Physical and mental wellness, including prevention of illness, injury, and premature mortality.

Icon

Use Smart & Programmable Thermostats

Sector
Buildings & Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Enhance Efficiency
Image
Hand pointing to smart thermostat on the wall
Coming Soon
Off

Key Takeaways

  • Smart and programmable thermostats reduce energy use and associated GHG emissions from heating and cooling by automatically adjusting the set temperature of a residential building.
  • A single smart or programmable thermostat can reduce heating GHG emissions by 0.23 t CO₂‑eq/yr and cooling emissions by 0.091 t CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis).
  • To be effective, a smart or programmable thermostat must be used to automatically adjust temperatures; most in the U.S. are not used this way. 
  • An estimated 140 million households own and use smart or programmable thermostats for heating while 30 million do so for cooling. 
  • We estimate the achievable impact for smart or programmable thermostats to be 0.065–0.12 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for heating and 0.017-0.046 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for cooling (100-yr basis). 
Summary

We define Use Smart & Programmable Thermostats as reducing energy use and associated GHG emissions from heating and cooling by automatically making adjustments to the set temperature of a residential building. Smart thermostats can be remotely controlled and can adjust indoor temperature settings in response to learned occupancy patterns, while programmable thermostats require a user to manually program a temperature schedule.

Income & work,Health
Air quality
Description for Social and Search
Using smart or programmable thermostats to adjust residential temperature settings for energy savings also reduces GHG emissions.
Overview

Residential buildings directly and indirectly generate GHG emissions through the fuels and electricity used for heating, cooling, and other functions. These emissions accounted for 12.5% of global emissions in 2021 (Ge et al., 2026). Heating is the largest residential source of operational emissions, with cooling being another major contributor (Energy Transitions Commission, 2025).

Smart and programmable thermostats reduce energy use by allowing temperatures to drift when occupants are away or asleep and restoring optimal temperatures in anticipation of occupants returning or waking. Since heating systems often rely on burning fossil fuels for heat (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2023), the emissions affected are primarily CO₂. Similarly, the emissions affected when cooling demands are reduced are primarily CO₂ from the electricity generated to power heat pumps and air conditioners. 

The amount of CO₂ saved with smart and programmable thermostats can vary substantially with occupant behavior, set points, occupancy levels, and climate (Pritoni et al., 2015; Stopps & Touchie, 2021). We used the minimum performance standard for Energy Star–certified smart thermostats, namely 8% run-time reduction for heating and 10% for cooling (Energy Star, 2017), with run time being used as a proxy for energy savings. This is a conservative value; many studies have measured or modeled higher savings (Alhamayani et al., 2021; Pang et al., 2021). 

Owning a smart or programmable thermostat does not guarantee it will be used to adjust temperatures to save energy (Pritoni et al., 2015; Stopps & Touchie, 2021). For example, while 53% of U.S. homes own a smart or programmable thermostat, only 16% report using a smart or programmable thermostat to automatically adjust temperatures (U.S. Energy Information Administration [U.S. EIA], 2023a). We also assumed that households that do not have a smart or programmable thermostat are not manually adjusting temperatures to save energy. 

As societies electrify, smart and programmable thermostats may play an increasingly important role in shifting demand away from grid peak periods (Stopps & Touchie, 2022). This can reduce emissions even further because grids often depend more on fossil fuel peaker plants during these times. This analysis does not include such emissions reductions. 

References

Alhamayani, A. D., Sun, Q., & Hallinan, K. P. (2021). Estimating smart Wi-Fi thermostat-enabled thermal comfort control savings for any residence. Clean Technologies, 3(4), 743–760. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/cleantechnol3040044  

Allcott, H., & Rogers, T. (2014). The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: Experimental evidence from energy conservation. American Economic Review, 104(10), 3003–3037. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.10.3003  

Bergeron, R. (2024, May 9). Installation obligatoire d’un thermostat connecté en 2027. Expertise Rénovation. Link to source: https://www.expertise-renovation.com/actualites/installation-thermostat-connecte  

Bielig, M., Kutzner, F., Klingert, S., & Kacperski, C. (2025). Understanding intention to adopt smart thermostats: The role of individual predictors and social beliefs across five EU countries: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems, 1, 36–47. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5220/0013356200003953  

Blonz, J., Palmer, K., Wichman, C. J., & Wietelman, D. C. (2025). Smart thermostats, automation, and time-varying prices. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 17(1), 90–125. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20210618  

Chassin, D. P., Stoustrup, J., Agathoklis, P., & Djilali, N. (2015). A new thermostat for real-time price demand response: Cost, comfort and energy impacts of discrete-time control without deadband. Applied Energy, 155, 816–825. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.06.048 

EGIA Contractor University. (2025). Average service life of residential HVAC equipment. Link to source: https://library.mycontractoruniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/EGIA-AverageServiceLife.pdf  

Ellsworth, R. (2026, February 12). Residential HVAC industry statistics. ZipDo Education Reports. Link to source: https://zipdo.co/residential-hvac-industry-statistics/  

Energy Star. (2017). Energy Star® program requirements for connected thermostat products: Partner commitments. Link to source: https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Program%20Requirements%20for%20Connected%20Thermostats%20Version%201.0_0.pdf  

Energy Transitions Commission. (2025). Achieving zero-carbon buildings: Electric, efficient and flexible [Report]. Link to source: https://static.energy-transitions.org/uploads/resources/ETC_Buildings-Decarbonisation-Report_DIGITALFINAL.pdf  

Falchetta, G., Cian, E. D., Pavanello, F., & Wing, I. S. (2024). Inequalities in global residential cooling energy use to 2050. Nature Communications, 15(1), Article 7874. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-52028-8  

Fine, J. P., & Touchie, M. F. (2020). A grouped control strategy for the retrofit of post-war multi-unit residential building hydronic space heating systems. Energy and Buildings, 208, Article 109604. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109604  

Ge, M., Friedrich, J., & Vigna, L. (2026, April 27). Where do emissions come from? These charts explain greenhouse gas emissions by sector. World Resources Institute. Link to source: https://www.wri.org/insights/4-charts-explain-greenhouse-gas-emissions-countries-and-sectors   

Government of Canada. (2025). Heating and cooling with a heat pump. Link to source: https://natural-resources.canada.ca/energy-efficiency/energy-star/heating-cooling-heat-pump#hds  

Hendron, R., German, A., & Pereira, J. (2021). Modeling savings for Energy Star smart home energy management systems. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Link to source: https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy21osti/79534.pdf 

Henneman, L., Choirat, C., Dedoussi, I., Dominici, F., Roberts, J., & Zigler, C. (2023). Mortality risk from United States coal electricity generation. Science, 382(6673), 941–946. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adf4915  

International Energy Agency. (2023). Space heating. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/space-heating#dashboard  

Kini, R. L., Vlachokostas, A., Brambley, M. R., & Rogers, A. (2025). Occupant-centric demand response for thermostatically-controlled home loads. IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, 16(3), 2234–2245. Link to source: http://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2025.3540427  

Lee, Z. E., & Max Zhang, K. (2022). Unintended consequences of smart thermostats in the transition to electrified heating. Applied Energy, 322, Article 119384. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.119384  

Lee, Z. E., Sun, Q., Ma, Z., Wang, J., MacDonald, J. S., & Max Zhang, K. (2020). Providing grid services with heat pumps: A review. ASME Journal of Engineering for Sustainable Buildings and Cities, 1(1), Article 011007. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4045819  

Lu, J., Sookoor, T., Srinivasan, V., Gao, G., Holben, B., Stankovic, J., Field, E., & Whitehouse, K. (2010). The smart thermostat: Using occupancy sensors to save energy in homes. Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, SenSys ’10, 211–224. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1145/1869983.1870005

Mourshed, M. (2016). Climatic parameters for building energy applications: A temporal-geospatial assessment of temperature indicators. Renewable Energy, 94, 55–71. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.03.021  

Nägele, F., Kasper, T., & Girod, B. (2017). Turning up the heat on obsolete thermostats: A simulation-based comparison of intelligent control approaches for residential heating systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 75, 1254–1268. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.112  

Lockheed Martin Energy. (2017). Home energy management system savings validation pilot [NYSERDA Report 17-16]. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Link to source: https://www.ashb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/IS-2019-05.pdf  

Pang, Z., Chen, Y., Zhang, J., O’Neill, Z., Cheng, H., & Dong, B. (2021). How much HVAC energy could be saved from the occupant-centric smart home thermostat: A nationwide simulation study. Applied Energy, 283, Article 116251. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116251  

Peffer, T., Perry, D., Pritoni, M., Aragon, C., & Meier, A. (2013). Facilitating energy savings with programmable thermostats: Evaluation and guidelines for the thermostat user interface. Ergonomics, 56(3), 463–479. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2012.718370  

Pew Research Center. (2019). Religion and living arrangements around the world. Link to source: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2019/12/PF_12.12.19_religious.households.FULL_.pdf  

Pritoni, M., Meier, A. K., Aragon, C., Perry, D., & Peffer, T. (2015). Energy efficiency and the misuse of programmable thermostats: The effectiveness of crowdsourcing for understanding household behavior. Energy Research & Social Science, 8, 190–197. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.002  

Pritoni, M., Woolley, J. M., & Modera, M. P. (2016). Do occupancy-responsive learning thermostats save energy? A field study in university residence halls. Energy and Buildings, 127, 469–478. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.05.024  

Statistics Canada. (2025). Use of thermostats [Data set]. Link to source: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3810004901  

Stopps, H., & Touchie, M. F. (2021). Residential smart thermostat use: An exploration of thermostat programming, environmental attitudes, and the influence of smart controls on energy savings. Energy and Buildings, 238, Article 110834. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110834  

Stopps, H., & Touchie, M. F. (2022). Load shifting and energy conservation using smart thermostats in contemporary high-rise residential buildings: Estimation of runtime changes using field data. Energy and Buildings, 255, Article 111644. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111644  

Tamas, R., O’Brien, W., & Quintero, M. S. (2021). Residential thermostat usability: Comparing manual, programmable, and smart devices. Building and Environment, 203, Article 108104. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108104  

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

United Nations. (2024). World population prospects 2024 - Special aggregates [Data set]. Link to source: https://population.un.org/wpp/downloads?folder=Special%20Aggregates&group=UN-related%20groups   

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2018a). Table HC6.1 Space heating in U.S. homes, by housing unit type, 2015 [Data set]. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/  

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2018b). Table HC7.1 Air conditioning in U.S. homes by housing unit type, 2015 [Data set]. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/  

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2023a). Table HC6.1 Space heating in U.S. homes, by housing unit type, 2020 [Data set]. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/hc/pdf/HC%206.1.pdf  

U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2023b). Table HC7.1 Air conditioning in U.S. homes, by housing unit type, 2020 [Data set]. Link to source: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/hc/pdf/HC%207.1.pdf  

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2026). Power sector programs—Progress report. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/power-sector/progress-report  

Wang, C., Pattawi, K., & Lee, H. (2020). Energy saving impact of occupancy-driven thermostat for residential buildings. Energy and Buildings, 211, Article 109791. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.109791  

Yuan, Y., Song, C., Gao, L., Zeng, K., & Chen, Y. (2024). A review of current research on occupant-centric control for improving comfort and energy efficiency. Building Simulation, 17(10), 1675–1692. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-024-1170-1  

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Henry Igugu, Ph.D.

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

For heating, 0.23 t CO₂‑eq/yr (20- and 100-yr basis) is reduced for every smart or programmable thermostat in use (Table 1a). This is a weighted global average based on the proportion of homes that use different sources of energy for space heating and assumes an 8% reduction in heating energy with a smart or programmable thermostat (Energy Star, 2017). 

For cooling, 0.091 t CO₂‑eq/yr is reduced for every smart or programmable thermostat in use (100-year basis, 0.092 t CO₂‑eq/yr on a 20-yr basis) (Table 1b). This is a weighted global average based on regional electricity demand for space cooling and regional electricity grid emission factors. The analysis assumes a 10% reduction in cooling energy with a smart or programmable thermostat (Energy Star, 2017).

The effectiveness of smart or programmable thermostats at reducing emissions will vary based on total heating and cooling demand. This is a function of climate and building performance as well as occupant behaviors (Hendron et al., 2021). Occupants may, for example, differ in how much they allow temperatures to drift while away or at night, how frequently overrides are used, and the schedules on which programming is based (Hendron et al., 2021).

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /smart or programmable thermostat used to save energy for heating/yr, 100-yr basis

Mean 0.23

Unit: t CO₂‑eq )/smart or programmable thermostat used to save energy on cooling/yr, 100-yr basis

Mean 0.091
Left Text Column Width
Cost

A smart or programmable thermostat for heating will save an average household US$370/t CO₂‑eq reduced (Table 2a). A smart or programmable thermostat for heating has an average initial cost of US$74, and households that adopt and use these thermostats to save on energy will spend on average US$89 less per year on heating. Assuming a 15-year lifespan (EGIA Contractor University, 2025), this results in a net US$84/yr savings.

We assumed that half of adopting households worldwide purchase a smart or programmable thermostat to use in their homes and the other half already own a smart or programmable thermostat and start using them to save energy with programmed setbacks. This is consistent with US statistics that show 55% of households with heating have a smart or programmable thermostat but only 16% use one to adjust heating temperatures, with most using one set temperature most of the time (U.S. EIA, 2023a). 

A smart or programmable thermostat for cooling will save a household US$230/t CO₂‑eq reduced (see Table 2b). The average initial cost for a smart or programmable thermostat for cooling is US$58, and will save a household an average of US$25/yr on cooling. Assuming a 15-year lifespan, this results in a net US$21/yr savings for the household.

For cooling, the initial cost assumes one-third of homes purchase a smart or programmable thermostat for a central air conditioning system, one-third purchase such a thermostat for a window or portable air conditioner, and one third use an existing smart or programmable thermostat but change behaviors to start using the programming feature. Similar to heating, 60% of U.S. households with cooling have a smart or programmable thermostat but only 15% use one to adjust cooling temperatures (U.S. EIA, 2023b). 

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

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

Mean -370

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

Mean -230
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

Insufficient data exist to quantify the learning curve for smart or programmable thermostats. 

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.

Use Smart & Programmable Thermostats 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

Smart or programmable thermostats may be more difficult to implement in multiunit residential buildings with centralized heating and cooling systems in which units do not have temperature control (Fine & Touchie, 2020). Additionally, some existing space heating systems such as fireplaces and wood stoves may not be compatible with programmable thermostats. 

The Government of Canada (2025) recommends minimizing temperature setbacks for heat pumps or programming the return to normal temperatures in stages to avoid triggering the use of less efficient backup heating systems. 

