93×10⁸ 03.132×10⁸4.385×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.037 0.0390.055
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-2
Emergency Brake

CO₂,  N₂O

Solution Basics

ha of grassland or savanna protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
0.06
units
Current 5.826×10⁸ 05.826×10⁸7.059×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.033 0.0330.04
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-2
Emergency Brake

CO₂,  N₂O

Trade-offs

Establishment of PAs may limit local access to grasslands for grazing or other forms of income generation, although effective management plans should account for the grazing needs of the protected grassland. Second, allocation of budgetary resources to PA establishment may divert resources from maintenance and enforcement of existing PAs. Finally, protection of grasslands may reduce land availability for renewable energy infrastructure, such as solar and wind power.

Action Word
Protect
Solution Title
Grasslands & Savannas
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Set scalable targets (across both biogeographic and administrative levels) for grassland protections, including outcomes-based reporting, indicators for the rate of progress, goals for inclusivity, and measurements for enforcement efficacy; incorporate these targets into national climate plans and multilateral agreements.
  • Ensure public procurement uses products and supply chains that do not disrupt PAs and grasslands; ensure public development projects do not disturb PAs and grasslands.
  • Grant Indigenous communities full property rights and autonomy and support them in monitoring, managing, and enforcing PAs; adhere to principles of free, prior, and informed consent when engaging with Indigenous communities and lands.
  • Manage fire, biodiversity, and grazing in protected grasslands in accordance with ecological needs, learning from and working with Indigenous communities.
  • Ensure PAs don’t displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Expand regulatory, legal, and technical support for privately protected grasslands.
  • When expanding PAs, acquire relevant adjacent properties first, if possible, to increase connectivity and reduce costs; grant restored grasslands protected status.
  • Invest in PA infrastructure, monitoring, management, and enforcement mechanisms.
  • Ban or restrict overgrazing and extractive harvesting while allowing for sustainable use of PAs from Indigenous and local communities; compensate herders for lost grazing lands, if necessary.
  • Ensure PAs are adequately financed and, if applicable, provide financing for low- and middle-income countries and communities for grassland protections.
  • Ensure incentives and/or compensation for reducing livestock or protecting grasslands are evenly distributed with particular attention to low- and middle-income farmers and communities.
  • Use financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, payments for ecosystem services (PES), and debt-for-nature swaps to protect grasslands from development.
  • Remove harmful subsidies for agricultural, grazing, mining, and other resource extraction.
  • Use comanagement, community-governed, land-trust, and/or privately protected models to expand PAs, increase connectivity, and engage communities; ensure a participatory approach to designating and managing PAs.
  • Use real-time monitoring, ground-level sensors, and satellite data to enforce protections, ensuring adequate baseline data are gathered if possible.
  • Ensure budgets adequately split financing between expanding PAs and managing PAs; prioritize quality management of existing PAs before expanding new designations except in cases where nonprotected land conversion presents the most serious risks to people, the climate, or biodiversity.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid roads and other development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize development.
  • Create processes for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution.
  • Create programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use grassland resources sustainably.
  • Join, support, or create certification and independent audit schemes to monitor effectiveness and identify necessary improvements in management.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Set scalable targets (across both biogeographic and administrative levels) for grassland protection, including outcomes-based reporting, indicators for the rate of progress, goals for inclusivity, and measurements for enforcement efficacy; advocate to incorporate these targets into national climate plans and multilateral agreements.
  • Improve monitoring and evaluation standards for grassland ecologies and the impacts from animal agriculture.
  • Ensure incentives and/or compensation for reducing livestock or protecting grasslands are evenly distributed with particular attention to low- and middle-income farmers and communities.
  • Ensure PAs are adequately financed and, if applicable, provide financing for low- and middle-income countries and communities for grassland protections.
  • When expanding PAs, acquire relevant adjacent properties first, if possible, to increase connectivity and reduce costs.
  • Use financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, PES, and debt-for-nature swaps to protect grasslands from development.
  • Empower local communities to manage grasslands and ensure a participatory approach to designating and managing PAs.
  • Use comanagement, community-governed, land-trust, and/or privately-protected models to expand PAs, increase connectivity, and engage communities.
  • Ban or restrict overgrazing and extractive harvesting while allowing sustainable use of PAs by Indigenous and local communities; compensate herders for lost grazing lands if necessary.
  • Use real-time monitoring, ground-level sensors, and satellite data to enforce protections, ensuring adequate baseline data are gathered if possible.
  • Ensure budgets adequately split financing between expanding PAs and managing PAs; prioritize quality management of existing PAs before expanding new designations - except in cases where non-protected land conversion presents the most serious risk to people, the climate, or biodiversity.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use grassland resources sustainably.
  • Join, support, or create certification and independent audit schemes to monitor effectiveness and identify necessary improvements in management.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Ensure operations, development, and supply chains are not degrading grasslands or interfering with PA management.
  • Integrate grassland protection into net-zero strategies, if relevant.
  • Commit and adhere to minimizing irrecoverable carbon loss through development projects, supply-chain management, and general operations.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Only purchase carbon credits from high-integrity, verifiable carbon markets, and do not use them as replacements for decarbonizing operations or claim them as “offsets.”
  • Consider donating to established grassland protection funds in place of carbon credits.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to grasslands from development.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Leverage political influence to advocate for stronger grassland protection policies at national and international levels.
  • Conduct proactive land use planning to avoid roads and other development projects that may interfere with PAs.
  • Join, support, or create certification and independent audit schemes to monitor effectiveness and identify necessary improvements in management.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing PAs and IPLs, expansion of new PAs and IPLs, and for more public investments.
  • Advocate for scalable targets (across both biogeographic and administrative levels) for grassland protections, including outcomes-based reporting, indicators for the rate of progress, goals for inclusivity, and measurements for enforcement efficacy; advocate for these goals to be incorporated into national climate plans and multilateral agreements.
  • Help manage and monitor protected grasslands using real-time monitoring, ground-based sensors, and satellite data.
  • Provide financial support for monitoring and enforcement of PAs and IPLs.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with protected grasslands or incentivize destruction.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or IPLs.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support the capacity of Indigenous and local communities for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Use or advocate for financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to protect grasslands from development.
  • Improve monitoring and evaluation standards for grassland ecologies and the impacts from animal agriculture.
  • Help classify and map grasslands, carbon stocks, and biodiversity data and create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain grasslands.
  • Create and manage a global database of protected grasslands, grassland loss, restoration, and management initiatives.
  • Join, support, or create certification and independent audit schemes to monitor effectiveness and identify necessary improvements in management.
  • Create programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use grassland resources sustainably.

Further information:

Investors
  • Ensure investment portfolios do not degrade grasslands or interfere with PAs or IPLs, using data, information, and the latest technology to inform investments.
  • Consider any project that releases irrecoverable carbon loss through the destruction of ecosystems like grasslands to be high risk, avoid investments in these projects as much as possible, and divest from any companies violating this principle.
  • Invest in grassland protection, monitoring, management, and enforcement mechanisms.
  • Use financial mechanisms such as credible biodiversity offsets, payments for ecosystem services, voluntary high-integrity carbon markets, and debt-for-nature swaps to fund grassland protection.
  • Invest in and support the capacity of Indigenous and local communities for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Share with other investors and nongovernmental organizations data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid investments that drive grassland destruction.
  • Provide favorable loans to Indigenous communities and entrepreneurs and businesses protecting grasslands.
  • Join, support, or create certification and independent audit schemes to monitor effectiveness and identify necessary improvements in management.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing PAs and IPLs, expansion of new PAs and IPLs, and more public investments.
  • Advocate for scalable targets (across both biogeographic and administrative levels) for grassland protections, including outcomes-based reporting, indicators for the rate of progress, goals for inclusivity, and measurements for enforcement efficacy; advocate for these goals to be incorporated into national climate plans and multilateral agreements.
  • Use or advocate for financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to protect grasslands from development.
  • Help manage and monitor protected grassland, using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Provide technical assistance to low- and middle-income countries and communities for grasslands protection.
  • Provide financial assistance to low- and middle-income countries and communities for grasslands protection.
  • Provide financial support to organizations and institutions developing and deploying monitoring technology and conducting grassland research.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with protected grasslands or incentivize destruction.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or IPLs.
  • Help classify and map grasslands, carbon stocks, and biodiversity data and create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain grasslands.
  • Create and manage a global database of protected grasslands, grassland loss, restoration, and management initiatives.
  • Join, support, or create certification and independent audit schemes to monitor effectiveness and identify necessary improvements in management.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use grassland resources sustainably.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Help change the narrative around grasslands by highlighting their value and benefits such as supporting human life, biodiversity, ecosystem resilience, and climate regulation.
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing PAs and IPLs, expansion of new PAs and IPLs, and public investments.
  • Advocate for scalable targets (across both biogeographic and administrative levels) for grassland protections, including outcomes-based reporting, indicators for the rate of progress, goals for inclusivity, and measurements for enforcement efficacy; advocate for these to be incorporated into national climate plans and multilateral agreements.
  • Advocate for or use financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, PES, and debt-for-nature swaps to protect grasslands from development.
  • Help manage and monitor protected grasslands using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with protected grasslands or incentivize conversion.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or IPLs.
  • Help improve monitoring and evaluation standards for grassland ecologies and impacts from animal agriculture.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon and biodiversity markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for legal protection, management, and public relations.
  • Help classify and map grasslands, carbon stocks, and biodiversity data and create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Create and manage a global database of protected grasslands, grassland loss, restoration, and management initiatives.
  • Join, support, or create certification and independent audit schemes to monitor effectiveness and identify necessary improvements in management.
  • Create programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use grassland resources sustainably.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop standardized indicators of grassland degradation.
  • Research the ecological interactions of grasslands with other ecosystems; share data widely and include recommendations for coordinated action.
  • Assess and publish costs of PA designation, management, and evaluation.
  • Conduct comparative analysis on different types of governance models for PAs to determine impacts on climate, biodiversity, and human well-being.
  • Examine the relationship between geography and governance structures of private PAs, looking for spatial patterns and roles of various stakeholders such NGOs, businesses, and private landowners.
  • Study behavioral change mechanisms that can increase effectiveness and enforcement of PAs.
  • Improve monitoring methods using field measurements, models, satellite imagery, and GIS tools.
  • Create or improve on existing software tools that allow for dynamic planning and management of PAs by monitoring impacts on local communities, the climate, and biodiversity.
  • Create local research sites to support PAs and provide technical assistance.
  • Create tools for local communities to monitor grasslands, such as mobile apps, e-learning platforms, and mapping tools.
  • Develop supply chain tracking software for investors and businesses seeking to create sustainable portfolios and products.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Avoid developing intact grasslands and adhere to sustainable use guidelines of PAs.
  • Participate or volunteer in local grassland protection efforts; use or advocate for comanagement, community-governed, land-trust, and/or privately protected models to expand PAs, increase connectivity, and allow for continued community engagement.
  • Help manage and monitor protected grasslands using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Establish coordinating bodies for farmers, herders, developers, landowners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to holistically manage PAs.
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing PAs and IPLs, expansion of new PAs and IPLs, and public investments.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with protected grasslands or incentivize destruction.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or IPLs.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon and biodiversity markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Support Indigenous communities' capacity for management, legal protection and public relations.
  • Use or advocate for financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to protect grasslands from development.
  • Help classify and map grasslands and create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Ensure PAs don’t displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain grasslands.
  • Plant native species to help improve the local ecological balance and stabilize the soil, especially on property adjacent to PAs.
  • Use nontoxic cleaning and gardening supplies, purchase unbleached paper products, and recycle to help keep pollution and debris out of grasslands.
  • Join, support, or create certification and independent audit schemes to monitor effectiveness and identify necessary improvements in management.
  • Create programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use grassland resources sustainably.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing emissions and maintaining carbon removal: High