This solution depends on households programming their thermostat or directing a smart thermostat to save energy. As with any outcome that depends on behavior change, post-intervention persistence can decay over time (Allcott & Rogers, 2014). Comfort concerns, changes to schedules, low perceived benefits, and lack of perceived control over heating and cooling systems are common reasons why households inactivate thermostat programming (Heatherly et al., 2023; Peffer et al., 2013; Pritoni et al., 2015; Stopps & Touchie, 2021). 

Some studies show little to no change in energy use with programmable thermostats, particularly if the thermostats are not easy to use (Peffer et al., 2013). Energy savings setbacks are more likely to be used with smart thermostats than programmable ones (Stopps & Touchie, 2021; Tamas et al., 2021), likely because of improved ease of use and increased automation. 

Use of smart and programmable thermostats reduces the emissions from operating buildings. However, these reductions pale in comparison to those offered by heat pumps and decarbonizing the electricity sector by adopting solutions such as distributed solar PV, utility-scale solar PV, onshore wind, and offshore wind.

Current Adoption

We estimated that 140 million households worldwide use smart or programmable thermostats to save energy for heating (Table 3a) and 30 million use them to save energy for cooling (Table 3b). 

The climate impact of this solution depends on households not only adopting the technology, but also using it to regularly adjust temperatures with the goal of saving energy. Where only adoption values exist, we assumed use patterns are similar to those in the United States, where 25–29% of households that own a smart or programmable thermostat are using the programming feature (U.S. EIA, 2023a; U.S. EIA, 2023b).

For adoption, we estimated the number of households with smart or programmable thermostats in high-income countries separately from low- and middle-income countries and combined them to get a global total. In each case, we applied the average smart or programmable thermostat use rate for the group of countries to their estimated number of households that require heating or cooling. 

These estimates are based on data from seven studies covering different geographies and spanning 2017–2025. 

Table 3. Current adoption level (2025).

Unit: smart or programmable thermostats used for the purposes of saving energy on heating 

Total 140,000,000

Unit: smart or programmable thermostats used for the purposes of saving energy on cooling

Total 30,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

We estimate that globally, each year 1.4 million households start using smart or programmable thermostats to save on heating (Table 4a) and 0.60 million households start using them to save on cooling (Table 4b).

These data are based on surveys for heating and cooling covering 2015–2020 in the United States (U.S. EIA 2018b, 2018a, 2023b, 2023a) and 2007–2023 in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2025). Due to lack of data, we were not able to estimate adoption trends for low- and middle-income countries, and assumed the trend is negligible. 

Table 4. Adoption trend (2007–2023).

Unit: smart or programmable thermostats put to use for saving energy on heating/yr 

Total 1,400,000

Unit: smart or programmable thermostats put to use for saving energy on cooling/yr

Total 600,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

If every household that currently relies on heating were to adopt and use smart or programmable thermostats to save energy, the total adoption would be 650 million households (Table 5a). This is based on the IEA’s estimate that 40% of households worldwide require space heating (World Bank, n.d.), combined with regional population estimates (United Nations, 2024), and estimates for household sizes by region (Pew Research Center, 2019).

Similarly for cooling, if every household that currently uses air conditioning were to adopt and use smart or programmable thermostats to save energy, the total adoption would be 580 million households (Table 5b). This is based on Falchetta et al.’s (2024) estimate that 35% of households worldwide currently have space cooling, combined with population and household size estimates (Pew Research Center, 2019; United Nations, 2024). This analysis does not reflect anticipated growing demand for space cooling with rising populations, rising affluence in low- and middle-income countries, and rising temperatures (Falchetta et al., 2024).

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: smart or programmable thermostats put to use for saving energy on heating

Total 650,000,000

Unit: smart or programmable thermostats put to use for saving energy on cooling

Total 580,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

For heating, we estimate that use of smart or programmable thermostats to save on energy could reach 290 to 510 million households globally (Table 6a). In high income countries, this assumes 65–100% of households with heating needs adopt and use thermostats to save energy. At the low end, this represents the reported rate of regular setback use for heating homes in the state of New York (Lockheed Martin Energy, 2017), and we assume all heating households could program thermostats to save energy at the high end. In low and middle income countries, we assume 16–48% of households with heating needs adopt and use smart or programmable thermostats to save energy. This is based on today’s estimated smart and programmable thermostat adoption and use rate in the United States and Canada respectively (Statistics Canada, 2025; U.S. EIA, 2023a).

For cooling, we estimate that use of smart or programmable thermostats to save on energy could reach 190–510 million households globally (see Table 6b). In high income countries, this assumes 75–100% of households with cooling systems use thermostats to save energy for cooling. At the low end, this represents the reported rate of regular setback use for cooling homes in the state of New York (Lockheed Martin Energy, 2017) and we assume all households adopt and use smart or programmable thermostats at the high end. In low and middle income countries, we assume households adopt and use smart and programmable thermostats at a rate of 15 and 75%, representing the current rates for the United States and the state of New York, respectively (Lockheed Martin Energy, 2017; U.S. EIA, 2023a).

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels. 

Unit: smart or programmable thermostats put to use for saving energy on heating

Current adoption 140,000,000
Achievable – low 290,000,000
Achievable – high 510,000,000
Adoption ceiling 650,000,000

Unit: smart or programmable thermostats put to use for saving energy on cooling

Current adoption 30,000,000
Achievable – low 190,000,000
Achievable – high 510,000,000
Adoption ceiling 580,000,000
Left Text Column Width

For space heating, current adoption and use of a smart or programmable thermostat to save energy has an estimated climate impact of 0.033 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr globally (100- and 20-year basis; Table 7a). If all households with heating were to adopt and use these thermostats, the estimated climate impact would be 0.15 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100- and 20-year basis). We estimate the achievable range to be 0.065–0.12 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100- and 20-year basis). 

For space cooling, current adoption and use of a smart or programmable thermostat to save energy has an estimated climate impact of 0.0028 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr globally (100- and 20-year basis; Table 7b). If all households with cooling were to adopt and use these thermostats, the estimated climate impact would be 0.052 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-year basis) and 0.053 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (20-year basis). We estimate the achievable range to be 0.017–0.46 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-year basis) and 0.018–0.47 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (20-year basis). 

The impact from heating is greater than the impact from cooling because there are more households that use heating and more energy is needed on average per household for heating. 

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.033
Achievable – low 0.065
Achievable – high 0.12
Adoption ceiling 0.15

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.0028
Achievable – low 0.017
Achievable – high 0.046
Adoption ceiling 0.052
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Income and Work

When used as intended, smart and programmable thermostats can save money by reducing energy use (Blonz et al., 2025; Lu et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2020). The cost savings can vary depending on the type of thermostat, fuel used for heating, geographic location, and sources of energy used to generate electricity. In our estimates, on average, households using smart or programmable thermostats could save US$84/yr on heating and US$21/yr on cooling (see Table 2). Where time-of-use electricity pricing exists, smart and programmable thermostats can be used to heat or cool a home in advance of peak periods to save even more (Chassin et al., 2015). 

Health

A reduction in energy demand from smart thermostats may lower air pollution and limit exposure to pollutants such as lead and fine particulate matter generated by fossil fuel-based power plants, thereby improving health in nearby communities (Henneman et al., 2023; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [U.S. EPA], 2026). 

Air Quality

Reducing energy use can reduce climate and air pollutants associated with burning fossil fuels, such as CO₂, nitrogen oxides, methane, lead, and fine particulate matter (U.S. EPA, 2026).

Risks

Smart and programmable thermostats have the potential to increase peak demand for electricity when programmed around common schedules. For example, thermostats may be programmed to raise temperatures in the early morning in winter when electricity grids are already strained (Lee & Max Zhang, 2022). Conversely, grid-integrated thermostats can reduce grid peaks by optimizing when heating or cooling occurs while maintaining occupant comfort (Kini et al., 2025).

Interactions with Other Solutions

Competing

There are diminishing returns as solutions that reduce heating and cooling loads are combined. When smart or programmable thermostats reduce the energy and emissions from heating and cooling, they also reduce the emissions savings these other solutions achieve. 

Consensus
Dashboard

Solution Basics

smart or programmable thermostat programmed to adjust temperatures for the purposes of saving energy

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
0.23
units
Current 1.4×10⁸ 02.9×10⁸5.1×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.033 0.0650.12
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-370
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Solution Basics

smart or programmable thermostat programmed to adjust temperatures

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
0.091
units
Current 3.0×10⁷ 01.9×10⁸5.1×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.003 0.0170.046
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-230
Gradual

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Trade-offs

When large numbers of households use smart or programmable thermostats to save energy, it can unintentionally cause spikes in electricity demand when heating systems are simultaneously turned on to return temperatures to normal (Lee & Max Zhang, 2022). These spikes can increase overall grid capacity needs and increase demand from fossil-fueled peaking generation. Grid-interactive smart thermostats can reduce these spikes through grid level energy management (Lee et al., 2020). 

Action Word
Use
Solution Title
Smart & Programmable Thermostats
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Offer one-stop educational resources for thermostats; offer demonstrations for installation and programming through online videos and in-person demos; clearly state benefits of smart and programmable thermostats, highlighting the cost savings, social benefits, and environmental impacts.
  • Set clear and measurable targets for building efficiency, emissions reduction, and deployment of smart and programmable thermostats.
  • Ensure public procurement standards require smart and programmable thermostats for new construction; require retrofits for existing public buildings.
  • Create regulatory standards and building codes that encourage, incentivize, and/or require the use of smart and programmable thermostats, especially in new construction.
  • Periodically update codes, policies, and public guidance to keep pace with adoption and technology advances.
  • Encourage utilities to incentivize smart and programmable thermostat uptake and use for demand management.
  • Consider offering subsidies that allow for flexible implementation or selective applicability within national systems; ensure subsidy programs are designed based on scientific evidence showing they will have a positive impact on adoption for the intended beneficiaries; target subsidies to low- and middle-income households and simultaneously offer incentives for broadband and digital connectivity; ensure financial incentives cover both new installations and retrofits.
  • Focus broader policies on energy efficiency through the use of intelligent control.
  • Create regulatory standards and building codes that encourage, incentivize, and/or require the use of smart and programmable thermostats, especially in new construction.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Offer one-stop educational resources for thermostats; offer demonstrations for installation and programming through online videos and in-person demos; clearly state benefits of smart and programmable thermostats highlighting the cost savings, social benefits, and environmental impacts.
  • Offer free or discounted thermostats in electrically heated homes and homes with cooling in exchange for control when the electricity grid is strained. 
  • Ensure customers know they can upgrade their thermostats; provide recommendations to customers on purchasing, installing, and using smart and programmable thermostats; inform customers of public or private incentives for purchases and/or installation; educate customers on the savings, social, and environmental benefits of installation. 
  • Develop or offer easy-to-use smart and programmable thermostat systems; provide scheduled maintenance services for customers; bundle services with heating and cooling system services when possible; ensure customers have the option to review products and services online.
  • Offer thermostats that are compatible with widely used electronic devices such as laptops and smart phones; incorporate Wi-Fi, bluetooth, and the Internet of Things into thermostats, allow for remote control and visibility via smartphone apps.
  • Provide 0% financing options for bundled services, including thermostats and/or related energy efficiency measures.
  • Ease the learning curve for customers by providing clear, concise instructions; ensure elderly customers are comfortable with using the thermostat before leaving after installation.
  • Use customer feedback and work with manufacturers to simplify interface designs and improve functionality. 
  • Advertise for smart and programmable thermostats depicting individual savings on heating and cooling; use social media to reach broader audiences.
  • Create algorithms that can save energy and money for consumers by responding to time of use, customer behavior, and current weather; ensure thermostats have the ability to be updated for future improvements to the software.
  • When installing a thermostat, ensure it is easily accessible and will not be obstructed.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for smart and programmable thermostats.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Help socialize the importance of smart and programmable thermostats by incorporating them into corporate net zero strategies; highlight the use of smart and programmable thermostats in public communications.
  • Invest in or offer grants to start-ups seeking to deploy smart and programmable thermostats; invest in research and development to determine optimal user interfaces and/or algorithms for smart and programmable thermostats.
  • Offer pro bono business advice to nonprofit organizations working to improve building efficiency and deploy smart and programmable thermostats.
  • Offer employees information or benefits for upgrading their thermostats at home.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for smart and programmable thermostats.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Offer one-stop educational resources for thermostats; offer demonstrations for installation and programming through online videos and in-person demos; clearly state benefits of smart and programmable thermostats highlighting the cost savings, social benefits, and environmental impacts.
  • Help policymakers set clear and measurable targets for building efficiency, emissions reduction, and the deployment of smart and programmable thermostats.
  • Advocate for and help design regulatory standards and building codes that encourage, incentivize, and/or require the use of smart and programmable thermostats, especially in new construction.
  • Assist regulators in periodically updating codes, policies, and public guidance to keep pace with adoption and technology advances.
  • Advocate for subsidies that allow for flexible implementation or selective applicability within national systems; help ensure subsidy programs are designed based on scientific-evidence showing they will have a positive impact on adoption for the intended beneficiaries; recommend that subsidies be targeted to low- and middle-income households and simultaneously offer incentives for broadband and digital connectivity; help ensure financial incentives cover both new installations and retrofits.
  • Help shift policy frameworks to focus on energy efficiency through the use of intelligent control.
  • Conduct research to improve adoption and use of smart and programmable thermostats, paying close attention to how user interfaces impact behavior.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for smart and programmable thermostats.