There is high scientific consensus that grassland protection reduces emissions by reducing conversion of grasslands. Grasslands have been extensively converted globally because of their utility for agricultural use, and many extant grasslands are at high risk of conversion (Carbutt et al., 2017; Gang et al., 2014). Li et al. (2024) found that PAs prevent conversion of approximately 0.35% of global grasslands per year. Although grasslands remain understudied relative to some other ecosystems, there is robust evidence that PAs and IPLs reduce forest conversion, with estimates in different regions ranging from 17–75% reductions in forest loss relative to unprotected areas (Baragwanth & Bayi, 2020; Graham et al., 2021; McNichol et al., 2023; Sze et al., 2022; Wolf et al., 2022). Additional research specific to grasslands on the effectiveness of PAs and IPLs at preventing land use change would be valuable. 

Conversion of grasslands to croplands produces emissions through the loss of soil carbon and biomass (IPCC, 2019). A recent meta-analysis based on 5,980 soil carbon measurements found that grassland conversion to croplands reduces soil carbon stocks by a global average of 23%, or almost 30 t CO₂ /ha (Huang et al., 2024), before accounting for nitrous oxide emissions (IPCC, 2019), loss of biomass carbon stocks (Spawn et al., 2020), and loss of sequestration potential (Chang et al., 2021).

Regional studies also find that grassland protection provides emissions savings. For instance, a study of grasslands in Argentina and the United States found that conversion to croplands reduced total carbon stocks, including soil and biomass, by 117 t CO₂‑eq /ha (Kim et al., 2016). Ahlering et al. (2016) conclude that protecting just 210,000 ha of unprotected grasslands in the U.S. Northern Great Plains would avoid 11.7 Mt CO₂‑eq over 20 years, with emissions savings of 51.6 t CO₂‑eq /ha protected, or 35.6 t CO₂‑eq /ha after accounting for leakage and uncertainty. 

The quantitative results presented in this assessment synthesize findings from 13 global datasets supplemented by three meta-analyses with global scopes. We recognize that geographic bias in the information underlying global data products creates bias and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Appendix

This analysis quantifies the emissions avoidable through legal protection of grasslands via establishment of PAs or land tenure for Indigenous peoples. We leveraged a global grassland distribution map alongside other ecosystem distribution maps, shapefiles of PAs and IPLs, available data on rates of avoided ecosystem loss attributable to PA establishment, maps of grassland carbon stocks in above- and below-ground biomass, and biome-level estimates of soil carbon loss for grasslands converted to croplands. This appendix describes the source data products and how they were integrated. 

Grassland Extent

We relied on the 30-m resolution global map of grassland extent developed by Parente et al. (2024), which classifies both “natural and semi-natural grasslands” and “managed grasslands.” This solution considers only the “natural and semi-natural grasslands” class. We first resampled the data to 1 km resolution by calculating the percent of the pixel occupied by grasslands. To avoid double counting land considered in other ecosystem protection solutions (Protect Forests, Protect Peatlands, and Protect Coastal Wetlands), we then adjusted the grassland map so that no pixel contained a value greater than 100% after summing all ecosystem types. These other ecosystems can overlap with grasslands either because they are non-exclusive (e.g., peatland soils can have grassland vegetation), or because of variable definitions (e.g., the grassland map allows up to 50% tree cover, which could be classified as a forest by other land cover maps). After adjusting for other ecosystems, we used the Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World data (Olson et al., 2001) to exclude areas of natural forest, because these areas are eligible for other solutions. 

The resultant raster of proportionate grassland coverage was converted to absolute areas, and used to calculate the total grassland area for each of four latitude bands (tropical: –23.4° to 23.4°; subtropical: –35° to –23.4° and 23.4° to 35°; temperate: –50° to –35° and 35° to 50°; boreal: <–50° and >50°). The analysis was conducted by latitude bands in order to retain some spatial variability in emissions factors and degradation rates. 

Protected Grassland Areas

We identified protected grassland areas using the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2024), which contains boundaries for each PA and additional information, including their establishment year and IUCN management category (Ia–VI, not applicable, not reported, and not assigned). The PA boundary data were converted to a raster and used to calculate the grassland area within PA boundaries for each latitude band and each PA category. To evaluate trends in adoption over time, we also aggregated protected areas by establishment year as reported in the WDPA. 

We used the maps of IPLs from Garnett et al. (2018) to identify IPLs that were not inside of established PAs. The total grassland area within IPLs was calculated according to the same process as for PAs.

Avoided Grassland Conversion

Broadly, we estimated annual, per-hectare emissions savings from grassland protection as the difference between net carbon exchange in a protected grassland and an unprotected grassland. This calculation followed Equation A1, in which the annual grassland loss avoided due to protection (%/yr) is multiplied by the 30-yr cumulative sum of emissions per hectare of grassland converted to cropland (CO₂‑eq /ha over 30 yr). 

Equation A1.

\[ Effectiveness = Grassland\text{ }loss_{avoided} \times \sum_{t=1}^{30}{Emissions} \]

The avoided grassland loss attributable to PAs was calculated from the source data for Figure 7 of Li et al. (2024), which provides the difference in habitat loss between protected areas and unprotected control areas between 2003 and 2019 by ecoregion. These data were filtered to only include grasslands, aggregated to latitude bands, and used to calculate annual linear rates of avoided habitat loss. Tropical and subtropical regions were not clearly distinguished, so the same rate was used for both.

Grassland Conversion Emissions

The emissions associated with grassland conversion to cropland include loss of above- and below-ground biomass carbon stocks, loss of soil carbon stocks, and loss of carbon sequestration potential. We used data on above- and below-ground biomass carbon stocks from Spawn et al. (2020) to calculate the average carbon stocks by latitude band for grassland pixels and cropland pixels. We used the 2010 European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative (ESA CCI, 2019) land cover dataset for this calculation because it was the base map used to generate the biomass carbon stock dataset. The per-hectare difference between biomass carbon stocks in grasslands and croplands represents the emissions from biomass carbon stocks following grassland conversion.

We aggregated soil carbon stocks from SoilGrids 2.0 (0–30 cm depth) to latitude bands for grassland pixels from the 2015 ESA CCI land cover dataset, which was the base map used for the SoilGrids dataset (Poggio et al., 2021). To avoid capturing peatlands, which have higher carbon stocks, we excluded pixels with soil carbon contents >15% by mass (a slightly conservative cutoff for organic soils) prior to aggregation. We took the percent loss of soil carbon following grassland-to-cropland conversion from Table S8 of the meta-analysis by Huang et al. (2024), who also conducted their analysis by latitude band. Soil carbon losses are also associated with nitrous oxide emissions, which were calculated per the IPCC Tier 1 equations as follows using the default carbon-to-nitrogen ratio of 15:1. 

We calculated the loss of carbon sequestration potential based on estimates of grassland annual net CO₂ flux, extracted from Table S2 from Chang et al. (2021). These data include field- and model-based measurements of grassland net CO₂ flux and were used to calculate median values by latitude band.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Protect Forests

Sector
FALO & Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Cut Emissions Remove Carbon
Cluster
Protect & Manage Ecosystems
Image
Fog sitting among trees of a dense forest canopy
Coming Soon
Off

Key Takeaways

  • Forests store a huge amount of carbon in vegetation and soils, much of which is released when trees are cut.
  • On average, more than 16 million ha of forest are cleared each year, producing 7 Gt CO₂‑eq of GHGs.
  • At a high achievable adoption level, protecting forests could prevent the release of 3.62 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, making it one of the most powerful nature-based climate solutions available.
  • Protecting forests also has huge benefits for biodiversity, local cooling, water quality, human health, food provisioning, tourism income for local communities, and cultural and recreational value.
Summary

We define the Protect Forests solution as the long-term protection of tree-dominated ecosystems through establishment of protected areas (PAs), managed with the primary goal of conserving nature, and land tenure for Indigenous peoples. These protections reduce forest degradation, avoiding GHG emissions and ensuring continued carbon sequestration by healthy forests. This solution addresses protection of forests on mineral soils. The Protect Peatlands and Protect Coastal Wetlands solutions address protection of forested peatlands and mangrove forests, respectively, and the Restore Forests solution addresses restoring degraded forests.

Heat stress,Extreme weather events
Income & work,Food security,Health,Equality
Nature protection,Water quality
Description for Social and Search
Protect Forests is a Highly Recommended climate solution. Forest protection ensures that intact forests stay standing, avoiding GHG emissions, maintaining their ability to absorb carbon, and providing numerous other environmental benefits.
Overview

Forests store carbon in biomass and soils and serve as carbon sinks, taking up an estimated 12.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr  (including mangroves and forested peatlands; Pan et al., 2024). Carbon stored in forests is released into the atmosphere through deforestation and degradation, which refer to forest clearing or reductions in ecosystem integrity from human influence (DellaSala et al., 2025). Humans cleared an average of 0.4% (16.3 Mha) of global forest area annually from 2001–2019 (excluding wildfire but including mangroves and forested peatlands; Hansen et al., 2013, updated 2024). This produced a gross flux of 7.4 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Harris et al., 2021), equivalent to ~14% of total global GHG emissions over that period (Dhakal et al., 2022). Different forest types store varying amounts of carbon and experience different rates of clearing; in this analysis, we individually evaluate forest protection in boreal, temperate, subtropical, and tropical regions. We included woodlands in our definition of forests because they are not differentiated in the satellite-based data used in this analysis.

We consider forests to be protected if they 1) are formally designated as protected areas (PAs) (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2024), or 2) are mapped as Indigenous peoples’ lands in the global study by Garnett et al. (2018). The International Union for Conservation of Nature defines PAs as areas managed primarily for the long-term conservation of nature and ecosystem services. They are disaggregated into six levels of protection, ranging from strict wilderness preserves to sustainable-use areas that allow for some natural resource extraction, including logging. We included all levels of protection in this analysis, primarily because not all PAs have been classified into these categories. We rely on existing maps of Indigenous peoples’ lands but emphasize that much of their extent has not been fully mapped nor recognized for its conservation benefits (Garnett et al., 2018). Innovative and equity-driven strategies for forest protection that recognize the land rights, sovereignty, and stewardship of Indigenous peoples and local communities are critical for achieving just and effective forest protection globally (Dawson et al., 2024; Fa et al., 2020; FAO, 2024; Garnett et al., 2018; Tran et al., 2020; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017).

Indigenous peoples’ lands and PAs reduce, but do not eliminate, forest clearing relative to unprotected areas (Baragwanath et al., 2020; Blackman & Viet 2018; Li et al., 2024; McNicol et al., 2023; Sze et al. 2022; Wolf et al., 2023; Wade et al., 2020). We rely on estimates of how effective PA are currently for this analysis but highlight that improving management to further reduce land use change within PAs is a critical component of forest protection (Jones et al., 2018; Meng et al., 2023; Vijay et al., 2018; Visconti et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2014).

Market-based strategies and other policies can complement legal protections by increasing the value of intact forests and reducing incentives for clearing (e.g., Garett et al., 2019; Golub et al., 2021; Heilmayr et al., 2020; Lambin et al., 2018; Levy et al., 2023; Macdonald et al., 2024; Marin et al., 2022; Villoria et al., 2022; West et al., 2023). The estimates in this report are based on legal protection alone because the effectiveness of market-based strategies is difficult to quantify, but strategies such as sustainable commodities programs, reducing or redirecting agricultural subsidies, and strategic infrastructure planning will be further discussed in a future update. 

References

Adams, V. M., Iacona, G. D., & Possingham, H. P. (2019). Weighing the benefits of expanding protected areas versus managing existing ones. Nature Sustainability, 2(5), 404–411. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0275-5

Anderegg, W. R. L., Trugman, A. T., Badgley, G., Anderson, C. M., Bartuska, A., Ciais, P., Cullenward, D., Field, C. B., Freeman, J., Goetz, S. J., Hicke, J. A., Huntzinger, D., Jackson, R. B., Nickerson, J., Pacala, S., & Randerson, J. T. (2020). Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests. Science, 368(6497), eaaz7005. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz7005

Arneth, A., Leadley, P., Claudet, J., Coll, M., Rondinini, C., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Shin, Y.-J., Alexander, P., & Fuchs, R. (2023). Making protected areas effective for biodiversity, climate and food. Global Change Biology, 29(14), 3883–3894. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16664

Baragwanath, K., & Bayi, E. (2020). Collective property rights reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(34), 20495–20502. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917874117

Barnes, M. D., Glew, L., Wyborn, C., & Craigie, I. D. (2018). Prevent perverse outcomes from global protected area policy. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(5), 759–762. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0501-y

Bliege Bird, R., & Nimmo, D. (2018). Restore the lost ecological functions of people. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(7), 1050–1052. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0576-5

Blackman, A., & Veit, P. (2018). Titled Amazon Indigenous Communities Cut Forest Carbon Emissions. Ecological Economics, 153, 56–67. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.016

Brennan, A., Naidoo, R., Greenstreet, L., Mehrabi, Z., Ramankutty, N., & Kremen, C. (2022). Functional connectivity of the world’s protected areas. Science, 376(6597), 1101–1104. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl8974

Brinck, K., Fischer, R., Groeneveld, J., Lehmann, S., Dantas De Paula, M., Pütz, S., Sexton, J. O., Song, D., & Huth, A. (2017). High resolution analysis of tropical forest fragmentation and its impact on the global carbon cycle. Nature Communications, 8(1), 14855. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14855

Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., & Balmford, A. (2004). Financial Costs and Shortfalls of Managing and Expanding Protected-Area Systems in Developing Countries. BioScience, 54(12), 1119–1126. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1119:FCASOM]2.0.CO;2

Buotte, P. C., Law, B. E., Ripple, W. J., & Berner, L. T. (2020). Carbon sequestration and biodiversity co-benefits of preserving forests in the western United States. Ecological Applications, 30(2), e02039. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2039

Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A., & Hansen, M. C. (2018). Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science, 361(6407), 1108–1111. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau3445

Dawson, N. M., Coolsaet, B., Bhardwaj, A., Booker, F., Brown, D., Lliso, B., Loos, J., Martin, A., Oliva, M., Pascual, U., Sherpa, P., & Worsdell, T. (2024). Is it just conservation? A typology of Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ roles in conserving biodiversity. One Earth, 7(6), 1007–1021. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.05.001

de Souza, S. E. X. F., Vidal, E., Chagas, G. de F., Elgar, A. T., & Brancalion, P. H. S. (2016). Ecological outcomes and livelihood benefits of community-managed agroforests and second growth forests in Southeast Brazil. Biotropica, 48(6), 868–881. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12388

Delacote, P., Le Velly, G., & Simonet, G. (2022). Revisiting the location bias and additionality of REDD+ projects: The role of project proponents status and certification. Resource and Energy Economics, 67, 101277. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2021.101277

Delacote, P., Velly, G. L., & Simonet, G. (2024). Distinguishing potential and effective additionality of forest conservation interventions. Environment and Development Economics, 1–21. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X24000202

DellaSala, D. A., Mackey, B., Kormos, C. F., Young, V., Boan, J. J., Skene, J. L., Lindenmayer, D. B., Kun, Z., Selva, N., Malcolm, J. R., & Laurance, W. F. (2025). Measuring forest degradation via ecological-integrity indicators at multiple spatial scales. Biological Conservation, 302, 110939. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110939

Dhakal, S., J.C. Minx, F.L. Toth, A. Abdel-Aziz, M.J. Figueroa Meza, K. Hubacek, I.G.C. Jonckheere, Yong-Gun Kim, G.F. Nemet, S. Pachauri, X.C. Tan, T. Wiedmann, 2022: Emissions Trends and Drivers. 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. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.004

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

Dye, A. W., Houtman, R. M., Gao, P., Anderegg, W. R. L., Fettig, C. J., Hicke, J. A., Kim, J. B., Still, C. J., Young, K., & Riley, K. L. (2024). Carbon, climate, and natural disturbance: A review of mechanisms, challenges, and tools for understanding forest carbon stability in an uncertain future. Carbon Balance and Management, 19(1), 35. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-024-00282-0

Ellison, D., N. Futter, M., & Bishop, K. (2012). On the forest cover–water yield debate: From demand- to supply-side thinking. Global Change Biology, 18(3), 806–820. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02589.x

ESA CCI (2019). Copernicus Climate Change Service, Climate Data Store: Land cover classification gridded maps from 1992 to present derived from satellite observation. Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS). Accessed November 2024. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.24381/cds.006f2c9a

Fa, J. E., Watson, J. E., Leiper, I., Potapov, P., Evans, T. D., Burgess, N. D., Molnár, Z., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Duncan, T., Wang, S., Austin, B. J., Jonas, H., Robinson, C. J., Malmer, P., Zander, K. K., Jackson, M. V., Ellis, E., Brondizio, E. S., & Garnett, S. T. (2020). Importance of Indigenous Peoples’ lands for the conservation of Intact Forest Landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 18(3), 135–140. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2148

FAO. 2024. The State of the World’s Forests 2024 – Forest-sector innovations towards a more sustainable future. Rome. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4060/cd1211en

Filoso, S., Bezerra, M. O., Weiss, K. C. B., & Palmer, M. A. (2017). Impacts of forest restoration on water yield: A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 12(8), e0183210. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183210

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

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. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108673

Gallemore, C., Bowsher, A., Atheeque, A., Groff, E., & Furtado, J. (n.d.). The geography of avoided deforestation and sustainable forest management offsets: The enduring question of additionality. Climate Policy, 0(0), 1–17. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2024.2383418

Gallemore, C., Bowsher, A., Atheeque, A., Groff, E., & Furtado, J. (2023). The geography of avoided deforestation and sustainable forest management offsets: The enduring question of additionality. Climate Policy, 0(0), 1–17. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2024.2383418

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

Garrett, R. D., Levy, S., Carlson, K. M., Gardner, T. A., Godar, J., Clapp, J., Dauvergne, P., Heilmayr, R., le Polain de Waroux, Y., Ayre, B., Barr, R., Døvre, B., Gibbs, H. K., Hall, S., Lake, S., Milder, J. C., Rausch, L. L., Rivero, R., Rueda, X., … Villoria, N. (2019). Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments. Global Environmental Change, 54, 135–147. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.003

Gibbs, H. K., Ruesch, A. S., Achard, F., Clayton, M. K., Holmgren, P., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J. A. (2010). Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16732–16737. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910275107

Golub, A., Herrera, D., Leslie, G., Pietracci, B., & Lubowski, R. (2021). A real options framework for reducing emissions from deforestation: Reconciling short-term incentives with long-term benefits from conservation and agricultural intensification. Ecosystem Services, 49, 101275. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101275

Graham, V., Geldmann, J., Adams, V. M., Negret, P. J., Sinovas, P., & Chang, H.-C. (2021). Southeast Asian protected areas are effective in conserving forest cover and forest carbon stocks compared to unprotected areas. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 23760. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-03188-w