Further information:

Investors
  • Finance only new construction and retrofits that use smart or programmable thermostats as well as other energy-efficient heating and cooling technologies and practices.
  • Invest in research and development to improve smart and programmable thermostat design and user interface.
  • Invest in or offer grants to start-ups seeking to deploy smart and programmable thermostats.
  • Issue or buy green bonds to deploy capital to projects that use smart or programmable thermostats and integrate other energy-efficient heating and cooling technologies and practices.
  • Offer preferential loan agreements for developers using smart or programmable thermostats, energy efficient building practices, and other related climate solutions.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for smart and programmable thermostats.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Offer one-stop educational resources for thermostats; offer demonstrations for installation and programming through online videos and in-person demos; clearly state benefits of smart and programmable thermostats, highlighting the cost savings, social benefits, and environmental impacts.
  • Offer grants or access to no-interest financing for retrofits and installations of smart and programmable thermostats; ensure financial support for projects involving building retrofits or new construction; require the use of smart or programmable thermostats.
  • Offer grants or financing for research and development to improve smart and programmable thermostat design and user interface.
  • Invest in or offer grants to start-ups seeking to deploy smart or programmable thermostats.
  • Issue or buy green bonds to deploy capital to projects that use smart or programmable thermostats and integrate other energy-efficient heating and cooling technologies and practices.
  • Offer preferential loan agreements for developers using smart or programmable thermostats, energy efficient building practices, and other related climate solutions.
  • Help policymakers set clear and measurable targets for building efficiency, emissions reduction, and deployment of smart and programmable thermostats.
  • Advocate for and help design regulatory standards and building codes that encourage, incentivize, and/or require the use of smart and programmable thermostats, especially in new construction.
  • Help regulators periodically update codes, policies, and public guidance to keep pace with adoption and technology advances.
  • Advocate for subsidies that allow for flexible implementation or selective applicability within national systems; help ensure subsidy programs are designed based on scientific evidence showing they will have a positive impact on adoption for the intended beneficiaries; recommend that subsidies be targeted to low- and middle-income households and simultaneously offer incentives for broadband and digital connectivity; help ensure financial incentives cover both new installations and retrofits.
  • Help shift policy frameworks to focus on energy efficiency through the use of intelligent control.
  • Conduct research to improve adoption and use of smart and programmable thermostats, paying close attention to how user interfaces impact behavior.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for smart and programmable thermostats.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Help create educational efforts and resources for smart and programmable thermostats; offer demonstrations for installation and programming through online videos and in-person demos; clearly state benefits of smart and programmable thermostats, highlighting the cost savings, social benefits, and environmental impacts.
  • Help policymakers set clear and measurable targets for building efficiency, emissions reduction, and deployment of smart and programmable thermostats.
  • Advocate for and help design regulatory standards and building codes that encourage, incentivize, and/or require the use of smart or programmable thermostats, especially in new construction.
  • Help regulators periodically update codes, policies, and public guidance to keep pace with adoption and technology advances.
  • Advocate for subsidies that allow for flexible implementation or selective applicability within national systems; help ensure subsidy programs are designed based on scientific evidence showing they will have a positive impact on adoption for the intended beneficiaries; recommend that subsidies be targeted to low- and middle-income households and simultaneously offer incentives for broadband and digital connectivity; help ensure financial incentives cover both new installations and retrofits.
  • Help shift policy frameworks to focus on energy efficiency through the use of intelligent control.
  • Conduct research to improve adoption and use of smart and programmable thermostats, paying close attention to how user interfaces impact behavior.
  • Create or join green building certification schemes, green building councils, and/or public-private partnerships that offer information, training, and general support for smart and programmable thermostats.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop smart systems that integrate thermostats into a systems level perspective, allowing thermostats to make adjustments based on household energy consumption; design these systems for automatic adjustments to energy usage depending on price signals, energy spikes, appliance use, charging time (e.g., for EVs), weather patterns, occupancy, and related factors; ensure thermostats can automatically update utility rates, weather forecasts, and other data that support cost- and energy-efficient use.
  • Develop smart thermostats and smart home systems that can be grid-integrated for demand management. 
  • Design software for smart and programmable thermostats that provides detailed feedback and individualized suggestions to consumers on energy usage, costs, and estimated savings.
  • Research how users interact with smart and programmable thermostats; examine impact of user interfaces (UIs) on consumer use; develop simplified UIs to facilitate adoption.
  • Research the relationship between household decision-making and smart or programmable thermostat adoption; highlight recommendations for reaching household decision-makers.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Upgrade to a smart or programmable thermostat, learn how to use its features, set the programming accordingly, and override the system as little as possible.
  • Consult and work with licensed heating and cooling system installers to determine best available options for smart or programmable thermostats, installation, and maintenance.
  • Make sure your thermostat is installed in a position that allows for easy, unobstructed access.
  • Take advantage of public incentives such as subsidies or low-interest financing for installation, retrofits, and/or maintenance.
  • If provided by your smart thermostat or energy provider, opt into alerts that inform you of abnormally high energy usage which can be an early warning of problems with a heating and cooling system.
  • Take time to understand your smart or programmable thermostat; use profile settings and scheduling to optimize energy and money savings.
  • If you own a smart thermostat, opt into demand response programs to lower energy consumption during peak times; turn on notifications for heating and cooling system maintenance.
  • Share your experience with your neighbors, community, and social networks, and offer help in programming a thermostat where appropriate.
  • If possible, regularly schedule heating and cooling system maintenance and upgrades, including for related equipment such as thermostats. 
  • If smart or programmable thermostats are not an option, manually adjust your thermostat to reduce energy consumption when you’re not home, during peak hours, or to reflect weather conditions; consult your energy provider for tips on thermostat adjustments that can save money and energy.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions: High 

There is strong consensus that smart and programmable thermostats will reduce energy use and associated emissions when used to regularly adjust temperatures. 

Numerous studies have demonstrated that energy savings with smart or programmable thermostats can be significant but also vary significantly. For example, A review by Yuan et al. (2024) of occupancy-based control studies for heating, air conditioning and ventilation systems found energy savings of 7–44%. Pang et al. (2021) noted that factors such as climate conditions, building characteristics, occupant behaviors, and setback temperatures can affect energy savings outcomes. 

Pritoni et al. (2016) found that field study outcomes for smart thermostats can differ from the outcomes predicted by models, which are the most common approach to estimating energy savings and, by extension, emissions savings. Factors that can account for some of this discrepancy include comfort preferences, overrides, poor programming, and occupancy (Pritoni et al., 2015; Stopps & Touchie, 2021). 

A major barrier to realizing energy savings with smart or programmable thermostats is getting households to use the programming feature. Bielig et al. (2025) demonstrated that smart thermostat adoption and use are tied to perceived value, usefulness, and ease of use in European Union countries. Meanwhile, Pritoni et al. (2015) highlighted how many U.S. households have a poor understanding of how and when programmed set points save energy, and identified challenges with programming thermostats and comfort concerns as barriers to their use. Smart thermostats that learn occupant behaviors and preferences have shown to be easier to use than programmable thermostats (Tamas et al., 2021) and can achieve higher energy savings with higher thermal comfort (Nägele et al., 2017).

The results presented in this document summarize findings from five original studies, 10 reports, nine databases, two market research reports, and 11 product information web pages. This reflects current evidence from 11 countries, primarily high-income countries, and seven global regions. 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

Deploy Agrivoltaics

Sector
Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Production
Image
Sheep in a pasture with solar panels
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
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

Source: 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, Colo. (United States). Copyrighted.

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

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). 

Figure 2. Estimated global adoption of agrivoltaics, 2010–2023.

Sources: Zhang & Ma, 2026; Agrivoltaics Map, n.d.

Enable Download
On

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
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

Restore Peatlands

Sector
Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Remove Carbon
Cluster
Restore & Manage Ecosystems
Image
Boreal peatland restoration
Coming Soon
On

Key Takeaways

  • Restoring peatlands reduces GHG emissions from drained peatlands, with an overall effectiveness of 20.7–60.9 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr. 
  • Peatland restoration has many benefits, including boosting biodiversity through habitat provisioning, enhancing water quality through natural storage and filtration, improving human health by reducing fire risk and associated air pollution, and providing local cooling. 
  • Peatland restoration has some caveats and trade-offs, including relocation of production activities to other ecosystems, loss of revenue, and high restoration costs. 
  • Protecting intact peatlands is a higher priority than peatland restoration.
Summary

Peatland restoration is the process of returning peat-forming vegetation and natural hydrologic conditions to degraded peatlands. Restoration of peatlands stops GHG emissions from peat degradation and removes carbon through sequestration in biomass and peat.

This solution focuses on non-coastal peatlands that have been drained, cleared of vegetation, harvested for peat, or otherwise degraded. Coastal peatlands are addressed in the Restore Mangrove Ecosystems and Restore Salt Marsh Ecosystems solutions.

Extreme weather events
Income & work,Health
Water resources,Water quality
Description for Social and Search
Restore Peatlands is a Highly Recommended climate solution. Drained peatlands emit GHGs as the peat degrades, but rewetting and revegetating stops emissions and can return their ability to act as carbon sinks.
Overview

Peatlands are diverse ecosystems characterized by waterlogged, carbon-rich soils consisting of partially decomposed dead plant material (Figure 1). Because decomposition occurs very slowly under low oxygen, waterlogged conditions, large amounts of partially decomposed plant material accumulated over millennia in peatlands. These carbon-rich ecosystems occupy only 3–4% of land area (Xu et al., 2018; United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2022), but store an estimated 600 Gt carbon (~2,200 Gt CO₂‑eq), roughly twice as much carbon as is stored in forest biomass globally (UNEP, 2022; Yu et al., 2010; Pan et al., 2024). Approximately 12% of global peatlands (~57 Mha) have been drained or otherwise degraded for agriculture, forestry, peat extraction, or other uses. Restoration of degraded peatlands through revegetation and rewetting (returning to a waterlogged state; Evans et al., 2021) reduces ongoing emissions and can restore the ability of the ecosystem to sequester carbon.

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

Examples of peatland types

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

Draining and/or clearing peatlands increases CO₂ emissions, nitrous oxide emissions, and losses of dissolved carbon through waterways while also reducing carbon sequestration and methane emissions. CO₂ from peat decomposition is the largest source of GHG emissions from degraded peatlands (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2014; UNEP, 2022). When accumulated organic matter in the peat layer is exposed to air, it begins decomposing more rapidly, emitting CO₂ (Figure 2). Removal of overlying vegetation produces additional GHG emissions while also slowing or stopping carbon uptake and continued peat formation. Whereas emissions from vegetation removal occur rapidly following disturbance, peat decomposition and associated emissions can continue for centuries depending on environmental conditions and peat thickness (Leifield & Menichetti, 2018). Peatland restoration halts these emissions and, eventually, can restore the ecosystem's ability to take up carbon (Doelman et al., 2023; Humpenöder et al., 2020; Mander et al., 2024; Mander et al., 2025; Strack et al., 2022). 

Peatland disturbance and restoration also have complex impacts on nitrous oxide emissions, methane emissions, and carbon loss through waterways (Figure 2; IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2014; UNEP, 2022). Intact peatlands are a methane source because methane-producing microbes thrive under waterlogged conditions, so restoring peatlands typically increases methane emissions (Evans et al., 2021; Günther et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2021; Mander et al., 2024). However, restoration typically reduces nitrous oxide emissions from oxidation of the peat layer. 

Figure 2. Intact peatlands (left) are a net greenhouse gas sink, sequestering carbon in peat through photosynthesis but also emitting methane due to waterlogged soils. Drained peatlands (right) are a GHG source, producing emissions from peat decomposition and drainage canals. Modified from IUCN UK Peatland Programme (2024).

Diagram comparing healthy and degraded peatland

Source:  IUCN UK Peatland Programme. (2024, July 10). New briefing addresses the peatlands and methane debate.

Peatlands can be restored to native vegetation or used for paludiculture, the practice of growing crops or trees in saturated conditions (Tan et al., 2021; Temmink et al., 2026). We assume that effective restoration involves both rewetting and re-establishment of perennial vegetation, and in this assessment we did not differentiate between carbon dynamics on peatlands restored to native vegetation and those on peatlands used for paludiculture. Because peatland emissions dynamics, total peatland areas, and the degraded peatland area all vary geographically, we evaluated tropical, subtropical, temperate, and boreal regions separately in this analysis. Most peatlands occur in boreal regions (~310 Mha, or 64% of the total), with another 25% (~121 Mha) in tropical regions (UNEP, 2022; Protect Peatlands). These regions also contain the largest areas of degraded peatlands that can be restored (26 Mha and 19 Mha, respectively; UNEP, 2022).

Halting the ongoing drainage and degradation of peatlands through effective protection, which is covered in Protect Peatlands, is an essential complement to restoration (Austin et al., 2025).

References

Andersen, R., Farrell, C., Graf, M., Muller, F., Calvar, E., Frankard, P., Caporn, S., & Anderson, P. (2017). An overview of the progress and challenges of peatland restoration in Western Europe. Restoration Ecology, 25(2), 271–282. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12415

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

Bonn, A., Reed, M. S., Evans, C. D., Joosten, H., Bain, C., Farmer, J., Emmer, I., Couwenberg, J., Moxey, A., Artz, R., Tanneberger, F., von Unger, M., Smyth, M.-A., & Birnie, D. (2014). Investing in nature: Developing ecosystem service markets for peatland restoration. Ecosystem Services, 9, 54–65. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.011

Breznikar, A., Pönisch, D. L., Lorenz, M., Jurasinski, G., Rehder, G., & Voss, M. (2024). Rewetting effects on nitrogen cycling and nutrient export from coastal peatlands to the Baltic Sea. Biogeochemistry, 167(7), 967–987. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-024-01149-9

Burney, J. A., Davis, S. J., & Lobell, D. B. (2010). Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(26), 12052–12057. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914216107 

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

Dietrich, O., & Behrendt, A. (2022). Wet grassland sites with shallow groundwater conditions: effects on local meteorological characteristics. Water, 14(21), Article 21. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/w14213560

Doelman, J. C., Verhagen, W., Stehfest, E., & Vuuren, D. P. van. (2023). The role of peatland degradation, protection and restoration for climate change mitigation in the SSP scenarios. Environmental Research: Climate, 2(3), Article 035002. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/acd5f4

Evans, C. D., Peacock, M., Baird, A. J., Artz, R. R. E., Burden, A., Callaghan, N., Chapman, P. J., Cooper, H. M., Coyle, M., Craig, E., Cumming, A., Dixon, S., Gauci, V., Grayson, R. P., Helfter, C., Heppell, C. M., Holden, J., Jones, D. L., Kaduk, J., … Morrison, R. (2021). Overriding water table control on managed peatland greenhouse gas emissions. Nature, 593(7860), 548–552. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03523-1

Global Peatlands Initiative. (2025). Info brief: The peatland breakthrough science-based framework for global peatland targets & guiding principles. Link to source: https://globalpeatlands.org/resource-library/info-brief-peatland-breakthrough-science-based-framework-global-peatland-targets

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

Granath, G., Moore, P. A., Lukenbach, M. C., & Waddington, J. M. (2016). Mitigating wildfire carbon loss in managed northern peatlands through restoration. Scientific Reports, 6(1), Article 28498. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28498

Günther, A., Barthelmes, A., Huth, V., Joosten, H., Jurasinski, G., Koebsch, F., & Couwenberg, J. (2020). Prompt rewetting of drained peatlands reduces climate warming despite methane emissions. Nature Communications, 11(1), Article 1644. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15499-z

Harrison, M. E., Ottay, J. B., D’Arcy, L. J., Cheyne, S. M., Anggodo, Belcher, C., Cole, L., Dohong, A., Ermiasi, Y., Feldpausch, T., Gallego-Sala, A., Gunawan, A., Höing, A., Husson, S. J., Kulu, I. P., Soebagio, S. M., Mang, S., Mercado, L., Morrogh-Bernard, H. C., … van Veen, F. J. F. (2020). Tropical forest and peatland conservation in Indonesia: Challenges and directions. People and Nature, 2(1), 4–28. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10060