Grantham, H. S., Duncan, A., Evans, T. D., Jones, K. R., Beyer, H. L., Schuster, R., Walston, J., Ray, J. C., Robinson, J. G., Callow, M., Clements, T., Costa, H. M., DeGemmis, A., Elsen, P. R., Ervin, J., Franco, P., Goldman, E., Goetz, S., Hansen, A., … Watson, J. E. M. (2020). Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40% of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity. Nature Communications, 11(1), 5978. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19493-3

Gray, C. L., Hill, S. L. L., Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Börger, L., Contu, S., Hoskins, A. J., Ferrier, S., Purvis, A., & Scharlemann, J. P. W. (2016). Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nature Communications, 7(1), 12306. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12306

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

Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S. V., Goetz, S. J., Loveland, T. R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C. O., & Townshend, J. R. G. (2013). High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science, 342(6160), 850–853. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693. Data available on-line from: Link to source: http://earthenginepartners.appspot.com/science-2013-global-forest. Accessed through Global Forest Watch on 01/12/2024. www.globalforestwatch.org

Harris, N. L., Gibbs, D. A., Baccini, A., Birdsey, R. A., de Bruin, S., Farina, M., Fatoyinbo, L., Hansen, M. C., Herold, M., Houghton, R. A., Potapov, P. V., Suarez, D. R., Roman-Cuesta, R. M., Saatchi, S. S., Slay, C. M., Turubanova, S. A., & Tyukavina, A. (2021). Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nature Climate Change, 11(3), 234–240. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6

Heilmayr, R., Rausch, L. L., Munger, J., & Gibbs, H. K. (2020). Brazil’s Amazon Soy Moratorium reduced deforestation. Nature Food, 1(12), 801–810. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00194-5

Herrera, D., Ellis, A., Fisher, B., Golden, C. D., Johnson, K., Mulligan, M., Pfaff, A., Treuer, T., & Ricketts, T. H. (2017). Upstream watershed condition predicts rural children’s health across 35 developing countries. Nature Communications, 8(1), 811. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00775-2

Herrera, D., Pfaff, A., & Robalino, J. (2019). Impacts of protected areas vary with the level of government: Comparing avoided deforestation across agencies in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(30), 14916–14925. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802877116

Jones, K. R., Venter, O., Fuller, R. A., Allan, J. R., Maxwell, S. L., Negret, P. J., & Watson, J. E. M. (2018). One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science, 360(6390), 788–791. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9565

Kolden, C. A., Abatzoglou, J. T., Jones, M. W., & Jain, P. (2024). Wildfires in 2023. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 5(4), 238–240. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-024-00544-y

Kreye, M. M., Adams, D. C., & Escobedo, F. J. (2014). The Value of Forest Conservation for Water Quality Protection. Forests, 5(5), Article 5. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/f5050862

Lambin, E. F., Gibbs, H. K., Heilmayr, R., Carlson, K. M., Fleck, L. C., Garrett, R. D., le Polain de Waroux, Y., McDermott, C. L., McLaughlin, D., Newton, P., Nolte, C., Pacheco, P., Rausch, L. L., Streck, C., Thorlakson, T., & Walker, N. F. (2018). The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nature Climate Change, 8(2), 109–116. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0061-1

Lawrence, D., Coe, M., Walker, W., Verchot, L., & Vandecar, K. (2022). The unseen effects of deforestation: biophysical effects on climate. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.756115

Levy, S. A., Cammelli, F., Munger, J., Gibbs, H. K., & Garrett, R. D. (2023). Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon could be halved by scaling up the implementation of zero-deforestation cattle commitments. Global Environmental Change, 80, 102671. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102671

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

Lindenmayer, D. (2024). Key steps toward expanding protected areas to conserve global biodiversity. Frontiers in Science, 2. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsci.2024.1426480

Lutz, J. A., Furniss, T. J., Johnson, D. J., Davies, S. J., Allen, D., Alonso, A., Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Andrade, A., Baltzer, J., Becker, K. M. L., Blomdahl, E. M., Bourg, N. A., Bunyavejchewin, S., Burslem, D. F. R. P., Cansler, C. A., Cao, K., Cao, M., Cárdenas, D., Chang, L.-W., … Zimmerman, J. K. (2018). Global importance of large-diameter trees. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 27(7), 849–864. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12747

Macdonald, K., Diprose, R., Grabs, J., Schleifer, P., Alger, J., Bahruddin, Brandao, J., Cashore, B., Chandra, A., Cisneros, P., Delgado, D., Garrett, R., & Hopkinson, W. (2024). Jurisdictional approaches to sustainable agro-commodity governance: The state of knowledge and future research directions. Earth System Governance, 22, 100227. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2024.100227

McCallister, M., Krasovskiy, A., Platov, A., Pietracci, B., Golub, A., Lubowski, R., & Leslie, G. (2022). Forest protection and permanence of reduced emissions. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.928518

Marin, F. R., Zanon, A. J., Monzon, J. P., Andrade, J. F., Silva, E. H. F. M., Richter, G. L., Antolin, L. A. S., Ribeiro, B. S. M. R., Ribas, G. G., Battisti, R., Heinemann, A. B., & Grassini, P. (2022). Protecting the Amazon forest and reducing global warming via agricultural intensification. Nature Sustainability, 5(12), 1018–1026. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00968-8

McNicol, I. M., Keane, A., Burgess, N. D., Bowers, S. J., Mitchard, E. T. A., & Ryan, C. M. (2023). Protected areas reduce deforestation and degradation and enhance woody growth across African woodlands. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), 1–14. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01053-4

Melo, F. P. L., Parry, L., Brancalion, P. H. S., Pinto, S. R. R., Freitas, J., Manhães, A. P., Meli, P., Ganade, G., & Chazdon, R. L. (2021). Adding forests to the water–energy–food nexus. Nature Sustainability, 4(2), 85–92. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00608-z

Meng, Z., Dong, J., Ellis, E. C., Metternicht, G., Qin, Y., Song, X.-P., Löfqvist, S., Garrett, R. D., Jia, X., & Xiao, X. (2023). Post-2020 biodiversity framework challenged by cropland expansion in protected areas. Nature Sustainability, 6(7), 758–768. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01093-w

Morales-Hidalgo, D., Oswalt, S. N., & Somanathan, E. (2015). Status and trends in global primary forest, protected areas, and areas designated for conservation of biodiversity from the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Forest Ecology and Management, 352, 68–77. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.011

Mykleby, P. M., Snyder, P. K., & Twine, T. E. (2017). Quantifying the trade-off between carbon sequestration and albedo in midlatitude and high-latitude North American forests. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(5), 2493–2501. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071459

Nabuurs, G-J., R. Mrabet, A. Abu Hatab, M. Bustamante, H. Clark, P. Havlík, 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. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.009

Naidoo, R., Gerkey, D., Hole, D., Pfaff, A., Ellis, A. M., Golden, C. D., Herrera, D., Johnson, K., Mulligan, M., Ricketts, T. H., & Fisher, B. (2019). Evaluating the impacts of protected areas on human well-being across the developing world. Science Advances, 5(4), eaav3006. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav3006

Oldekop, J. A., Rasmussen, L. V., Agrawal, A., Bebbington, A. J., Meyfroidt, P., Bengston, D. N., Blackman, A., Brooks, S., Davidson-Hunt, I., Davies, P., Dinsi, S. C., Fontana, L. B., Gumucio, T., Kumar, C., Kumar, K., Moran, D., Mwampamba, T. H., Nasi, R., Nilsson, M., … Wilson, S. J. (2020). Forest-linked livelihoods in a globalized world. Nature Plants, 6(12), 1400–1407. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-00814-9

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. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07602-x

Phillips, C. A., Rogers, B. M., Elder, M., Cooperdock, S., Moubarak, M., Randerson, J. T., & Frumhoff, P. C. (2022). Escalating carbon emissions from North American boreal forest wildfires and the climate mitigation potential of fire management. Science Advances, 8(17), eabl7161. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abl7161

Reddington, C. L., Butt, E. W., Ridley, D. A., Artaxo, P., Morgan, W. T., Coe, H., & Spracklen, D. V. (2015). Air quality and human health improvements from reductions in deforestation-related fire in Brazil. Nature Geoscience, 8(10), 768–771. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2535

Reek, J. E., Zohner, C. M., Smith, G. R., Cook-Patton, S. C., Frenne, P. D., D’Odorico, P., Floriancic, M. G., Jackson, R. B., Jones, J. A., Kirchner, J. W., Laguë, M., Liang, Y., Masuda, Y. J., McDonald, R. I., Parsons, L. A., Probst, B. S., Spector, J. T., West, T. A. P., Wolff, N. H., … Crowther, T. W. (2026). More than mitigation: The role of forests in climate adaptation. Science, 391(6786), 669–678. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ads4361

Richter, J., Goldman, E., Harris, N., Gibbs, D., Rose, M., Peyer, S., Richardson, S., & Velappan, H. (2024). Spatial Database of Planted Trees (SDPT Version 2.0) [Dataset]. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.46830/writn.23.00073

Rogers, B. M., Mackey, B., Shestakova, T. A., Keith, H., Young, V., Kormos, C. F., DellaSala, D. A., Dean, J., Birdsey, R., Bush, G., Houghton, R. A., & Moomaw, W. R. (2022). Using ecosystem integrity to maximize climate mitigation and minimize risk in international forest policy. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.929281

Ruseva, T., Marland, E., Szymanski, C., Hoyle, J., Marland, G., & Kowalczyk, T. (2017). Additionality and permanence standards in California’s Forest Offset Protocol: A review of project and program level implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 198, 277–288. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.082

Sarira, T. V., Zeng, Y., Neugarten, R., Chaplin-Kramer, R., & Koh, L. P. (2022). Co-benefits of forest carbon projects in Southeast Asia. Nature Sustainability, 5(5), 393–396. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00849-0

Seymour, F., Wolosin, M., & Gray, E. (2022, October 23). Policies underestimate forests’ full effect on the climate. World Resources Institute. Link to source: https://www.wri.org/insights/how-forests-affect-climate

Smith, C., Baker, J. C. A., & Spracklen, D. V. (2023). Tropical deforestation causes large reductions in observed precipitation. Nature, 615(7951), 270–275. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05690-1

Soto-Navarro, C., Ravilious, C., Arnell, A., de Lamo, X., Harfoot, M., Hill, S. L. L., Wearn, O. R., Santoro, M., Bouvet, A., Mermoz, S., Le Toan, T., Xia, J., Liu, S., Yuan, W., Spawn, S. A., Gibbs, H. K., Ferrier, S., Harwood, T., Alkemade, R., … Kapos, V. (2020). Mapping co-benefits for carbon storage and biodiversity to inform conservation policy and action. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1794), 20190128. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0128

Sunderlin, W. D., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R., Santoso, L., & Wunder, S. (2005). Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: An Overview. World Development, 33(9), 1383–1402. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.10.004

Sweeney, B. W., Bott, T. L., Jackson, J. K., Kaplan, L. A., Newbold, J. D., Standley, L. J., Hession, W. C., & Horwitz, R. J. (2004). Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(39), 14132–14137. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0405895101

Sze, J. S., Carrasco, L. R., Childs, D., & Edwards, D. P. (2022). Reduced deforestation and degradation in Indigenous Lands pan-tropically. Nature Sustainability, 5(2), 123–130. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00815-2

Tauli-Corpuz, V., Alcorn, J., Molnar, A., Healy, C., & Barrow, E. (2020). Cornered by PAs: Adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost-effective conservation and climate action. World Development, 130, 104923. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104923

Tran, T. C., Ban, N. C., & Bhattacharyya, J. (2020). A review of successes, challenges, and lessons from Indigenous protected and conserved areas. Biological Conservation, 241, 108271. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108271

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

Vijay, V., Fisher, J. R. B., & Armsworth, P. R. (2022). Co-benefits for terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem services available from contrasting land protection policies in the contiguous United States. Conservation Letters, 15(5), e12907. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12907

Villoria, N., Garrett, R., Gollnow, F., & Carlson, K. (2022). Leakage does not fully offset soy supply-chain efforts to reduce deforestation in Brazil. Nature Communications, 13(1), 5476. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33213-z

Visconti, P., Butchart, S. H. M., Brooks, T. M., Langhammer, P. F., Marnewick, D., Vergara, S., Yanosky, A., & Watson, J. E. M. (2019). Protected area targets post-2020. Science, 364(6437), 239–241. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav6886

Wade, C. M., Austin, K. G., Cajka, J., Lapidus, D., Everett, K. H., Galperin, D., Maynard, R., & Sobel, A. (2020). What Is Threatening Forests in Protected Areas? A Global Assessment of Deforestation in Protected Areas, 2001–2018. Forests, 11(5), Article 5. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/f11050539

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

Walton, Z. L., Poudyal, N. C., Hepinstall-Cymerman, J., Johnson Gaither, C., & Boley, B. B. (2016). Exploring the role of forest resources in reducing community vulnerability to the heat effects of climate change. Forest Policy and Economics, 71, 94–102. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.09.001

Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B., & Hockings, M. (2014). The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature, 515(7525), 67–73. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13947

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

Wolf, C., Levi, T., Ripple, W. J., Zárrate-Charry, D. A., & Betts, M. G. (2021). A forest loss report card for the world’s protected areas. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(4), 520–529. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01389-0

Zafra-Calvo, N., Pascual, U., Brockington, D., Coolsaet, B., Cortes-Vazquez, J. A., Gross-Camp, N., Palomo, I., & Burgess, N. D. (2017). Towards an indicator system to assess equitable management in protected areas. Biological Conservation, 211, 134–141. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.014

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Avery Driscoll

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D. 

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

We estimated that one ha of forest protection provides total carbon benefits of 0.299–2.204 t CO₂‑eq/yr depending on the biome (Table 1a–d; Appendix). This effectiveness estimate includes avoided emissions and preserved sequestration capacity attributable to the reduction in forest loss conferred by protection (Equation 1). First, we calculated the difference between the rate of human-caused forest loss outside of PAs (Forest lossbaseline) and the rate inside of PAs (Forest lossprotected). We then multiplied the annual rate of avoided forest loss by the sum of the carbon stored in one hectare of forest (Carbonstock) and the amount of carbon that one hectare of intact forest takes up over a 30-yr timeframe (Carbonsequestration).

Equation 1.

\[ Effectiveness = (Forest\text{ }loss_{baseline} - Forest\text{ }loss_{protected})\times(Carbon_{stock} + Carbon_{sequestration}) \]

Each of these factors varies across biomes. Based on our definition, for instance, the effectiveness of forest protection in boreal forests is lower than that in tropical and subtropical forests primarily because the former face lower rates of human-caused forest loss (though greater wildfire impacts). Importantly, the effectiveness of forest protection as defined here reflects only a small percentage of the carbon stored (394 t CO₂‑eq ) and absorbed (4.25 t CO₂‑eq/yr ) per hectare of forest (Harris et al., 2021). This is because humans clear ~0.4% of forest area annually, and forest protection is estimated to reduce human-caused forest loss by an average of 40.5% (Curtis et al., 2018; Wolf et al., 2023). 

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions and sequestering carbon, with carbon sequestration calculated over a 30-yr time frame. Differences in values between biomes are driven by variation in forest carbon stocks and sequestration rates, baseline rates of forest loss, and effectiveness of PAs at reducing forest loss. See the Appendix for source data and calculation details. Emissions and sequestration values may not sum to total effectiveness due to rounding.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

Avoided emissions 0.207
Sequestration 0.091
Total effectiveness 0.299

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

Avoided emissions 0.832
Sequestration 0.572
Total effectiveness 1.403

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

Avoided emissions 1.860
Sequestration 0.344
Total effectiveness 2.204

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

Avoided emissions 1.190
Sequestration 0.300
Total effectiveness 1.489
Left Text Column Width
Cost

We estimated that forest protection costs approximately US$2/t CO₂‑eq (Table 2). Data related to the costs of forest protection are limited, and these estimates are uncertain. The costs of forest 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 (e.g., agriculture or logging). Protecting forests also generates revenue, notably through increased tourism. Costs and revenues vary across regions, depending on the costs of land and enforcement and potential for tourism. 

The cost of land acquisition for ecosystem protection was estimated by Dienerstein et al. (2024), who found a median cost of US$988/ha (range: US$59–6,616/ha), which we amortized over 30 years. Costs of PA maintenance were estimated at US$9–17/ha/yr (Bruner et al., 2004; Waldron et al., 2020). These estimates reflect the costs of effective enforcement and management, but many existing PAs do not have adequate funds for effective enforcement (Adams et al., 2019; Barnes et al., 2018; Burner et al., 2004). Tourism revenues directly attributable to forest protection were estimated to be US$43/ha/yr (Waldron et al., 2020), not including downstream revenues from industries that benefit from increased tourism. Inclusion of a tourism multiplier would substantially increase the estimated economic benefits of forest protection.

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis

Median 2
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

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

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

Additionality, or the degree to which emissions reductions are above and beyond a baseline, is a key caveat for emissions avoided through forest protection (e.g., Fuller et al., 2020; Ruseva et al., 2017). Emissions avoided via forest protection are only considered additional if that forest would have been cleared or degraded without protection (Delacote et al., 2022; Delacote et al., 2024; Gallemore et al., 2020). In this analysis, additionality is addressed by using baseline rates of forest loss outside of PAs in the effectiveness calculation. Additionality is particularly important when forest protection is used to generate carbon offsets. However, the likelihood of forest removal in the absence of protection is often difficult to determine at the local level.

Permanence, or the durability of stored carbon over long timescales, is another important consideration not directly addressed in this solution. Carbon stored in forests can be compromised by natural factors, like drought, heat, flooding, wildfire, pests, and diseases, which are further exacerbated by climate change (Anderegg et al., 2020; Dye et al., 2024). Forest losses via wildfire in particular can create very large pulses of emissions (e.g., Kolden et al. 2024; Phillips et al. 2022) that negate accumulated carbon benefits of forest protection. Reversal of legal protections, illegal forest clearing, biodiversity loss, edge effects from roads, and disturbance from permitted uses can also cause forest losses directly or reduce ecosystem integrity, further increasing vulnerability to other stressors (McCallister et al., 2022).

Current Adoption

We estimated that approximately 1,673 Mha of forests are currently recognized as PAs or Indigenous peoples’ lands (Table 3e; Garnett et al., 2018; UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2024). Using two different maps of global forests that differ in their methodologies and definitions (ESA CCI, 2019; Hansen et al., 2013), we found an upper-end estimate of 1,943 Mha protected and a lower-end estimate of 1,404 Mha protected. These two maps classify forests using different thresholds for canopy cover and vegetation height, different satellite data, and different classification algorithms (see the Appendix for details). 

Based on our calculations, tropical forests make up the majority of forested PAs, with approximately 936 Mha under protection (Table 3d), followed by boreal forests (467 Mha, Table 3a), temperate forests (159 Mha, Table 3b), and subtropical forests (112 Mha, Table 3c). We estimate that 49% of all forests have some legal protection, though only 7% of forests are under strict protection (IUCN class I or II), with the remaining area protected under other IUCN levels, as OECMs, or as Indigenous peoples’ lands.

Table 3. Current (circa 2023) forest and woodland area under legal protection by biome (Mha). The low and high values are calculated using two different maps of global forest cover that differ in methodology for defining a forest (ESA CCI, 2019; Hansen et al., 2013). Biome-level values may not sum to global totals due to rounding.

Unit: Mha

Low 313
Mean 467
High 621

Unit: Mha

Low 135
Mean 159
High 183

Unit: Mha

Low 85
Mean 112
High 138

Unit: Mha

Low 872
Mean 936
High 1,000

Unit: Mha

Low 1,404
Mean 1,673
High 1,943
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

We calculated the rate of PA expansion based on the year the PA was established. We do not have data on the expansion rate of Indigenous peoples’ lands, so the calculated adoption trend reflects only PAs. An average of 19 Mha of additional forests were protected each year between 2000 and 2020 (Table 4a–e; Figure 1), representing a roughly 2% increase in PAs per year (excluding Indigenous peoples’ lands that are not located in PAs). There were large year-to-year differences in how much new forest area was protected over this period, ranging from only 6.4 Mha in 2020 to over 38 Mha in both 2000 and 2006. Generally, the rate at which forest protection is increasing has been decreasing, with an average increase of 27 Mha/yr between 2000–2010 declining to 11 Mha/yr between 2010–2020. Recent rates of forest protection (2010–2020) are highest in the tropics (5.6 Mha/yr), followed by temperate regions (2.4 Mha/yr) and the boreal (2.0 Mha/yr), and lowest in the subtropics (0.7 Mha/yr).