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

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

Heuts, T. S., Van Der Scheer, O. E., Harpenslager, S. F., Van Diggelen, J. M. H., Smolders, A. J. P., & Fritz, C. (2026). Phosphorus saturation ratio predicts phosphorus mobilization in peat and mineral soils after rewetting. Ecological Engineering, 230, 108019. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2026.108019

Hoffmann, C. C., Petersen, R. J., Genieys, A., Ovesen, N. B., Kjeldgaard, A., Egemose, S., & Zak, D. (2026). Reduced phosphorus loss in a pump‐drained wetland after harvesting and rewetting. Journal of Environmental Quality, 55(2), e70163. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.70163

Huang, Y., Ciais, P., Luo, Y., Zhu, D., Wang, Y., Qiu, C., Goll, D. S., Guenet, B., Makowski, D., De Graaf, I., Leifeld, J., Kwon, M. J., Hu, J., & Qu, L. (2021). Tradeoff of CO2 and CH4 emissions from global peatlands under water-table drawdown. Nature Climate Change, 11(7), 618–622. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01059-w

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

IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. (2014). 2013 supplement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Wetlands (T. Hiraishi, T. Krug, K. Tanabe, N. Srivastava, J. Baasansuren, M. Fukuda, & T. G. Troxler, Eds.). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/Wetlands_Supplement_Entire_Report.pdf

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

Jong, H. N. (2023). Indonesia's peatland restoration claims in question as fires flare up. Mongabay. Link to source: https://news.mongabay.com/2023/10/indonesias-peatland-restoration-claims-in-question-as-fires-flare-up/

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

Kreyling, J., Tanneberger, F., Jansen, F., van der Linden, S., Aggenbach, C., Blüml, V., Couwenberg, J., Emsens, W.-J., Joosten, H., Klimkowska, A., Kotowski, W., Kozub, L., Lennartz, B., Liczner, Y., Liu, H., Michaelis, D., Oehmke, C., Parakenings, K., Pleyl, E., … Jurasinski, G. (2021). Rewetting does not return drained fen peatlands to their old selves. Nature Communications, 12(1), Article 5693. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25619-y

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

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

Lestari, N. S., Rochmayanto, Y., Salminah, M., Novita, N., Asyhari, A., Gangga, A., Ritonga, R., Yeo, S., & Albar, I. (2024). Opportunities and risk management of peat restoration in Indonesia: Lessons learned from peat restoration actors. Restoration Ecology, 32(1), Article e14054. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14054

Lloyd, I. L., Thomas, V., Ofoegbu, C., Bradley, A. V., Bullard, P., D’Acunha, B., Delaney, B., Driver, H., Evans, C. D., Faulkner, K. J., Fonvielle, J. A., Francksen, R. M., Friday, L. E., Hose, G., Kaduk, J., Manning, F. R., Morrison, R., Novo, P., Page, S. E., … Balzter, H. (2023). State of Knowledge on UK Agricultural Peatlands for Food Production and the Net Zero Transition. Sustainability, 15(23), Article 16347. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316347

Lobell, D. B., & Villoria, N. B. (2023). Reduced benefits of climate-smart agricultural policies from land-use spillovers. Nature Sustainability, 6, 941–948. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01112-w

Loisel, J., & Gallego-Sala, A. (2022). Ecological resilience of restored peatlands to climate change. Communications Earth & Environment, 3(1), Article 208. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00547-x

Mander, Ü., Espenberg, M., Melling, L., & Kull, A. (2024). Peatland restoration pathways to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and retain peat carbon. Biogeochemistry, 167(4), 523–543. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-023-01103-1

Mander, Ü., Öpik, M., & Espenberg, M. (2025). Global peatland greenhouse gas dynamics: State of the art, processes, and perspectives. New Phytologist, 246(1), 94–102. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.20436

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

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

Merten, J., Nielsen, J. Ø., Rosyani, & Faust, H. (2021). Climate change mitigation on tropical peatlands: A triple burden for smallholder farmers in Indonesia. Global Environmental Change, 71, Article 102388. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102388

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

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

Murdiyarso, D., Lilleskov, E., & Kolka, R. (2019). Tropical peatlands under siege: The need for evidence-based policies and strategies. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 24(4), 493–505. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-019-9844-1

Oestmann, J., Dettmann, U., Düvel, D., & Tiemeyer, B. (2022). Experimental warming increased greenhouse gas emissions of a near-natural peatland and Sphagnum farming sites. Plant and Soil, 480(1), 85–104. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-022-05561-8

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

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

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

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

Renou-Wilson, F., Moser, G., Fallon, D., Farrell, C. A., Müller, C., & Wilson, D. (2019). Rewetting degraded peatlands for climate and biodiversity benefits: Results from two raised bogs. Ecological Engineering, 127, 547–560. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.02.014

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

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

Salmayenti, R., Holden, J., Baird, A. J., Rigby, R., & Spracklen, D. V. (2026). Tropical peatland restoration reduces fire occurrence. Geophysical Research Letters, 53(11), e2025GL121564. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1029/2025GL121564

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

Silverthorn, T., Aberg, D., Baker, F., Bell, C., Evans, C. D., Gurd, C., Holman, I., Howell, G., McEwen, A., Morrison, R., Oakley, J., Southon, F., & Peacock, M. (2026). Land‐use effects on surface water quality in temperate lowland peatlands. Global Change Biology, 32(7), e70988. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.70988

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

Strack, M., Davidson, S. J., Hirano, T., & Dunn, C. (2022). The Potential of Peatlands as Nature-Based Climate Solutions. Current Climate Change Reports, 8(3), 71–82. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-022-00183-9

Strack, M., Keith, A. M., & Xu, B. (2014). Growing season carbon dioxide and methane exchange at a restored peatland on the Western Boreal Plain. Ecological Engineering, 64, 231–239. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.12.013

Strack, M., & Zuback, Y. C. A. (2013). Annual carbon balance of a peatland 10 yr following restoration. Biogeosciences, 10(5), 2885–2896. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-2885-2013

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

Temmink, R. J. M., Lång, K., Vroom, R. J. E., Leifeld, J., Fritz, C., Zeug, W., Thrän, D., Kleinspehn, C., Gaudig, G., Neubert, J., Kreyling, J., Rhymes, J. M., Evans, C. D., Kotowski, W., Nordt, A., & Tanneberger, F. (2026). Agriculture on wet peatlands: The sustainability potential of paludiculture. Agricultural Systems, 231, Article 104561. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2025.104561

Terzano, D., Attorre, F., Parish, F., Moss, P., Bresciani, F., Cooke, R., & Dargusch, P. (2022). Community-led peatland restoration in Southeast Asia: 5Rs approach. Restoration Ecology, 30(8), Article e13642. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13642

The Gecko Project. (2023). Success of Indonesian peatland restoration in doubt as fire season sets in. Link to source: https://thegeckoproject.org/articles/success-of-indonesian-peatland-restoration-in-doubt-as-fire-season-sets-in/

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

Toumbourou, T. D., Lestari, S., Yuwati, T. W., Treby, S., Winarno, B., Rachmanadi, D., Idrus, N. I., Sakuntaladewi, N., Budiningsih, K., Grover, S. P. P., & Rawluk, A. (2024). Principles for equitable and resilient tropical peatland restoration in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Restoration Ecology, 32(7), Article e14221. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14221

Tubiello, F. N., Conchedda, G., Casse, L., Hao, P., De Santis, G., & Chen, Z. (2023). A new cropland area database by country circa 2020. Earth System Science Data, 15(11), 4997–5015. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-4997-2023

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

Uda, S. K., Hein, L., & Adventa, A. (2020). Towards better use of Indonesian peatlands with paludiculture and low-drainage food crops. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 28(3), 509–526. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-020-09728-x

UNEP. (2022). Global peatlands assessment: The state of the world’s peatlands: Evidence for action toward the conservation, restoration, and sustainable management of peatlands. Link to source: https://www.unep.org/resources/global-peatlands-assessment-2022

van der Laan, A., van Dijk, J., Rebel, K. T., & Wassen, M. J. (2024). Rewet without regret? Nutrient dynamics in fen peat exposed to different rewetting degrees. Biogeochemistry, 167(5), 705–721. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-024-01139-x

Vanselow-Algan, M., Schmidt, S. R., Greven, M., Fiencke, C., Kutzbach, L., & Pfeiffer, E.-M. (2015). High methane emissions dominated annual greenhouse gas balances 30 years after bog rewetting. Biogeosciences, 12(14), 4361–4371. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-4361-2015

Ward, C., Stringer, L. C., Warren-Thomas, E., Agus, F., Crowson, M., Hamer, K., Hariyadi, B., Kartika, W. D., Lucey, J., McClean, C., Nurida, N. L., Petorelli, N., Pratiwi, E., Saad, A., Andriyani, R., Ariani, T., Sriwahyuni, H., & Hill, J. K. (2020). Smallholder perceptions of land restoration activities: Rewetting tropical peatland oil palm areas in Sumatra, Indonesia. Regional Environmental Change, 21(1), Article 1. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-020-01737-z

Wetlands International. (2025). The Peatland Breakthrough: Science-Based Framework for Global Peatland Targets and Guiding Principles. Link to source: https://www.wetlands.org/the-peatland-breakthrough/

Wilson, D., Farrell, C. A., Fallon, D., Moser, G., Müller, C., & Renou-Wilson, F. (2016). Multiyear greenhouse gas balances at a rewetted temperate peatland. Global Change Biology, 22(12), 4080–4095. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13325

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

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

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

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

Yuwati, T. W., & Pratiwi, D. (2022). Paludiculture: Peatland utilization for food security. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1107(1), Article 012075. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1107/1/012075

Zeng, Y., Sarira, T. V., Carrasco, L. R., Chong, K. Y., Friess, D. A., Lee, J. S. H., Taillardat, P., Worthington, T. A., Zhang, Y., & Koh, L. P. (2020). Economic and social constraints on reforestation for climate mitigation in Southeast Asia. Nature Climate Change, 10(9), 842–844. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0856-3

Ziegler, R., Wichtmann, W., Abel, S., Kemp, R., Simard, M., & Joosten, H. (2021). Wet peatland utilisation for climate protection – An international survey of paludiculture innovation. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 5, Article 100305. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2021.100305

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Avery W. Driscoll, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Christina Richardson, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D. 

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Using the IPCC’s Tier 1 methodology (IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2014), we estimated the net effectiveness of peatland restoration at 19.0–56.0 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr (100-yr basis), depending on the climate zone (Table 1a–d). 

The primary pathway by which peatland restoration reduces emissions is by slowing or stopping CO₂ emissions associated with loss of peat through oxidation. Because peat oxidation occurs more rapidly in warmer climates, the effectiveness of restoration is higher in tropical and subtropical regions than in temperate and boreal regions (IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2014). We estimated that drained peatlands emit 15.1–49.7 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr, while restored peatlands can range from carbon sinks (–1.6 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr on average in the boreal) to small sources (0.5 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr on average in temperate areas). However, site-level variability is high, with a recent review reporting values ranging from a sink of –42 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr (in a restored Canadian sphagnum bog) to a source of 8 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr (at a restored German sphagnum paludiculture site) (Mander et al., 2024; Oestmann et al., 2022; Strack et al., 2014).

Peatland restoration influences GHG emissions from several other pathways as well:

  • Revegetation can increase carbon sequestration in biomass. Here, we included carbon uptake in vegetation only for degraded peatlands that were originally forested (Olson et al., 2001) and are currently used for agriculture (UNEP, 2022), using reforestation carbon uptake rates from Robinson et al. (2025) and Busch et al. (2024) (see Restore Forests). Carbon uptake from reforestation on peatlands contributes 3.2–8.3 CO₂‑eq /ha/yr (100-yr basis) on average within each climate zone, with larger emissions benefits in warmer climates. 
  • Nitrous oxide emissions associated with peat oxidation are reduced (IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2014). 
  • Off-site CO₂ emissions from losses of dissolved organic carbon through drainage canals and surface waterways are reduced (IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2014). 
  • Methane emissions arising from drainage canals are eliminated when canals are filled (IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2014). However, methane emissions from canals can persist if they are simply blocked or partially filled (Peacock et al., 2021). These emissions remain uncertain, and our effectiveness estimates rely on the optimistic assumption that canals are fully filled, eliminating canal methane emissions.
  • Methane emissions from the peat itself typically increase as the peat returns to an anoxic state. Methane emissions from the surface of restored peatlands are estimated at 1.5–5.7 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr (100-yr basis), compared to 0.1–0.2 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr (100-yr basis) for drained peatlands (IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2014). This increase in methane emissions is included in the effectiveness estimates. 
  • Restoring peatlands currently used for crop production can displace that production and expansion of agricultural land use elsewhere, producing emissions from land use change (Burney et al., 2010; Lobell & Villoria, 2023). We used a very simple approach to estimate emissions from this indirect land use change, assuming that the production lost from peatland restoration is replaced on non-peat ecosystems within the same climate zone at the average yield (see Methodology for additional details). These indirect land use change emissions, ranging from 1.7–4.9 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr across ecosystems, slightly reduce the effectiveness of restoring peatlands. 

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions and, in some cases, removing carbon.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-yr basis

Estimate 19.0

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-yr basis

Estimate 29.7

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-yr basis

Estimate 47.8

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-yr basis

Estimate 56.0
Left Text Column Width
Cost

The costs of peatland restoration are highly uncertain and variable. We estimated that the median cost of peatland restoration is approximately US$55/t CO₂‑eq (2023 US$), or US$1,884/ha restored (Table 2). These estimates are based on data from only three countries. In Scotland, peatland restoration costs are submitted as part of the Peatland Action Programme, which provides grants for peat restoration (Glenk et al., 2022). Based on data from 300 sites, they report a median cost of US$1,884/ha (equal to US$55/t CO₂‑eq , 100-year basis). In the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture developed models of restoration costs based on contracts with agricultural landowners for wetland restoration through the Wetlands Reserve Program, with costs ranging from US$170/ha to US$6,100/ha depending on the region. All other cost data used in our calculations are from Indonesia, with estimates ranging from US$237/ha to more than US$25,000/ha (Hansson & Dargusch 2018; Tan et al., 2022). Peatland restoration costs include the costs of restoring the natural hydrologic condition and of revegetation, and depend largely on the size of canals that must be dammed or filled (Hansson & Dargusch 2018). These estimates do not include forgone revenues from economic uses of drained peatlands, nor do they include potential new revenues from paludiculture, tourism, or ecosystem service payments.

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

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

Median 55
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. There is no evidence that the costs of peatland rewetting and revegetation will fall 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 Peatlands is a GRADUAL climate solution, because the primary mode of action is a reduction in emissions that would otherwise occur on an annual basis over a long time. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. 

Caveats

GHG emissions dynamics of rewetted peatlands remain uncertain because they can be highly variable depending on site level factors, such as land use history, type of restoration interventions, and environmental conditions (Mander et al., 2024). 

Effective peatland restoration faces many barriers, including cost of restoration, disruption to economic use, willingness of local community and landowners to support restoration, and technical challenges, particularly on severely subsided sites (Andersen et al., 2017; Harrison et al., 2020; Lestari et al., 2024; Zeng et al., 2020).

Peatland restoration, like other nature-based climate solutions, faces concerns related to the permanence of emissions reductions and carbon sequestration (Loisel & Gallego-Sala, 2022; Turetsky et al., 2015). Restored peatlands are vulnerable to drainage or clearing, which can be mitigated by coupling restoration with durable, long-term protections. Restored peatlands are also vulnerable to natural disturbances, such as fires and droughts, though they tend to be more resilient than drained peatlands (Granath et al., 2016). 

Current Adoption

Data on the current adoption of peatland restoration are very sparse, noncentralized, and largely not validated. Therefore, we do not provide a global estimate of the currently restored area. We found two countries for which there are national-scale estimates of restored area. The United Kingdom’s Peatland Programme reports that restoration activities were undertaken on 254,254 ha of peatland between the 1990s and 2024 (IUCN UK Peatland Programme, 2024). In Indonesia, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry reported 3.7 Mha of peatland restoration in a 2022 report based on estimates of the area with a water table depth of 40 cm or less as of December, 2021. However, only 6,000 of these ha were reported to have undergone some form of vegetation restoration, and water table depth is a limited proxy for peatland restoration status because it fluctuates substantially over time due to natural variability in water supplies. For instance, the area meeting the water table threshold had fallen to just 0.5 Mha by June 2022 (Jong, 2023; The Gecko Project, 2022). Based on published estimates, it seems likely that the peatland area that has been successfully restored is in the range of 0.5–5Mha.

Adoption Trend

Peatland restoration data are very limited and rarely temporally resolved. The available data are insufficient to calculate an adoption trend for this solution.

Adoption Ceiling

We estimated the adoption ceiling for peatland restoration to be 56.9 Mha (Table 3). This is the area of peatland that has been drained or converted to other land uses (UNEP, 2022) and represents ~12% of the total global peatland area. Approximately 37.8 Mha of drained peatlands are currently used for agriculture (croplands or grazing), 18.1 Mha are used for forestry, and 1.0 Mha are used for peat extraction (UNEP, 2022). Although restoring peatlands will involve displacing some of these activities to other lands. Though drained peatlands can be particularly high-yielding (Lloyd et al., 2023), these are relatively small areas in the context of global land use. For example, agricultural peatlands (including both croplands and grazing lands) represent less than 3% of total global croplands, which were estimated to cover ~1,500 Mha circa 2020 (Tubiello et al., 2023). Indirect land use change emissions arising from relocation of croplands are accounted for in our effectiveness estimates.

Drained peatlands are concentrated in boreal (26.3 Mha) and tropical regions (18.5 Mha), with smaller areas in temperate (9.9 Mha) and subtropical (2.1 Mha) regions (UNEP, 2022). The proportion of peatlands that have been drained is largest in temperate regions (28%), followed by the tropics (15%), subtropics (14%), and then the boreal (8%).

These values reflect best estimates of drained peatland area from the Global Peatland Assessment (UNEP, 2022). However, there is substantial uncertainty in the distribution of intact and drained peatlands, and efforts to map global peatlands are ongoing (Melton et al., 2022; Minasny et al., 2024). 

Table 3. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 26,300,000

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 9,930,000

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 2,140,000

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 18,500,000

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 56,900,00
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We assumed an achievable range of 25–50% of the adoption ceiling, equal to 14.2 – 28.4 Mha of peatland restoration (Table 4a–e). 

The momentum behind peatland restoration has been growing rapidly over the past several decades, including major international efforts such as the U.N. Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030), the Global Peatlands Initiative, and the Peatland Breakthrough (Global Peatlands Initiative, 2025; UNEP, 2022; Wetlands International, 2025). Our estimate of the high achievable level of peatland restoration roughly aligns with the 30 Mha target of the Peatland Breakthrough, a global initiative to guide peatland restoration through unified targets and restoration principles that was launched at COP30 (Global Peatlands Initiative, 2025). Given that the current area successfully restored is likely in the range of 0.5–5 Mha, both the low and high achievable estimates will require an ambitious expansion of peatland restoration. 

Peatland restoration will very likely need to be directly incentivized through payments for ecosystem services such as emissions reductions, water quality, flood management, and/or biodiversity to achieve this level of adoption (Bonn et al., 2014). Paludiculture, or using restored peatlands for production of commodities that tolerate saturated conditions, may also boost restoration (Mander et al., 2024; Tan et al., 2021; Ziegler et al., 2021). In temperate and lower boreal regions, paludiculture is typically characterized by herbaceous vegetation, including cattails, reeds, canary grass, sedges, and alder, used for grazing or biomass and by cultivation of sphagnum for horticultural use (Temmink et al., 2026). Additional research is needed to develop suitable paludiculture systems for restored tropical peatlands (Uda et al., 2020), which are typically characterized by tree cover rather than herbaceous plants. Sustainable gathering and hunting of native peatland species is a form of paludiculture that has been practiced by indigenous communities for centuries, and tree crops such as sago and jelutong show some potential for economically viable paludiculture (Tan et al., 2021; Ziegler et al, 2021).

Table 4. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: ha

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 6,560,000
Achievable – high 13,100,000
Adoption ceiling 26,300,000

Unit: ha

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 2,480,000
Achievable – high 4,960,000
Adoption ceiling 9,930,000

Unit: ha

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 535,000
Achievable – high 1,070,000
Adoption ceiling 2,140,000

Unit: ha

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 4,630,000
Achievable – high 9,260,000
Adoption ceiling 18,500,000

Unit: ha

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 14,200,000
Achievable – high 28,400,000
Adoption ceiling 56,900,000
Left Text Column Width

We estimated that peatland restoration could sequester 0.48 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the low-achievable adoption scenario, 0.97 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the high-achievable adoption scenario, and 1.93 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the adoption ceiling (Table 5a–e). Our estimate of the climate impact at the adoption ceiling is approximately in line with literature estimates of annual emissions from drained peatlands (e.g., 1.98 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr from Leifield & Menichetti [2018]). 

Although the total area available for restoration is largest in the boreal biome, more than half of the adoption ceiling climate impact occurs in the tropics due to larger per-hectare emissions reductions from peatland restoration in warmer climates. Restoration in boreal regions is estimated to provide 26% of the climate impact at the adoption ceiling, with an additional 15% and 5% of the climate impact available through temperate and subtropical peatland restoration, respectively. 

Table 5. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 0.125
Achievable – high 0.249
Adoption ceiling 0.498

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 0.074
Achievable – high 0.148
Adoption ceiling 0.295

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 0.026
Achievable – high 0.051
Adoption ceiling 0.102

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 0.259
Achievable – high 0.518
Adoption ceiling 1.037

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 0.483
Achievable – high 0.966
Adoption ceiling 1.932
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Extreme Weather Events

Peatlands protection can help communities adapt to extreme weather, though restored peatlands may be more sensitive than undisturbed peatlands to extreme weather (Loisel & Gallego-Sala, 2022). Because peatlands regulate water flows, they can reduce the risk of droughts and floods (IUCN, 2021; Ritson et al., 2016). Evidence suggests that peatlands can cool the immediate environment, lowering daytime temperatures and reducing daily temperature extremes (Dietrich & Behrendt, 2022; Helbig et al., 2020; Worrall et al., 2022).

Income and Work

Peatlands support the livelihoods of nearby communities, especially those in low- and middle-income countries. In the peatlands of the Amazon and Congo basins, fishing livelihoods depend on aquatic wildlife (Thornton et al., 2020). Peatlands in the Peruvian Amazon provide important goods for trade, such as palm fruit and timber and are used for hunting (Schulz et al., 2019). Peatlands can also support the livelihoods of women, allowing them to access more economic opportunities and contributing to gender equality. For example, in Indonesia women use raw materials from peatlands to create mats sold for use in significant events such as births, weddings, and burials (Goib et al., 2018). Selling commodities made from peatland materials increases household income and can increase the position of women to make decisions in a household (Goib et al., 2018).   

Restoring peatlands may come with some trade-offs to livelihoods if it prevents other productive uses. Paludiculture may help local communities to maintain their livelihoods on restored peatlands (Temmink et al., 2026; Yuwati & Pratiwi, 2022). Case studies in Southeast Asia have found that community-led restoration projects that consider local context and livelihoods are more successful than conventional restoration projects (Terzano et al., 2022).

Peatlands mitigate exposure to air pollution and can save money from reduced health-care expenditures (Kiely et al., 2021).

Health

When peatlands are drained, they are susceptible to fire, and rewetting reduces fire risk (Salmayenti et al., 2026). Peatland fires can contribute to air pollution because of the way these fires smolder (Uda et al., 2019). Smoke and pollutants, particularly PM2.5, from peatland fires can harm respiratory health and lead to premature mortality (Marlier et al., 2019). A study in Indonesia estimated peatland fires contribute to the premature mortality of about 33,100 adults and about 2,900 infants annually (Hein et al., 2022). Researchers have linked exposure to PM2.5 from peatland fires to increased hospitalizations, asthma, and lost workdays (Hein et al., 2022). 

Nature Protection

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

While restored peatlands are more biodiverse than degraded ecosystems, restored peatlands are often less biodiverse than intact peatlands (Renou-Wilson et al., 2019). For example, a large study of peatlands in Europe found that rewetting increased biodiversity of peatlands, but plant composition was different from natural, intact peatlands (Kreyling et al., 2021). Biodiversity benefits have also been identified in European paludiculture systems, though more research on the biodiversity impacts of paludiculture is needed (Martens et al., 2023).

Water Resources

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

Water Quality

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

Risks

Where peatland restoration involves removing agricultural or forestry land from economic use, it risks compromising the livelihoods of local communities (Lestari et al., 2024; Merten et al., 2021; Ward et al., 2020). Close collaboration with local communities can facilitate procedural equity and enable positive, durable outcomes for both the ecosystem and the community (e.g., Toumbourou et al., 2024). Additionally, restoring peatlands can trigger displacement of production activities onto other lands, resulting in land clearing elsewhere (i.e., leakage). We account for the emissions impacts of leakage in our effectiveness calculations. While restoration can reduce emissions associated with agriculture locally, these emissions can occur elsewhere if the production area shifts. Paludiculture can reduce the risk of negative economic impacts and leakage (Mander et al., 2024; Tan et al., 2021; Ziegler et al., 2021). 

Though healthy peatlands provide water quality benefits, peatland rewetting can mobilize nutrients and other contaminants into surface waters (Breznikar et al., 2024; Heuts et al., 2026; Silverthorn et al., 2026; van der Laan). Studies have found increases in phosphorus, nitrogen, and heavy metal loads from peatland rewetting, though effects are mixed. Water quality monitoring and appropriate mitigation near restoration sites can help manage water quality risks (e.g. Hoffman et al., 2026).

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Peatland 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 peatland, and thus are in competition with restoration.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
19
units
Current Not Determined 06.56×10⁶1.31×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 0.1250.249
US$ per t CO₂-eq
55
Delayed

CO₂ , N₂O

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
29.7
units
Current Not Determined 02.48×10⁶4.96×10⁶
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 0.0740.148
US$ per t CO₂-eq
55
Delayed

CO₂ , N₂O

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
47.8
units
Current 0535,0001.07×10⁶
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 0.0260.051
US$ per t CO₂-eq
55
Delayed

CO₂ , N₂O

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
56
units
Current 04.63×10⁶9.26×10⁶
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 0.2590.518
US$ per t CO₂-eq
55
Delayed

CO₂ , N₂O

Trade-offs

Peatland restoration can divert resources from other climate solutions, including protecting intact peatlands. Preventing peatland drainage is typically more cost effective and offers larger emissions benefits than does peatland restoration (see Protect Peatlands). Restoration should therefore complement, rather than compete with, efforts to reduce further disturbance of intact peatlands.