Figure 1. Trend in forest protection by climate zone. These values reflect only the area located within PAs; Indigenous peoples’ lands, which were not included in the calculation of the adoption trend, are excluded.

Enable Download
On

Table 4. 2000–2020 adoption trend.

Unit: Mha protected/yr

25th percentile 1.3
Mean 2.8
Median (50th percentile) 2.0
75th percentile 3.4

Unit: Mha protected/yr

25th percentile 1.9
Mean 2.8
Median (50th percentile) 2.5
75th percentile 3.1

Unit: Mha protected/yr

25th percentile 0.5
Mean 1.0
Median (50th percentile) 0.7
75th percentile 1.1

Unit: Mha protected/yr

25th percentile 5.4
Mean 12.5
Median (50th percentile) 7.7
75th percentile 17.8

Unit: Mha protected/yr

25th percentile 9.1
Mean 19.0
Median (50th percentile) 12.9
75th percentile 25.4
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

We estimated an adoption ceiling of 3,370 Mha of forests globally (Table 5e), defined as all existing forest areas, excluding peatlands and mangroves. Of the calculated adoption ceiling, 469 Mha of boreal forests (Table 5a), 282 Mha of temperate forests (Table 5b), 211 Mha of subtropical forests (Table 5c), and 734 Mha of tropical forests (Table 5d) are currently unprotected. The high and low values represent estimates of currently forested areas from two different maps of forest cover that use different methodologies and definitions (ESA CCI, 2019; Hansen et al., 2013). While it is not socially, politically, or economically realistic that all existing forests could be protected, these values represent the technical upper limit to adoption of this solution. Additionally, some PAs allow for ongoing sustainable use of resources, enabling some demand for wood products to be met via sustainable use of trees in PAs.

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mha protected

Low 686
Mean 936
High 1,186

Unit: Mha protected

Low 385
Mean 441
High 498

Unit: Mha protected

Low 260
Mean 323
High 385

Unit: Mha protected

Low 1,557
Mean 1,669
High 1,782

Unit: Mha protected

Low 2,889
Mean 3,370
High 3,851
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We defined the lower end of the achievable range for forest protection as all high integrity forests in addition to forests in existing PAs and Indigenous peoples’ lands, totaling 2,297 Mha (Table 6a–e). We estimated that there are 624 Mha of unprotected high integrity forests, based on maps of forest integrity developed by Grantham et al. (2020). High integrity forests have experienced little disturbance from human pressures (i.e., logging, agriculture, and buildings), are located further away from areas of human disturbance, and are well-connected to other forests. High integrity forests are a top priority for protection as they have particularly high value with respect to biodiversity and ecosystem service provisioning. These forests are also not currently being used to meet human demand for land or forest-derived products, and thus their protection may be more feasible. 

To estimate the upper end of the achievable range, we excluded the global areas of planted trees and tree crops from the adoption ceiling (Richter et al., 2024), comprising approximately 335 Mha globally (Table 6a–e). Planted trees include tree stands established for crops such as oil palm, products such as timber and fiber production, and those established as windbreaks or for ecosystem services such as erosion control. These stands are often actively managed and are unlikely to be protected.

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels. 

Unit: Mha protected

Current adoption 467
Achievable – low 847
Achievable – high 861
Adoption ceiling 936

Unit: Mha protected

Current adoption 159
Achievable – low 204
Achievable – high 378
Adoption ceiling 441

Unit: Mha protected

Current adoption 112
Achievable – low 126
Achievable – high 219
Adoption ceiling 323

Unit: Mha protected

Current adoption 936
Achievable – low 1,120
Achievable – high 1,577
Adoption ceiling 1,669

Unit: Mha protected

Current adoption 1,673
Achievable – low 2,297
Achievable – high 3,035
Adoption ceiling 3,370
Left Text Column Width

We estimated that forest protection currently avoids approximately 2.00 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, with potential impacts of 2.49 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the low-achievable scenario, 3.62 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr  at the high-achievable scenario, and 4.10 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the adoption ceiling (Table 7a–e). Although not directly comparable due to the inclusion of different land covers, these values are aligned with Griscom et al. (2017) estimates that forest protection could avoid 3.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr and the IPCC estimate that protection of all ecosystems could avoid 6.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Nabuurs et al., 2022).

Note that the four adoption scenarios vary only with respect to the area under protection. Increases in either the rate of forest loss that would have occurred if the area had not been protected or in the effectiveness of PAs at avoiding forest loss would substantially increase the climate impacts of forest protection. For instance, a hypothetical 50% increase in the rate of forest loss outside of PAs would increase the carbon impacts of the current adoption, low achievable, high achievable, and adoption ceiling scenarios to 3.0, 3.7, 5.4, and 6.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, respectively. Similarly, if legal forest protection reduced forest loss twice as much as it currently does, the climate impacts of the four scenarios would increase to 3.9, 4.8, 7.0, and 7.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, respectively.

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.14
Achievable – low 0.25
Achievable – high 0.26
Adoption ceiling 0.28

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.22
Achievable – low 0.29
Achievable – high 0.53
Adoption ceiling 0.62

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.25
Achievable – low 0.28
Achievable – high 0.48
Adoption ceiling 0.71

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 1.39
Achievable – low 1.67
Achievable – high 2.35
Adoption ceiling 2.49

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 2.00
Achievable – low 2.49
Achievable – high 3.62
Adoption ceiling 4.10
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Heat Stress

See Extreme Weather Events for details. 

Extreme Weather Events

Protected forests are more biodiverse and therefore more resilient and adaptable, providing higher-quality ecosystem services to surrounding communities (Gray et al., 2016). Protected forests can also buffer surrounding areas from the effects of extreme weather events. By increasing plant species richness, forest preservation can contribute to drought and fire tolerance (Buotte et al., 2020). Forests help regulate local climate by reducing daytime temperatures and temperature extremes (Lawrence et al., 2022; Reek et al., 2026). Studies have shown that the extent of forest coverage helps to alleviate vulnerability associated with heat effects (Walton et al., 2016). Tropical deforestation threatens human well-being by removing critical local cooling effects provided by tropical forests, exacerbating extreme heat conditions in already vulnerable regions (Seymour et al., 2022).

Income and Work

For a description of the Income and Work benefits, please refer to Food Security and Health sections below. 

Food Security

Protecting forests in predominantly natural areas can improve food security by supporting crop pollination of nearby agriculture. Sarira et al. (2022) found that protecting 58% of threatened forests in Southeast Asia could support the dietary needs of about 305,000–342,000 people annually. Forests also provide a key source of income and livelihoods for subsistence households and individuals (de Souza et al., 2016; Herrera et al., 2017; Naidoo et al., 2019). By maintaining this source of income through forest protection, households can earn sufficient income that contributes to food security. 

Health

Protected forests can benefit the health and well-being of surrounding communities through impacts on the environment and local economies. Herrera et al. (2017) found that in rural areas of low- and middle-income countries, household members living downstream of higher tree cover had a lower probability of diarrheal disease. Proximity to PAs can benefit local tourism, which may provide more economic resources to surrounding households. Naidoo et al. (2019) found that households near PAs in low- and middle-income countries were more likely to have higher levels of wealth and were less likely to have children who were stunted. Reducing deforestation can improve health by lowering vector-borne diseases, mitigating extreme weather impacts, and improving air quality (Reddington et al., 2015). 

Equality

Indigenous peoples have a long history of caring for and shaping landscapes that are rich with biodiversity (Fletcher et al., 2021). Indigenous communities provide vital ecological functions for preserving biodiversity, like seed dispersal and predation (Bliege Bird & Nimmo, 2018). Indigenous peoples also have spiritual and cultural ties to their lands (Garnett et al., 2018). Establishing protected areas must prioritize the return of landscapes to Indigenous peoples so traditional owners can feel the benefits of biodiversity. However, the burden of conservation should not be placed on Indigenous communities without legal recognition or support (Fa et al., 2020). In fact, land grabs and encroachments on Indigenous lands have led to greater deforestation pressure (Sze et al., 2022). Efforts to protect these lands must include legal recognition of Indigenous ownership to support a just and sustainable conservation process (Fletcher et al., 2021).

Nature Protection

Forests are home to a wide range of species and habitats and are essential for safeguarding biodiversity. Forests have high above- and below-ground carbon density, high tree species richness, and often provide habitat to threatened and endangered species (Buotte et al., 2020). PAs can aid in avoiding extinctions by protecting rare and threatened species (Dinerstein et al. 2024). In Southeast Asia, protecting 58% of threatened forests could safeguard about half of the key biodiversity areas in the region (Sarira et al., 2022). 

Water Quality

Forests act as a natural water filter and can maintain and improve water quality (Melo et al., 2021). Forests can also retain nutrients from polluting the larger watershed (Sweeney et al., 2004). For example, forests can uptake excess nutrients like nitrogen, reducing their flow into surrounding water (Sarira et al., 2022). These excessive nutrients can cause eutrophication and algal blooms that negatively impact water quality and aquatic life. 

Risks

Ecosystem protection initiatives that are not led by or undertaken in close collaboration with local communities can compromise community sovereignty and create injustice and inequity (Baragwanath et al., 2020; Blackman & Viet 2018; Dawson et al., 2024; Fa et al., 2020; FAO, 2024; Garnett et al. 2018; Sze et al. 2022; Tauli-Corpuz et al., 2020). Forest protection has the potential to be a win-win for climate and communities, but only if PAs are established with respect to livelihoods and other socio-ecological impacts, ensuring equity in procedures, recognition, and the distribution of benefits (Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017).

Leakage is a key risk of relying on forest protection as a climate solution. Leakage occurs when deforestation-related activities move outside of PA boundaries, resulting in the relocation of, rather than a reduction in, emissions from forest loss. If forest protection efforts are not coupled with policies to reduce incentives for forest clearing, leakage will likely offset some of the emissions avoided through forest protection. Additional research is needed to comprehensively quantify the magnitude of leakage effects, though two regional-scale studies found only small negative effects (Fuller et al., 2020; Herrera et al., 2019).