Action Word
Restore
Solution Title
Peatlands
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Conduct comprehensive surveys and scientific assessments of national peatlands; work with scientists to identify which peatlands are most at risk of irreversible damage, which are likely to remain intact, and which are suitable candidates for restoration using combined techniques from fields such as paleoecology, ecology, and climate science.
  • Set clear, evidence-based guidelines, definitions, and goals for restoration; incorporate peatland restoration goals into national climate plans; set comprehensive definitions of restoration that address rewetting, revegetation, revitalization, and reducing fires.
  • Coordinate peatland restoration horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international levels), ensuring an inclusive process for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Ensure public procurement uses peat-free products and supply chains.
  • Ban or regulate intact peatland draining; require or incentivize filling or blocking existing canals while compensating farmers for income losses; use sustainable, environmentally friendly, and durable materials to block canals.
  • Grant protected status to peatlands in the process of being restored to help mitigate future land conversions; seek to connect restoration projects with existing protected areas; ensure robust enforcement mechanisms; streamline process for granting legal protections for peatlands.
  • Strengthen land tenure laws; grant Indigenous communities full property rights and autonomy; support Indigenous communities in monitoring and managing peatland restoration projects; encourage or require the demarcation of property, communal boundaries, and protected areas to help solidify and clarify land tenure rights.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC); codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Create financial incentives for peatland restoration and paludiculture, such as direct payments, payment for ecosystem services (PES), tax breaks, and/or cash prizes for meeting restoration metrics; use an array of indicators for payments and incentives, such as emissions reductions, water levels, water quality, flood management, biodiversity, and impacts on livelihoods; ensure incentives allow for long timelines and outweigh the opportunity costs of land conversion; earmark financial incentives and assistance for low- and middle-income communities; offer similar incentives for improving land management in buffer zones (e.g., agroforestry or silvopasture).
  • Co-design peatland restoration projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback – including from opposition groups – on regulations, legal definitions, financing, monitoring, and enforcement; incorporate gender-responsive frameworks; build consensus on contentious but necessary elements of restoration such as canal filling and blocking; ensure finalized projects address relevant sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
  • Co-manage peatland restoration with local communities; offer proven pathways to improve livelihoods; provide opportunities for technical training and ongoing support for farmers and land owners using paludiculture or restoring peatlands; tailor restoration to each site, taking into account sociological, hydrological, and ecological dynamics.
  • Create regulations that eliminate harmful land use (e.g., growing oil palm and mining) on peatlands and the use of peat for electricity generation and horticulture; ensure suitable climate-friendly alternatives for crop production and peat use are in place before implementing bans.
  • Create strong, enforceable regulations to ensure carbon markets cannot exploit Indigenous or peatland communities; require strong transparency mechanisms for carbon market agreements; work with industry to create high-integrity carbon markets; facilitate co-designing carbon markets agreements with Indigenous- and/or community-led processes.
  • Establish or help local communities develop processes for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution.
  • Conduct proactive land use planning with the local community to help protect restoration into the future; avoid placing structures such as wind turbines on peatlands.
  • Work with insurance institutions to provide products for farmers transitioning their land for peatland restoration or for those who are improving land management in buffer zones (e.g., agroforestry or silvopasture). 
  • Ensure regulations allow and encourage a variety of legal models for peatland restoration, such as cooperatives.
  • Create educational programs that work with schools, universities, NGOs, and the general public to inform communities how to participate in peatland restoration; expand extension services and offer one-stop shops to improve technical capacity for peatland restoration and paludiculture; maintain demonstration projects and ongoing knowledge-sharing platforms with local and Indigenous communities; create a national database for restoration projects to monitor, evaluate, document, and share best practices.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that advance peatland restoration and fire management; offer financial support for these programs and for smallholder farmers and low- and middle-income communities to participate.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to peatland restoration, mobilizing financing, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Conduct and/or work with policymakers to create comprehensive surveys and scientific assessments of national peatlands; work with scientists to identify which peatlands are most at risk of irreversible damage, which are likely to remain intact, and which are suitable candidates for restoration using combined techniques from fields such as paleoecology, ecology, and climate science.
  • Help policymakers set clear, evidence-based guidelines, definitions, and goals for restoration; urge policymakers to incorporate peatland restoration goals into national climate plans; help set comprehensive definitions of restoration that address rewetting, revegetation, revitalization, and reducing fires.
  • Coordinate peatland restoration with local communities, neighboring jurisdictions, nonprofits, and other stakeholders; ensure coordination is cross-sectoral and includes agricultural, food security, human rights, and educational considerations.
  • Advocate for protected status for peatlands in the process of being restored to help mitigate future land conversions; seek to connect restoration projects with existing protected areas; advocate for curtailments or bans on drainage and concession licenses for damaging activities such as growing oil palm, mining, and logging in and near peatlands.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives for peatland restoration and paludiculture, such as direct payments, PES, tax breaks, and/or cash prizes for meeting restoration metrics.
  • Co-design and co-manage peatland restoration projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback – including from opposition groups – on regulations, legal definitions, financing, monitoring, and enforcement; incorporate gender-responsive frameworks; build consensus on contentious but necessary elements of restoration, such as canal filling or blocking; ensure finalized projects address relevant sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
  • Restore peatlands using well-rounded, thoroughly integrated approaches that address how to rewet, revegetate, revitalize, and reduce fires in areas under restoration.
  • Manage the water table, fill or block canals, and monitor the hydrology of areas being restored; use sustainable, environmentally friendly, and durable materials to block canals.
  • Prioritize protecting intact areas and biodiversity, avoiding further degradation, planting native species, and restoring forests; help enforce bans on draining peatlands; work with local communities to identify key drivers of degradation and viable solutions. 
  • Develop or support opportunities for ecotourism for restored peatlands.
  • Help develop markets for sustainable products through paludiculture; identify sustainable substitutes for current agricultural products; work with policymakers and industry leaders to solidify supply chains.
  • Monitor and evaluate restoration progress using multiple metrics, including emissions reductions, water levels and quality, flood management, biodiversity, and impacts on livelihoods; ensure baseline measurements andclear goals are part of restoration; use technology such as satellite imagery to monitor water table depth, clearance, and other related variables.
  • Use agroforestry, silvopasture, and other sustainable practices in peatland buffer zones to improve protection and access to income-generating opportunities.
  • Demarcate your property, communal boundaries, and protected areas to help solidify and clarify land tenure rights; encourage other stakeholders to do the same.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; help codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Help create fire management regulations; help develop fire-resistance in restored areas through increased forest cover and improved environmental conditions; design methods for land clearance that avoid burning; help resolve land tenure and related disputes; educate the public on how to reduce fire use and risks of wildfires; help detect and extinguish fires.
  • Conduct proactive land use planning with the local community to help protect restoration into the future; avoid placing structures such as wind turbines on peatlands.
  • Work with insurance institutions to provide products for farmers transitioning their land for peatland restoration or for those who are improving land management in buffer zones (e.g., agroforestry or silvopasture). 
  • Create educational programs that work with schools, universities, NGOs, and the general public to inform communities how to participate in peatland restoration; collaborate with extension services and offer one-stop shops to improve technical capacity for peatland restoration and paludiculture; maintain demonstration projects and ongoing knowledge-sharing platforms with local and Indigenous communities; help create a national database for restoration projects to monitor, evaluate, document, and share best practices.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that advance peatland restoration and fire management; offer financial support for these programs and for smallholder farmers and low- and middle-income communities to participate.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to peatland restoration, mobilizing financing, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Create peat-free supply chains, using data, other information, and the latest technology to inform product sourcing; use sustainable materials from paludiculture and peatland restoration in product lines and/or packaging; develop markets and supply chains for native species products; innovate other sustainable uses for resources from paludiculture.
  • Develop or support ecotourism opportunities for restored peatlands.
  • Integrate peat-free business policies and practices into net-zero strategies.
  • Develop financial instruments to invest in peatland restoration focusing on supporting Indigenous communities and smallholder farmers.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with peatland restoration or incentivize drainage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities’ capacity for peatland restoration, legal protection, and public relations; amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Only purchase carbon credits from high-integrity, verifiable carbon markets and do not use them as replacements for decarbonizing operations.
  • Co-design carbon markets with Indigenous- and/or community-led processes; work with practitioners to create high-integrity carbon markets; require strong transparency mechanisms for carbon market agreements; help create strong, enforceable regulations to ensure carbon markets cannot exploit Indigenous communities or smallholder farmers.
  • Support programs that educate the public on relevant regulations and how to use forest resources sustainably.
  • Leverage political influence to advocate for stronger peatland restoration and protection policies at national and international levels, especially policies that reduce incentives to drain intact peatlands. 
  • Offer company grants to suppliers to improve resource management and support peatland restoration within your supply chain.
  • Offer incubator services for smallholder farmers restoring peatlands and practicing paludiculture; offer pro bono business advice or general support for community restoration projects.
  • Enter into outgrower schemes to support smallholder farmers using paludiculture; make long-term commitments to help stabilize projects.
  • Donate to local peatland restoration initiatives; use an internal carbon fee or set aside a percentage of revenue to fund relevant projects.
  • Offer employee professional development funds to be used for certification in peatland restoration or related fields such as circular economies.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that advance peatland restoration and fire management; offer financial support for these programs and for smallholder farmers and low- and middle-income communities to participate.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to peatland restoration, mobilizing financing, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Use peat-free products in operations; use, promote, and develop markets for sustainable products from peatlands under restoration; identify sustainable substitutes for agricultural products such as palm oil commonly produced on peatlands; work with policymakers and industry leaders to solidify supply chains.
  • Administer or co-manage peatland restoration projects; help establish or support organizations and community management associations to implement and/or monitor restoration projects; if co-managing, consider using alternatives to corporate business structures such as cooperatives to facilitate management and mitigate risk.
  • Provide or facilitate environmental legal assistance for stakeholders involved in peatland restoration activities; advocate for protected status for peatlands under restoration; urge regulators to strengthen land tenure designations and rights; establish or co-design conflict resolution mechanisms.
  • Conduct and/or work with policymakers to create comprehensive surveys and scientific assessments of peatlands; work with scientists to identify which peatlands are most at risk of irreversible damage, which are likely to remain intact, and which are suitable candidates for restoration using combined techniques from fields such as paleoecology, ecology, and climate science.
  • Help policymakers set clear, evidence-based guidelines, definitions, and goals for restoration; urge policymakers to incorporate peatland restoration goals into national climate plans; help set comprehensive definitions of restoration that address rewetting, revegetation, revitalization, and reducing fires.
  • Coordinate peatland restoration with local communities, neighboring jurisdictions, nonprofits, and other stakeholders; ensure coordination is cross-sectoral and includes agricultural, food security, human rights, and educational considerations.
  • Advocate for protected status for peatlands in the process of being restored to help mitigate future land conversions; seek to connect restoration projects with existing protected areas.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives for peatland restoration and paludiculture, such as direct payments, PES, tax breaks, and/or cash prizes for meeting restoration metrics.
  • Co-design and co-manage peatland restoration projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback – including from opposition groups – on regulations, legal definitions, financing, monitoring, and enforcement; incorporate gender-responsive frameworks; build consensus on contentious but necessary elements of restoration such as canal filling or blocking; ensure finalized projects address relevant sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
  • Urge regulators to strengthen land tenure laws; advocate for and amplify the voices of Indigenous communities seeking full property rights and autonomy; encourage or assist with the demarcation of property, communal boundaries, and protected areas to help solidify and clarify land tenure rights.
  • Help ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; help codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Advocate for public financial incentives for peatland restoration and paludiculture, such as direct payments, PES, tax breaks, and/or cash prizes for meeting restoration metrics; recommend using an array of indicators for payments and incentives such as emissions reductions, water levels and quality, flood management, biodiversity, and impacts on livelihoods; help ensure incentives allow for long timelines and outweigh the opportunity costs of land conversion; urge policymakers to earmark financial incentives and assistance for low- and middle-income communities; recommend similar incentives for improving land management in buffer zones (e.g., agroforestry or silvopasture).
  • Co-design peatland restoration projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback – including from opposition groups – on regulations, legal definitions, financing, monitoring, and enforcement; incorporate gender-responsive frameworks; build consensus on contentious but necessary elements of restoration such as canal filling or blocking; ensure finalized projects address relevant sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
  • Call on regulators to reduce and eventually eliminate harmful land use (e.g., planting oilpalm and mining) on peatlands and the use of peat for electricity generation and horticulture; help project administrators identify suitable climate-friendly alternatives for crop production and peat before regulations take effect.
  • Co-design carbon markets with Indigenous- and/or community-led processes; work with practitioners to create high-integrity carbon markets; require strong transparency mechanisms for carbon market agreements; help create strong, enforceable regulations to ensure carbon markets cannot exploit Indigenous or peatland communities.
  • Establish or help local communities develop processes for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution.
  • Conduct proactive land use planning with the local community to help protect restoration into the future; help the community avoid placing structures such as wind turbines on peatlands.
  • Work with policymakers and insurance institutions to provide products for farmers transitioning their land for peatland restoration or for those who are improving land management in buffer zones (e.g., agroforestry or silvopasture). 
  • Monitor and evaluate restoration projects using multiple metrics, including emissions reductions, water levels, water quality, flood management, biodiversity, and impacts on livelihoods; ensure baseline measurements and clear goals are part of restoration; use technology such as satellite imagery to monitor water table depth, clearance, and other related variables.
  • Create educational programs that work with schools, universities, other NGOs, and the general public to inform communities how to participate in peatland restoration; collaborate with extension services and offer one-stop shops to improve technical capacity for peatland restoration and paludiculture; maintain demonstration projects and ongoing knowledge-sharing platforms with local and Indigenous communities; help create a national database for restoration projects to monitor, evaluate, document, and share best practices.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that advance peatland restoration and fire management; offer financial support for these programs and for smallholder farmers and low- and middle-income communities to participate.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to peatland restoration, mobilizing financing, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Investors
  • Create peat-free investment portfolios using data, information, and the latest technology to inform investments.
  • Invest in peatland restoration and related initiatives such as monitoring, management, and enforcement mechanisms; use long-term time horizons and integrate the full spectrum of benefits generated by restoration (e.g., improved resilience; reduced risk of landslides, flooding, drought, and fires; improvements to local health; and healthier ecosystem services) into investment decisions. 
  • Invest in bioeconomy products derived from paludiculture and supply chains using or supporting sustainable paludiculture products; invest in ecotourism projects supporting peatland restoration.
  • Invest in green bonds or high-integrity carbon credits for peatland restoration; provide financing for sustainable land use; offer concessional loans or favorable financial products to smallholder farmers and Indigenous communities.
  • Co-design carbon markets with Indigenous- and/or community-led processes; work with practitioners to create high-integrity carbon markets; require strong transparency mechanisms for carbon market agreements; help create strong, enforceable regulations to ensure carbon markets cannot exploit Indigenous or peatland communities.
  • Ensure investments operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC.
  • Support peatland restoration managers, other investors, and NGOs by sharing data, information, and frameworks that successfully avoid investments that drive peatland drainage and degradation.
  • Require portfolio companies to eliminate peatland drainage and/or harmful practices from their supply chains.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that advance peatland restoration and fire management; offer financial support for these programs and for smallholder farmers and low- and middle-income communities to participate.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to peatland restoration, mobilizing financing, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Use peat-free products in operations; use and/or promote sustainable products from peatlands under restoration; help develop markets for sustainable products through paludiculture; identify sustainable substitutes for current agricultural products; work with policymakers and industry leaders to solidify supply chains.
  • Provide grants to peatland restoration and related initiatives such as monitoring, management, and enforcement mechanisms; use long-term time horizons and integrate the full spectrum of benefits generated by restoration (e.g., improved resilience; reduced risk of landslides, flooding, drought, and fires; improvements to local health; and healthier ecosystem services) into grantmaking decisions. 
  • Administer or co-manage peatland restoration projects; help establish or support organizations and community management associations to implement and/or monitor restoration projects; if co-managing, consider using alternatives to corporate business structures such as cooperatives to facilitate management and mitigate risk.
  • Provide grants or favorable financing for companies using bioeconomy products derived from paludiculture and supply chains using or supporting sustainable paludiculture products; support ecotourism projects connected to peatland restoration.
  • Offer or purchase green bonds or high-integrity carbon credits for peatland restoration; provide financing for sustainable land use; offer grants, concessional loans, or favorable financial products to smallholder farmers and Indigenous communities.
  • Co-design carbon markets with Indigenous- and/or community-led processes; work with practitioners to create high-integrity carbon markets; require strong transparency mechanisms for carbon market agreements; help create strong, enforceable regulations to ensure carbon markets cannot exploit Indigenous or peatland communities.
  • Ensure restoration in or with Indigenous communities is under FPIC.
  • Support peatland restoration managers, other investors, and NGOs by sharing data, information, and frameworks that successfully avoid investments that drive peatland drainage and degradation.
  • Provide or facilitate environmental legal assistance for stakeholders involved in peatland restoration; advocate for protected status for peatlands under restoration; urge regulators to strengthen land tenure designations and rights; establish or co-design conflict resolution mechanisms.
  • Commission and/or work with policymakers to create comprehensive surveys and scientific assessments of national peatlands; work with scientists to identify which peatlands are most at risk of irreversible damage, which are likely to remain intact, and which are suitable candidates for restoration using combined techniques from fields such as paleoecology, ecology, and climate science.
  • Help policymakers set clear, evidence-based guidelines, definitions, and goals for restoration; urge policymakers to incorporate peatland restoration goals into national climate plans; help set comprehensive definitions of restoration’ that address rewetting, revegetation, revitalization, and reducing fires.
  • Coordinate peatland restoration with local communities, neighboring jurisdictions, nonprofits, and other stakeholders; ensure coordination is cross-sectoral and includes agricultural, food security, human rights, and educational considerations.
  • Advocate for protected status for peatlands in the process of being restored to help mitigate future land conversions; seek to connect restoration projects with existing protected areas.
  • Co-design and co-manage peatland restoration projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback – including from opposition groups – on regulations, legal definitions, financing, monitoring, and enforcement; incorporate gender-responsive frameworks; build consensus on contentious but necessary elements of restoration such as canal filling or blocking; ensure finalized projects address relevant sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
  • Urge regulators to strengthen land tenure laws; advocate for and amplify the voices of Indigenous communities seeking full property rights and autonomy; encourage or assist with the demarcation of property, communal boundaries, and protected areas to help solidify and clarify land tenure rights.
  • Advocate for public financial incentives for peatland restoration and paludiculture, such as direct payments, PES, tax breaks, and/or cash prizes for meeting restoration metrics; recommend using an array of indicators for payments and incentives such as emissions reductions, water levels, water quality, flood management, biodiversity, and impacts on livelihoods; help ensure incentives allow for long timelines and outweigh the opportunity costs of land conversion; urge policymakers to earmark financial incentives and assistance for low- and middle-income communities; recommend similar incentives for improving land management in buffer zones (e.g., agroforestry or silvopasture).
  • Call on regulators to reduce and eventually eliminate harmful land use (e.g., growing oil palm and mining) on peatlands and the use of peat for electricity generation and horticulture; help project administrators identify suitable climate-friendly alternatives for crop production and peat before regulations take effect.
  • Establish or help local communities develop processes for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution.
  • Conduct proactive land use planning with the local community to help protect restoration into the future; help the community avoid placing structures such as wind turbines on peatlands.
  • Work with policymakers and insurance institutions to provide products for farmers transitioning their land for peatland restoration or for those who are improving land management in buffer zones (e.g., agroforestry or silvopasture). 
  • Monitor and evaluate restoration projects using multiple metrics, including emissions reductions, water levels, water quality, flood management, biodiversity, and impacts on livelihoods; ensure baseline measurements and clear goals are part of restoration; use technology such as satellite imagery to monitor water table depth, clearance, and other related variables.
  • Create educational programs that work with schools, universities, other NGOs, and the general public to inform communities how to participate in peatland restoration; collaborate with extension services and offer one-stop shops to improve technical capacity for peatland restoration and paludiculture; maintain demonstration projects and ongoing knowledge-sharing platforms with local and Indigenous communities; help create a national database for restoration projects to monitor, evaluate, document, and share best practices.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that advance peatland restoration and fire management; offer financial support for these programs and for smallholder farmers and low- and middle-income communities to participate.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to peatland restoration, mobilizing financing, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Help lead peatland restoration projects; establish or support organizations and community management associations to implement and/or monitor restoration projects; consider using alternatives to corporate business structures such as cooperatives to facilitate management and mitigate risk.
  • Use and/or promote sustainable products from peatlands under restoration; help develop markets for sustainable products deriving from paludiculture; identify sustainable substitutes for current agricultural products; work with policymakers and industry leaders to solidify supply chains.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives for peatland restoration and paludiculture, such as direct payments, PES, tax breaks, and/or cash prizes for meeting restoration metrics.
  • Provide or facilitate environmental legal assistance for stakeholders involved in peatland restoration; advocate for protected status for peatlands under restoration; urge regulators to strengthen land tenure designations and rights; establish or co-design conflict resolution mechanisms.
  • Conduct and/or work with policymakers to create comprehensive surveys and scientific assessments of national peatlands; work with scientists to identify which peatlands are most at risk of irreversible damage, which are likely to remain intact, and which are suitable candidates for restoration using combined techniques from fields such as paleoecology, ecology, and climate science.
  • Help policymakers set clear, evidence-based guidelines, definitions, and goals for restoration; urge policymakers to incorporate peatland restoration goals into national climate plans; help set comprehensive definitions of restoration that address rewetting, revegetation, revitalization, and reducing fires.
  • Coordinate peatland restoration with local communities, neighboring jurisdictions, nonprofits, and other stakeholders; ensure coordination is cross-sectoral and includes agricultural, food security, human rights, and educational considerations.
  • Co-design and co-manage peatland restoration projects with the local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback – including from opposition groups – on regulations, legal definitions, financing, monitoring, and enforcement; incorporate gender-responsive frameworks; build consensus on contentious but necessary elements of restoration such as canal filling or blocking; ensure finalized projects address relevant sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
  • Urge regulators to strengthen land tenure laws; advocate for and amplify the voices of Indigenous communities seeking full property rights and autonomy; encourage or assist with the demarcation of property, communal boundaries, and protected areas to help solidify and clarify land tenure rights.
  • Help ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; help codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Advocate for public financial incentives for peatland restoration and paludiculture, such as direct payments, PES, tax breaks, and/or cash prizes for meeting restoration metrics; recommend using an array of indicators for payments and incentives such as emissions reductions, water levels, water quality, flood management, biodiversity, and impacts on livelihoods; help ensure incentives allow for long timelines and outweigh the opportunity costs of land conversion; urge policymakers to earmark financial incentives and assistance for low- and middle-income communities; recommend similar incentives for improving land management in buffer zones (e.g., agroforestry or silvopasture).
  • Call on regulators to reduce and eventually eliminate harmful land use (e.g., growing oil palm and mining) on peatlands and the use of peat for electricity generation and horticulture; help project administrators identify suitable climate-friendly alternatives for crop production and peat before regulations take effect.
  • Co-design carbon markets with Indigenous- and/or community-led processes; work with practitioners to create high-integrity carbon markets; require strong transparency mechanisms for carbon market agreements; help create strong, enforceable regulations to ensure carbon markets cannot exploit Indigenous or peatland communities.
  • Establish or help local communities develop processes for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution.
  • Conduct proactive land use planning with the local community to help protect restoration into the future; help the community avoid placing structures such as wind turbines on peatlands.
  • Work with policymakers and insurance institutions to provide products for farmers transitioning their land for peatland restoration or for those who are improving land management in buffer zones (e.g., agroforestry or silvopasture). 
  • Monitor and evaluate restoration projects using multiple metrics, including emissions reductions, water levels and quality, flood management, biodiversity, and impacts on livelihoods; ensure baseline measurements and clear goals are part of restoration; use technology such as satellite imagery to monitor water table depth, clearance, and other related variables.
  • Create educational programs that work with schools, universities, other NGOs, and the general public to inform communities how to participate in peatland restoration; collaborate with extension services and offer one-stop shops to improve technical capacity for peatland restoration and paludiculture; maintain demonstration projects and ongoing knowledge-sharing platforms with local and Indigenous communities; help create a national database for restoration projects to monitor, evaluate, document, and share best practices.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that advance peatland restoration and fire management; offer financial support for these programs and for smallholder farmers and low- and middle-income communities to participate.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to peatland restoration, mobilizing financing, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Collect, analyze, and publish data on existing restoration projects; distill best practices and lessons learned. 
  • Model and monitor various restoration techniques; conduct baseline assessments and comprehensive monitoring of peatlands over a wide geography and time period; track a variety of indicators for local peatland restoration, such as emissions reductions, water levels and quality, flood management, biodiversity, and impacts on livelihoods; share results with practitioners, policymakers, and the public.
  • Improve regional and global maps of peatlands; identify which are suitable for restoration, which are vulnerable, and which may not be capable of being restored; map these regions over time to show improvements and/or land use changes.
  • Improve systems for returning hydrological function and biodiversity to restored peatlands; examine roles of native vegetation and conditions that enable cultivation; research the sequencing of reintroducing native species to peatlands to understand which species can help stabilize the environment and which are more sensitive to conditions.
  • Research practices related to peatland restoration, such as diversifying genetics for isolated populations.
  • Improve paludiculture systems for restored tropical peatlands; improve profitability, feasibility, and productivity of paludiculture systems, especially, for smallholder farmers; assess trade-offs for using paludiculture; develop and standardize comprehensive methods for monitoring and evaluating paludiculture systems, including social, hydrological, biological, and climate dynamics.
  • Develop uses for paludicultural crops, examining both the roles of vegetation in restoration and potential uses in a circular economy; develop methods of integrating paludiculture with other related climate solutions such as agroforestry and silvopasture. 
  • Help develop machinery to improve cost-efficiency of restoration and paludiculture.
  • Develop methods to control and/or stop the regeneration of nonnative species and trees in peatlands under restoration.
  • Quantify climate, social, environmental, and financial benefits of restored peatlands to inform and encourage long-term investments.
  • Facilitate international cooperation, capacity building, and research for peatland restoration in underserved areas.
  • Research and model the impacts of fire, fire management, and protective measures on peatland restoration.
  • Co-design peatland restoration with local communities, policymakers, and other stakeholders. 

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Start a peatland restoration project in your community or create a business that uses projects derived from paludiculture and/or restored peatlands; consider using alternatives to corporate business structures such as cooperatives to facilitate management and mitigate risk.
  • Help monitor local efforts to improve peatland management; volunteer with a local agency or nonprofit to help restore peatlands.
  • Advocate for protected status for peatlands in the process of being restored to help mitigate future land conversions.
  • Urge regulators to strengthen land tenure laws; advocate for and/or support Indigenous communities’ full property rights and autonomy; support work to manage, monitor, and enforce land tenure rights for peatland projects.
  • Help ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; advocate to codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Co-design and co-manage peatland restoration projects with your local community; ensure community engagement starts early and is transparent, inclusive, and ongoing; solicit feedback – including from opposition groups – on regulations, legal definitions, financing, monitoring, and enforcement; incorporate gender-responsive frameworks; build consensus on contentious but necessary elements of restoration, such as canal filling or blocking; ensure finalized projects address relevant sociological, agriculture, and ecological considerations.
  • Call on regulators to reduce and eventually eliminate harmful land use (e.g., growing oil palm and mining) on peatlands and the use of peat for electricity generation and horticulture; help project administrators identify suitable climate-friendly alternatives for crop production and peat before regulations take effect.
  • If relevant, demarcate peatlands on your property; encourage and/or assist others with the demarcation of property, communal boundaries, and areas under restoration to help solidify and clarify land tenure rights.
  • Help educate your community about the process of obtaining land recognition.
  • Work with extension services to develop local capacity in peatland restoration, especially in community-led monitoring and evaluation; establish knowledge-sharing initiatives with Indigenous peoples.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that advance peatland restoration and fire management.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to peatland restoration, mobilizing financing, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Reduce consumption of products commonly produced on degraded peatlands, such as palm oil and peat moss. 

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing emissions from disturbed peatlands: High 

Consensus of effectiveness in providing substantial net GHG removal in the near future after accounting for increases in methane emissions: Low

Degraded peatlands currently emit an estimated 1.3–1.9 Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr (excluding fires), equal to ~2–4% of total global GHG emissions (Leifield and Menichetti., 2018; UNEP, 2022). Leifield et al. (2019) projected that without protection or restoration, drained peatlands could produce enough emissions to consume 12–41% of the remaining emissions budget for keeping warming below 1.5–2.0 °C. Peatland drainage had produced a cumulative 80 Gt CO₂ ‑eq by 2015, equal to nearly 16 months’ worth of total global emissions (60.3 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr as of 2024). 

Peatland rewetting and restoration has been widely shown to stop ongoing CO₂ emissions from oxidation of drained peat and reduce lateral transport of carbon through waterways (Günther et al., 2020; Mander et al., 2024; Wilson et al., 2016). The net emissions reduction in rewetted relative to drained conditions is clear and consistent, despite large variability in the magnitude of carbon uptake and methane and nitrous oxide emissions following rewetting. While many restored peatlands regain their capacity to act as net carbon sinks, some sites remain emissions sources for decades following rewetting (Strack & Zuback 2013; Vanselow-Algan et al., 2015; Wilson et al., 2016).

 The results presented in this document summarize findings from 19 reviews, meta-analyses, and global databases reflecting current evidence for peatland restoration. The majority of the non-global literature is focused on Indonesia, the United Kingdom, and Northern Europe. 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

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
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 Rice Production

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

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

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

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

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

Methane Reduction

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

Nitrous Oxide Reduction

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

Other Promising Practices

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Eric Toensmeier

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Methane Reduction

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

Nitrous Oxide Reduction

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

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

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

Combined Reduction

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

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha rice paddies/yr

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

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha rice paddies/yr

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha rice paddies/yr

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha rice paddies/yr

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

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

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

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies

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

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

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

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

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

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

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

Combined Net Profit per Hectare

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

Net Net Cost Compared to Conventional Paddy Rice

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

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

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies

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

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

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

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

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

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

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

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Unit: US$/t CO₂‑eq  

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

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Left Text Column Width

Cost per unit climate impact

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

Table 4. Weighted average cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: US$/t CO₂‑eq

Weighted average -175.0
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

Learning curve data are not available for improved rice cultivation.

Speed of Action

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

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

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

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

Caveats

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

Current Adoption

Noncontinuous Flooding

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

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

Table 5. Current adoption level (2025).

Unit: Mha

Mean 48.65

Noncontinuous flooding, ha installed.

Left Text Column Width

Nutrient Management

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

Adoption Trend

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

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

Table 6. Adoption trend.

Unit: %

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

Percent annual growth rate.

Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

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

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

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

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

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

Unit: Mha

Median 77.53

Mha of improved rice production installed.

Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

Table 8. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mha

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

Mha of improved rice production installed.