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Other intact and degraded ecosystems often occur within areas of forest protection. Therefore, forest protection can facilitate natural restoration of these other degraded ecosystems, and increase the health of adjacent ecosystems.

Forest protection helps restored ecosystems avoid future degradation and can also accelerate the adoption of improved forest management practices

Competing

Protecting forests could limit land availability for renewable energy technologies and raw material and food production. Protect Forests competes with the following solutions for land

This solution reduces the supply of wood. This limits the wood available as raw material to the following solutions that use it.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
0.299
units
Current 4.67×10⁸ 08.47×10⁸8.61×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.14 0.250.26
US$ per t CO₂-eq
2
Emergency Brake

CO₂

Solution Basics

ha protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
1.403
units
Current 1.59×10⁸ 02.04×10⁸3.78×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.22 0.290.53
US$ per t CO₂-eq
2
Emergency Brake

CO₂

Solution Basics

ha protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
2.204
units
Current 1.12×10⁸ 01.26×10⁸2.19×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.25 0.280.48
US$ per t CO₂-eq
2
Emergency Brake

CO₂

Solution Basics

ha protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
1.489
units
Current 9.36×10⁸ 01.12×10⁹1.577×10⁹
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 1.39 1.672.35
US$ per t CO₂-eq
2
Emergency Brake

CO₂

% tree cover
0100

Tree cover, 2000 (excluding mangroves and peatlands)

We exclude mangroves and peatlands because they are addressed in other solutions.

Global Forest Watch (2023). Global peatlands [Data set]. Retrieved December 6, 2024 from Link to source: https://data.globalforestwatch.org/datasets/gfw::global-peatlands/about

Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C.O., and Townshend, J.R.G. (2013). High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change [Data set]. Science 342 (15 November): 850-53. Link to source: https://glad.earthengine.app/view/global-forest-change

UNEP-WCMC (2025). Ocean+ habitats (version 1.3) [Data set]. Retrieved November 2024 from habitats.oceanplus.org

% tree cover
0100

Tree cover, 2000 (excluding mangroves and peatlands)

We exclude mangroves and peatlands because they are addressed in other solutions.

Global Forest Watch (2023). Global peatlands [Data set]. Retrieved December 6, 2024 from Link to source: https://data.globalforestwatch.org/datasets/gfw::global-peatlands/about

Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C.O., and Townshend, J.R.G. (2013). High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change [Data set]. Science 342 (15 November): 850-53. Link to source: https://glad.earthengine.app/view/global-forest-change

UNEP-WCMC (2025). Ocean+ habitats (version 1.3) [Data set]. Retrieved November 2024 from habitats.oceanplus.org

Maps Introduction

The adoption, potential adoption, and effectiveness of forest protection are highly geographically variable. While forest protection can help avoid emissions anywhere that forests occur, areas with high rates of forest loss from human drivers and particularly carbon-rich forests have the greatest potential for avoiding emissions via forest protection. The tropics and subtropics are high-priority areas for forest protection as they contain 55% of currently unprotected forest area, forest loss due to agricultural expansion is particularly concentrated in these regions (Curtis et al., 2018; West et al., 2014; Gibbs et al., 2010), and tend to have larger biomass carbon stocks than boreal forests (Harris et al., 2021). 

Developed countries also have significant potential to protect remaining old and long unlogged forests and foster recovery in secondary natural forests. The top 10 forested countries include Canada, the USA, Russia and even Australia, with the latter moving towards ending commodity production in its natural forests and increasing formal protection. Restoration of degraded forests is addressed in the Forest Restoration solution, but including regenerating forests in well designed protected areas is well within the capacity of every developed country.

Buffering and reconnecting existing high integrity forests is a low risk climate solution that increases current and future forest ecosystem resilience and adaptive capacity (Brennan et al., 2022; Brink et al., 2017; Grantham et al., 2020; Rogers et al., 2022). Forests with high ecological integrity provide outsized benefits for carbon storage and biodiversity and have greater resilience, making them top priorities for protection (Grantham et al., 2020; Rogers et al., 2022). Within a given forest, large-diameter trees similarly provide outsized carbon storage and biodiversity benefits, comprising only 1% of trees globally but storing 50% of the above ground forest carbon (Lutz et al., 2018). Additionally, forests that improve protected area connectivity (Brennan et al., 2022; Brink et al., 2017), areas at high risk of loss (particularly to expansion of commodity agriculture; Curtis et al., 2018; Hansen et al., 2013), and areas with particularly large or specialized benefits for biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being (Dinerstein et al., 2024; Sarira et al., 2022; Soto-Navarro et al., 2020) may be key targets for forest protection.

Action Word
Protect
Solution Title
Forests
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Set achievable targets and pledges for PA designation and set clear effectiveness goals for PAs, emphasizing the effectiveness of current PAs before seeking to expand designations.
  • Use a variety of indicators to measure effectiveness, such as estimated avoided deforestation.
  • Ensure public procurement utilizes deforestation-free products and supply chains.
  • Grant Indigenous communities full property rights and autonomy and support them in monitoring, managing, and enforcing PAs.
  • Ensure PAs do not displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Invest in PA infrastructure, monitoring, management, and enforcement mechanisms.
  • Utilize real-time monitoring and satellite data such as the “Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation” (DETER).
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes like the Forest Stewardship Council for sustainable logging practices.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid roads and other development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Create processes for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution.
  • Remove harmful agricultural and logging subsidies.
  • Prioritize reducing food loss and waste.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use forest resources sustainably.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Set achievable targets and pledges for PA designation and set clear effectiveness goals for PAs, emphasizing the effectiveness of current PAs before seeking to expand designations
  • Use a variety of indicators to measure effectiveness, such as estimated avoided deforestation.
  • Ensure PAs do not displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Utilize real-time monitoring and satellite data such as the “Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation” (DETER).
  • Create sustainable use regulations for PA areas that provide resources to the local community.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Grant Indigenous communities full property rights and autonomy and support them in monitoring, managing, and enforcing PAs.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes like the Forest Stewardship Council for sustainable logging practices.
  • Create processes for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use forest resources sustainably.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Create deforestation-free supply chains, utilizing data, information, and the latest technology to inform product sourcing.
  • Integrate deforestation-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 reducing emissions.
  • Help shift the public narrative around carbon markets as integrity increases to boost education, dialogue, and awareness.
  • Develop financial instruments to invest in PA jurisdictions, focusing on supporting Indigenous communities.
  • Join or create public-private partnerships, alliances, or coalitions of stakeholders and rightsholders to support PAs and advance deforestation-free markets.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes like the Forest Stewardship Council for sustainable logging practices.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for public relations and communications.
  • Support education programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use forest resources sustainably.
  • Leverage political influence to advocate for stronger PA policies at national and international levels, especially policies that reduce deforestation pressure. 

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Ensure operations utilize deforestation-free products and supply chains.
  • Advocate for PAs and for public investments and evaluation indicators to strengthen the effectiveness of PAs.
  • Assist in managing and monitoring PAs, utilizing real-time monitoring and satellite data such as the “Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation” (DETER).
  • Provide financial support for PAs management, monitoring, and enforcement.
  • Assist in conducting proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs.
  • Support high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Help shift the public narrative around carbon markets as integrity increases to boost education, dialogue, and awareness.
  • Support PAs, businesses, and investors by sharing data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid deforestation.
  • Help shift public narratives to mobilize public action and build political will for PAs by creating educational campaigns and strengthening networks of stakeholders and rightsholders.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes like the Forest Stewardship Council for sustainable logging practices.
  • 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.
  • Advocate for non-timber forest products to support local and Indigenous communities.
  • Advocate to remove harmful agricultural subsidies and prioritize reducing food loss and waste.

Further information:

Investors
  • Create deforestation-free investment portfolios, utilizing data, information, and the latest technology to inform investments.
  • Invest in PA infrastructure, monitoring, management, and enforcement mechanisms.
  • Invest in green bonds or high-integrity carbon credits for forest conservation efforts.
  • Develop financial instruments to invest in PA jurisdictions, focusing on supporting Indigenous communities.
  • Support PAs, other investors, and NGOs by sharing data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid investments that drive deforestation.
  • Join, support, or create science-based certification schemes like the Forest Stewardship Council for sustainable logging practices.
  • Help shift public narratives to mobilize public action and build political will for PAs by creating educational campaigns and strengthening networks of stakeholders and rightsholders.
  • Require portfolio companies to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains and ask that they demonstrate strong PA practices.
  • Consider opportunities to invest in forest monitoring technologies or bioeconomy products derived from standing forests (e.g., nuts, berries, or other derivatives)

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Ensure operations utilize deforestation-free products and supply chains.
  • Provide financial support for PAs management, monitoring, and enforcement.
  • Assist in monitoring PAs, utilizing real-time monitoring and satellite data such as the “Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation” (DETER).
  • Assist in conducting proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Support and finance high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Help shift the public narrative around carbon markets as integrity increases to boost education, dialogue, and awareness.
  • Support PAs, businesses, and investors by sharing data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid deforestation.
  • Help shift public narratives to mobilize public action and build political will for PAs 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 public relations and communications.
  • Financially support Indigenous land tenure.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes like the Forest Stewardship Council for sustainable logging practices.
  • Advocate for PAs and for public investments and evaluation indicators to strengthen the effectiveness of PAs.
  • Advocate for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution processes.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for PAs and for public investments and evaluation indicators to strengthen the effectiveness of PAs.
  • Assist in monitoring PAs, utilizing real-time monitoring and satellite data such as the “Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation” (DETER).
  • Assist in conducting proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Advocate for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution processes.
  • Support high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Help shift the public narrative around carbon markets as integrity increases to boost education, dialogue, and awareness.
  • Support PAs, businesses, and investors by sharing data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid deforestation.
  • Help shift public narratives to mobilize public action and build political will for PAs 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 public relations and communications.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Improving PA monitoring methods and data collection, utilizing satellite imagery and GIS tools.
  • Develop land-use planning tools that help avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Create tools for local communities to monitor PAs, such as mobile apps, e-learning platforms, and mapping tools.
  • Conduct evaluations of the species richness of potential PAs and recommend areas of high biodiversity to be designated as PAs.
  • 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 deforestation-free portfolios and products.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Ensure purchases and investments utilize deforestation-free products and supply chains.
  • Advocate for PAs and for public investments and evaluation indicators to strengthen the effectiveness of PAs.
  • Assist in monitoring PAs, utilizing real-time monitoring and satellite data such as the “Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation” (DETER).
  • Assist in conducting proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Advocate for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution processes.
  • Support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for public relations and communications.
  • Assist with evaluations of the species richness of potential PAs and advocate for PAs in areas of high biodiversity that are threatened.
  • Help shift public narratives to mobilize public action and build political will for PAs by creating educational campaigns and strengthening networks of stakeholders and rightsholders.
  • Undertake forest protection and expansion initiatives locally by working to preserve existing forests and restore degraded forest areas.
  • Engage in citizen science initiatives by partnering with researchers or conservation groups to monitor PAs and document threats. 