Left Text Column Width

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

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

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

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

Table 9. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr

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

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr

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

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

Additional Benefits

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

Health

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

Land Resources

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

Water Resources

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

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

Water Quality

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

Risks

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

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

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

Interactions with Other Solutions

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

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha rice paddies

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

Climate Impact

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

CH₄ , N₂O

Trade-offs

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

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

% of area
0100

Paddy rice area, 2020

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

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

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

% of area
0100

Paddy rice area, 2020

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

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

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

Maps Introduction

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

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

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

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Rice Production
Classification
Highly Recommended

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

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

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

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

Appendix

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

Emissions Factors

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

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

Current, Target, and Avoidable Nitrogen Inputs and Emissions

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

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

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

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

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Reduce Crop Residue Burning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellows 

  • Eric Toensmeier

Contributors

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewers

  • James Gerber Ph.D.

  • Sarah Gleeson Ph.D.

  • Paul West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

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

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

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

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

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

Methane 0.06
Nitrous oxide 0.02
CO₂ 1.27
Combined total 1.34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

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

Median -10.2
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

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

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

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

Current Adoption

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

Table 3. Current adoption level.

Unit: t of crop residue burning avoided

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

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

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

Adoption Ceiling

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

Table 4. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mt of crop residue burning avoided/yr

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

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

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

Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mt of avoided crop residue burning/yr

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

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

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

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

Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr

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

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr

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

Income and Work

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

Health

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

Land Resources

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

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

Air Quality

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

Risks

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

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

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

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

Dashboard

Solution Basics

t of crop residue burning avoided

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

Climate Impact

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

CO₂,  CH₄ , N₂O

Trade-offs

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

Action Word
Reduce
Solution Title
Crop Residue Burning
Classification
Highly Recommended

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions: High 

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

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

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

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
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 Peatlands

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

Key Takeaways

  • Peatlands are incredibly carbon-rich ecosystems, occupying only 3–4% of Earth’s surface but containing an estimated 600 Gt of carbon – roughly twice as much as is stored in all the world’s trees.
  • When peat soils are drained and exposed to air, the organic material they contain decomposes, releasing greenhouse gases. 
  • Peatland protection is a highly recommended climate solution, able to save more than 13 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr in the tropics and subtropics.
  • At a high achievable adoption level, protecting peatlands could prevent the release of 1.7 Gt CO₂‑eq of greenhouse emissions each year.
Summary

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

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

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

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

Examples of peatland types

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

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

Figure 2. Intact peatlands (left) are a net greenhouse gas sink, sequestering carbon in peat through photosynthesis but also emitting methane due to waterlogged soils. Drained peatlands (right) are a GHG source, producing emissions from peat decomposition and drainage canals. Modified from IUCN UK Peatland Programme (2024).

Diagram comparing healthy and degraded peatland

Source:  IUCN UK Peatland Programme. (2024, July 10). New briefing addresses the peatlands and methane debate.

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

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

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

Atkinson, C. L., & Alibašić, H. (2023). Prospects for governance and climate change resilience in peatland management in Indonesia. Sustainability, 15(3), Article 3. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15031839

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

Barnes, M. D., Glew, L., Wyborn, C., & Craigie, I. D. (2018). Prevent perverse outcomes from global protected area policy. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(5), 759–762. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0501-y

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

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

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

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

Dietrich, O., & Behrendt, A. (2022). Wet grassland sites with shallow groundwater conditions: Effects on local meteorological characteristics. Water, 14(21), Article 21. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/w14213560

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goldstein, A., Turner, W. R., Spawn, S. A., Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Cook-Patton, S., Fargione, J., Gibbs, H. K., Griscom, B., Hewson, J. H., Howard, J. F., Ledezma, J. C., Page, S., Koh, L. P., Rockström, J., Sanderman, J., & Hole, D. G. (2020). Protecting irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems. Nature Climate Change, 10(4), 287–295. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0738-8

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

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

Harrison, M. E., & Paoli, G. D. (2012). Managing the risk of biodiversity leakage from prioritising REDD+ in the most carbon-rich forests: The case study of peat-swamp forests in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Tropical Conservation Science, 5(4), 426–433. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291200500402

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

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

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

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

IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. (2014). 2013 supplement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Wetlands (T. Hiraishi, T. Krug, K. Tanabe, N. Srivastava, J. Baasansuren, M. Fukuda, & T. G. Troxler, Eds.). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/Wetlands_Supplement_Entire_Report.pdf

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

IUCN UK Peatland Programme. (2024, July 10). New briefing addresses the peatlands and methane debate. Link to source: https://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/news/new-briefing-addresses-peatlands-and-methane-debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sze, J. S., Carrasco, L. R., Childs, D., & Edwards, D. P. (2021). Reduced deforestation and degradation in Indigenous Lands pan-tropically. Nature Sustainability, 5(2), 123–130. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00815-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNEP. (2022). Global peatlands assessment: The state of the world’s peatlands: Evidence for action toward the conservation, restoration, and sustainable management of peatlands. Link to source: https://www.unep.org/resources/global-peatlands-assessment-2022

UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. (2024). Protected planet report. Link to source: https://digitalreport.protectedplanet.net

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. Link to source: https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/16560/1/Waldron_Report_FINAL_sml.pdf

Williams, M., Reay, D., & Smith, P. (2023). Avoiding emissions versus creating sinks—Effectiveness and attractiveness to climate finance. Global Change Biology, 29(8), 2046–2049. Link to source: 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

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

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

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

Yu, Z., Loisel, J., Brosseau, D. P., Beilman, D. W., & Hunt, S. J. (2010). Global peatland dynamics since the Last Glacial Maximum. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(13), L13402. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043584

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Avery Driscoll

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

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

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

Equation 1.

\[Effectiveness = (Peatland\text{ }loss_{baseline} - Peatland\text{ }loss_{protected})\times( Carbon_{biomass} + 30\cdot Carbon_{flux} + 30\cdot Carbon_{uptake}) \]

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

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

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

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

Estimate 0.92

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

Estimate 4.42

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

Estimate 13.47

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

Estimate 13.23
Left Text Column Width
Cost

We estimated that the net cost of peatland protection is approximately US$1.5/ha/yr, or $0.25/t CO₂‑eq avoided (Table 2). Data related to the costs of peatland protection are very limited. These estimates reflect global averages rather than regionally specific values, and rarely include data specific to peatlands. The costs of peatland protection include up-front costs of land acquisition and ongoing costs of management and enforcement. The market price of land reflects the opportunity cost of not using the land for other purposes, such as agriculture, forestry, peat extraction, or urban development. Protecting peatlands can also generate revenue through increased tourism. Costs and revenues are highly variable across regions, depending on the costs of land and enforcement and potential for tourism. 

Dienerstein et al. (2024) estimated the initial cost of establishing a protected area for 60 high-biodiversity ecoregions. Amongst the 33 regions that were likely to contain peatlands, the median acquisition cost was US$957/ha, which we amortized over 30 years. Costs of protected area maintenance were estimated at US$9–17/ha/yr (Bruner et al., 2004; Waldron et al., 2020), though these estimates were not specific to peatlands. Additionally, these estimates reflect the costs of effective enforcement and management, but many existing protected areas lack adequate funds for effective enforcement (Adams et al., 2019; Barnes et al., 2018; Burner et al., 2004). Waldron et al. (2020) estimated that, across all ecosystems, tourism revenues directly attributable to protected area establishment were US$43/ha/yr, not including downstream revenues from industries that benefit from increased tourism. Inclusion of a tourism multiplier would substantially increase the estimated economic benefits of peatland protection.

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

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

Median 0.25
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 peatland 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 gradual, emergency brake, or delayed.

Protect Peatlands 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

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

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

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

Current Adoption

Because peatlands are characterized by their soils rather than by overlying vegetation, they are difficult to map at the global scale (Minasny et al., 2024). Mapping peatlands remains an active area of research, and the adoption values presented here are uncertain. We estimated that 22.6 Mha of peatlands are located within strictly protected PAs (IUCN classes I or II), and 82.3 Mha are within other or unknown PA classes (Table 3a–e; UNEP, 2022; UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2024), representing 22% of total global peatland area (482 Mha). Because of data limitations, we did not include Indigenous peoples’ lands in subsequent analyses despite their conservation benefits. There are an additional 186 Mha of peatlands within Indigenous peoples’ lands that are not classified as PAs, with a large majority (155 Mha) located in boreal regions (Table 3; Garnett et al., 2018; UNEP, 2022).

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

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

Unit: Mha protected

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

Unit: Mha protected

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

Unit: Mha protected

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

Unit: Mha protected

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

Unit: Mha protected

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

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

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

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

Unit: Mha of peatland protected/yr

25th percentile 0.24
Mean 0.87
Median (50th percentile) 0.50
75th percentile 0.89

Unit: Mha of peatland protected/yr

25th percentile 0.07
Mean 0.23
Median (50th percentile) 0.10
75th percentile 0.28

Unit: Mha of peatland protected/yr

25th percentile 0.00
Mean 0.04
Median (50th percentile) 0.01
75th percentile 0.04

Unit: Mha of peatland protected/yr

25th percentile 0.05
Mean 0.84
Median (50th percentile) 0.25
75th percentile 0.83
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

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

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

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

Unit: Mha protected

Peatland area (Mha) 284

Unit: Mha protected

Peatland area (Mha) 26

Unit: Mha protected

Peatland area (Mha) 12

Unit: Mha protected

Peatland area (Mha) 103

Unit: Mha protected

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

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

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

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

Unit: Mha protected

Current adoption 54
Achievable – low 199
Achievable – high 255
Adoption ceiling 284

Unit: Mha protected

Current adoption 13
Achievable – low 18
Achievable – high 24
Adoption ceiling 26

Unit: Mha protected

Current adoption 3
Achievable – low 9
Achievable – high 11
Adoption ceiling 12

Unit: Mha protected

Current adoption 35
Achievable – low 72
Achievable – high 92
Adoption ceiling 103

Unit: Mha protected

Current adoption 105
Achievable – low 297
Achievable – high 382
Adoption ceiling 425
Left Text Column Width

We estimated that PAs currently reduce emissions from peatland degradation by 0.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Table 7a-e). Achievable levels of peatland protection have the potential to reduce emissions 1.3–1.7 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, with a technical upper bound of 1.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. The estimate of climate impacts under current adoption does not include the large areas of peatlands protected by Indigenous peoples but not legally recognized as PAs. Inclusion of these areas would increase the current estimated impact of peatland protection to 0.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.

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

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.05
Achievable – low 0.18
Achievable – high 0.24
Adoption ceiling 0.26

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.06
Achievable – low 0.08
Achievable – high 0.11
Adoption ceiling 0.12

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.04
Achievable – low 0.12
Achievable – high 0.15
Adoption ceiling 0.17

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.46
Achievable – low 0.95
Achievable – high 1.22
Adoption ceiling 1.36

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.61
Achievable – low 1.33
Achievable – high 1.71
Adoption ceiling 1.90
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Extreme Weather Events

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

Health

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

Income and Work

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

Nature Protection

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

Water Resources

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

Water Quality

See Water Resources section above.

Risks

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

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

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Protected areas often include multiple ecosystems. Peatland protection will likely lead to protection of other ecosystems within the same areas, and the health of nearby ecosystems is improved by the services provided by intact peatlands. 

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

Competing

Protecting peatlands could limit land availability for renewable energy technologies and raw material and food production. Protect Peatlands competes with the following solutions for land.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha protected

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

Climate Impact

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

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Solution Basics

ha protected

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

Climate Impact

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

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Solution Basics

ha protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
13.47
units
Current 3.0×10⁶ 09.0×10⁶1.1×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

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

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Solution Basics

ha protected

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

Climate Impact

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

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Trade-offs

None

Action Word
Protect
Solution Title
Peatlands
Classification
Highly Recommended

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Improve mapping of peatland area, carbon content, emissions data, and monitoring methods, utilizing field measurements, models, satellite imagery, and GIS tools.
  • Develop land-use planning tools that help avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with protecting peatlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Create tools for local communities to monitor peatlands, such as mobile apps, e-learning platforms, and mapping tools.
  • Develop verifiable carbon credits using technology such as blockchain to improve the integrity of carbon markets.
  • Develop supply chain tracking software for investors and businesses seeking to create peat-free portfolios and products.

Further information:

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

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing emissions and maintaining carbon removal: High

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

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

The results presented in this document synthesize findings from 11 global datasets, supplemented by four regional studies on peatland loss rates in Southeast Asia. We recognize that geographic bias in the information underlying global data products creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Appendix

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

Peatland Extent

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

Scaling Procedures

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

Exclusion of Coastal Peatlands

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

Total Peatland Area

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

Protected Peatland Areas

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

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

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

Peatland Degradation and Emissions

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

Equation A1.

\[ Effectiveness = Peatland\text{ }loss_{avoided} \times \sum_{t=1}^{30}{Emissions} \]

Peatland Degradation Rates 

We calculated the avoided rate of peatland loss (%/yr) as the difference between the baseline rate of peatland loss without protection and the estimated rate of peatland loss within PAs (Equation A2), since PAs do not confer complete protection from ecosystem degradation. 

Equation A2.

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

We compiled baseline estimates of the current rates of peatland degradation from all causes (%/yr) from the existing literature (Table A1). Unfortunately, data on the rate of peatland loss within PAs are not available. However, satellite data have enabled in-depth, global-scale studies of the effectiveness of PAs at reducing tree cover loss. While not all peatlands are forested and degradation dynamics on peatlands can differ from those on forests writ large, these estimates are a reasonable approximation of the effectiveness of PAs at reducing peatland loss. We used the country-level estimates of the proportionate reduction in loss inside versus outside of PAs from Wolf et al. (2021), which we aggregated to latitude bands based on the median latitude of each country (Table A1).

Table A1. Biome-level annual baseline rate of peatland loss, the effectiveness of protection at reducing loss, and the annual avoided rate of peatland loss under protection.

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

Emissions Factors for Peatland Degradation

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

Equation A3.

\[ \sum_{t=1}^{30}{Emissions} = Biomass + \sum_{t=1}^{30}{(P_{ox} + DOC + M_{ditch} + M_{field} + N + Seq_{loss})} \]

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

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

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

Peatland Degradation Drivers 

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

Appendix References

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

IPCC Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. (2014). 2013 supplement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories: Wetlands (T. Hiraishi, T. Krug, K. Tanabe, N. Srivastava, J. Baasansuren, M. Fukuda, & T. G. Troxler, Eds.). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/Wetlands_Supplement_Entire_Report.pdf

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

Spawn, S. A., Sullivan, C. C., Lark, T. J., & Gibbs, H. K. (2020). Harmonized global maps of above and belowground biomass carbon density in the year 2010. Scientific Data, 7(1), 112. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0444-4

UNEP. (2022). Global peatlands assessment: The state of the world’s peatlands: Evidence for action toward the conservation, restoration, and sustainable management of peatlands. https://www.unep.org/resources/global-peatlands-assessment-2022

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

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
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 Health
back to top