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing emissions and maintaining carbon removal: High

There is high scientific consensus that forest protection is a key strategy for reducing forest loss and addressing climate change. Rates of forest loss are lower inside of PAs and Indigenous peoples’ lands than outside of them. Globally, Wolf et al. (2021) found that rates of forest loss inside PAs are 40.5% lower on average than in unprotected areas, and Li et al. (2024) estimated that overall forest loss is 14% lower in PAs relative to unprotected areas. Regional studies find similar average effects of PAs on deforestation rates. For instance, McNichol et al. (2023) reported 39% lower deforestation rates in African woodlands in PAs relative to unprotected areas, and Graham et al. (2021) reported 69% lower deforestation rates in PAs relative to unprotected areas in Southeast Asia. In the tropics, Sze et al. (2022) found that rates of forest loss were similar between Indigenous lands and PAs, with forest loss rates reduced 17–29% relative to unprotected areas. Baragwanath & Bayi (2020) reported a 75% decline in deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon when Indigenous peoples are granted full property rights.

Reductions in forest loss lead to proportionate reductions in CO₂ emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that ecosystem protection, including forests, peatlands, grasslands, and coastal wetlands, has a technical mitigation potential of 6.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 4.0 Gt of which are available at a carbon price less than US$100 tCO₂‑eq/yr  (Nabuurs et al., 2022). Similarly, Griscom et al. (2017) found that avoiding human-caused forest loss is among the most effective natural climate solutions, with a potential impact of 3.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (including forests on peatlands), nearly 2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr of which is achievable at a cost below US$10/t CO₂‑eq/yr.

The results presented in this document were produced through analysis of 12 global datasets. We recognize that geographic biases can influence the development of global datasets and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Appendix

In this analysis, we integrated global land cover data, maps of forest loss rates, shapefiles of PAs and Indigenous people’s lands, country-scale data on reductions in forest loss inside of PAs, and biome-scale data on forest carbon stocks and sequestration rates to calculate currently protected forest area, total global forest area, and avoided emissions from forest protection. Forested peatlands and mangroves are excluded from this analysis and addressed in the Protect Peatlands and Protect Coastal Wetlands solutions, respectively.

Land cover data

We used two land cover data products to estimate forest extent inside and outside of PAs and Indigenous people’s lands, including: 1) the Global Forest Watch (GFW) tree cover dataset (Hansen et al., 2013), resampled to 30 second resolution, and 2) the 2022 European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative (ESA CCI) land cover dataset at native resolution (300 m). For the ESA CCI dataset, all non-flooded tree cover classes (50, 60, 70, 80, 90) and the “mosaic tree and shrub (>50%)/herbaceous cover (<50%)” class (100) and associated subclasses were included as forests. Both products are associated with uncertainty, which we did not address directly in our calculations. We include estimates from both products in order to provide readers with a sense of the variability in values that can stem from different land cover classification methods, which are discussed in more detail below.

These two datasets have methodological differences that result in substantially different classifications of forest extent, including their thresholds for defining forests, their underlying satellite data, and the algorithms used to classify forests based on the satellite information. For example, the ESA CCI product classifies 300-meter pixels with >15% tree cover as forests (based on our included classes), attempts to differentiate tree crops, relies on a 2003–2012 baseline land cover map coupled with a change-detection algorithm, and primarily uses imagery from MERIS, PROBA-V, and Sentinel missions (ESA CCI 2019). In contrast, the Global Forest Watch product generally requires >30% tree cover at 30-meter resolution, does not exclude tree crops, relies on a regression tree model for development of a baseline tree cover map circa 2010, and primarily uses Landsat ETM+ satellite imagery (Hansen et al., 2013). We recommend that interested readers refer to the respective user guides for each data product for a comprehensive discussion of the complex methods used for their development.

We used the Forest Landscape Integrity Index map developed by Grantham et al. (2020), which classifies forests with integrity indices ≥9.6 as high integrity. These forests are characterized by minimal human disturbance and high connectivity. Mangroves and peatlands were excluded from this analysis. We used a map of mangroves from Giri et al. (2011) and a map of peatlands compiled by Global Forest Watch to define mangrove and peatland extent (accessed at https://data.globalforestwatch.org/datasets/gfw::global-peatlands/about). The peatlands map is a composite of maps from five publications: Crezee et al. (2022), Gumbricht et al. (2017), Hastie et al. (2022), Miettinen et al. (2016), and Xu et al. (2018). For each compiled dataset, the data were resampled to 30-second resolution by calculating the area of each grid cell occupied by mangroves or peatlands. For each grid cell containing forests, the “eligible” forest area was calculated by subtracting the mangrove and peatland area from the total forest area for each forest cover dataset (GFW, ESA CCI, and high-integrity forests).

Protected forest areas

We identified protected forest 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 forest area from the GFW, ESA CCI, and high-integrity dataset (after removing the peatland and mangrove areas).

Each protected area was classified into a climate zone based on the midpoint between its minimum and maximum latitude. Zones included tropical (23.4°N–23.4°S), subtropical (23.4°–35° latitude), temperate (35°–50° latitude), and boreal (>50° latitude) in order to retain some spatial variability in emissions factors. We aggregated protected forest cover areas (from each of the two forest cover datasets and the high-integrity forest data) by IUCN class and climate zone. To evaluate trends in adoption over time, we also aggregated protected areas by establishment year. We used the same method to calculate the forest area that could be protected, extracting the total area of each land cover type by climate zone (inside and outside of existing PAs). 

We used maps from Garnett et al. (2018) to identify Indigenous people’s lands that were not inside established PAs. We calculated the total forest area within Indigenous people’s lands (excluding PAs, mangroves, and peatlands) using the same three forest area data sources. 

Forest loss and emissions factors

Forest loss rates were calculated for unprotected areas using the GFW forest loss dataset for 2001–2022, resampled to 1 km resolution. Forest losses were reclassified according to their dominant drivers based on the maps originally developed by Curtis et al. (2018), with updates accessible through GFW. Dominant drivers of forest loss include commodity agriculture, shifting agriculture, urbanization, forestry, and wildfire. We classified all drivers except wildfire as human-caused forest loss for this analysis. We calculated the area of forest loss attributable to each driver within each climate zone, which represented the “baseline” rate of forest loss outside of PAs. 

To calculate the difference in forest loss rates attributable to protection, we used country-level data from Wolf et al. (2021) on the ratio of forest loss in unprotected areas versus PAs, controlling for a suite of socio-environmental characteristics. We classified countries into climate zones based on their median latitude and averaged the ratios within climate zones. We defined the avoided forest loss attributable to protection as the product of the baseline forest loss rate and the ratio of forest loss outside versus inside of PAs.

We calculated the carbon benefits of avoided forest loss by multiplying avoided forest loss by average forest carbon stocks and sequestration rates. Harris et al. (2021) reported carbon stocks and sequestration rates by climate zone (boreal, temperate, subtropical, and tropical), and forest type. Carbon stocks and sequestration rates for primary and old secondary (>20 years old) forests were averaged for this analysis. We calculated carbon sequestration over a 20-yr period to provide values commensurate with the one-time loss of biomass carbon stocks.

Source data

Crezee, B. et al. Mapping peat thickness and carbon stocks of the central Congo Basin using field data. Nature Geoscience 15: 639-644 (2022). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-00966-7. Data downloaded from https://congopeat.net/maps/, using classes 4 and 5 only (peat classes). 

Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A., & Hansen, M. C. (2018). Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science, 361(6407), 1108–1111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau3445

ESA CCI (2019). Copernicus Climate Change Service, Climate Data Store: Land cover classification gridded maps from 1992 to present derived from satellite observation. Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS). Accessed November 2024. doi: 10.24381/cds.006f2c9a

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

Giri C, Ochieng E, Tieszen LL, Zhu Z, Singh A, Loveland T, Masek J, Duke N (2011). Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the world using earth observation satellite data (version 1.3, updated by UNEP-WCMC). Global Ecology and Biogeography 20: 154-159. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00584.x . Data URL: http://data.unep-wcmc.org/datasets/4

Gumbricht, T. et al. An expert system model for mapping tropical wetlands and peatlands reveals South America as the largest contributor. Global Change Biology 23, 3581–3599 (2017). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.13689 

Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S. V., Goetz, S. J., Loveland, T. R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C. O., & Townshend, J. R. G. (2013). High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science, 342(6160), 850–853. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693. Data available on-line from: http://earthenginepartners.appspot.com/science-2013-global-forest. Accessed through Global Forest Watch on 01/12/2024. www.globalforestwatch.org

Harris, N. L., Gibbs, D. A., Baccini, A., Birdsey, R. A., de Bruin, S., Farina, M., Fatoyinbo, L., Hansen, M. C., Herold, M., Houghton, R. A., Potapov, P. V., Suarez, D. R., Roman-Cuesta, R. M., Saatchi, S. S., Slay, C. M., Turubanova, S. A., & Tyukavina, A. (2021). Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Nature Climate Change, 11(3), 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6

Hastie, A. et al. Risks to carbon storage from land-use change revealed by peat thickness maps of Peru. Nature Geoscience 15: 369-374 (2022). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-00923-4

Miettinen, J., Shi, C. & Liew, S. C. Land cover distribution in the peatlands of Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra and Borneo in 2015 with changes since 1990. Global Ecological Conservation. 6, 67– 78 (2016). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989415300470

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

Xu et al. PEATMAP: Refining estimates of global peatland distribution based on a meta-analysis. CATENA 160: 134-140 (2018). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0341816217303004 

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon
Subscribe to Food security
back to top