Access to employment opportunities that support the economic status of households, communities, or governments.

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

Deploy Silvopasture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPCC (2019). Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Link to source: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/

IPCC AR6 WG3 (2022). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Eric Toensmeier

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

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

Table 1. Effectiveness at carbon sequestration.

Unit: t CO₂-eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

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

100-yr basis

Left Text Column Width

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

Cost

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

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

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

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

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂-eq

Median $43.25

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

Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

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

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

Permanence

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

Saturation

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

Current Adoption

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

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

Table 3. Current (2023) adoption level.

Unit: million ha

Mean 141.4
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

There is little quantifiable information reported about silvopasture adoption trends.

Adoption Ceiling

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

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

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

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

Table 4. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: ha converted

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

Unit: % of grazing land

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

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

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

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

Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mha

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

Unit: Mha

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

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

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

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

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

Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr

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

100-yr basis, New adoption only 

Left Text Column Width

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

Additional Benefits

Income and Work 

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

Food Security

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

Nature Protection

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

Animal Well-being

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

Land Resources

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

Water Quality

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

Risks

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

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

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

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

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

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

Silvopasture is a technique for restoring farmland.

Silvopasture is a form of savanna restoration.

Competing

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

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

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha converted from grazing land to silvopasture

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

Climate Impact

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

CO₂

Trade-offs

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

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

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

Maps Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Silvopasture
Classification
Highly Recommended

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in sequestering carbon: Mixed to High 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus regarding other climate impacts: Low

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

Consensus regarding adoption potential: Low

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

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Protect Seaweed Ecosystems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fdastudillo | iStock; Damocean | iStock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Christina Richardson, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • Avery Driscoll, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Avery Driscoll, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

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

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

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

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

Equation 1.

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

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

Unit: tCO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-year basis

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

Unit: tCO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-year basis

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

Unit: tCO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-year basis

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

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

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

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

Unit: 2023 US$/tCO₂‑eq , 100-yr basis

Estimate -72
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

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

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current Adoption

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

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

Unit: Mha protected

Strict protection 8.43
Nonstrict protection 11.4
Other 15.5
Total 35.3

Unit: Mha protected

Strict protection 9.28
Nonstrict protection 16.3
Other 18.0
Total 43.5

Unit: Mha protected

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

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

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

Unit: Mha/yr

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

Unit: Mha/yr

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

Unit: Mha/yr

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

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

Enable Download
On
Adoption Ceiling

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

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

Unit: Mha

Estimate 189.6

Unit: Mha

Estimate 243.0

Unit: Mha

Estimate 432.6
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

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

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

Unit: Mha

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

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

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

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

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

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

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

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

Unit: GtCO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

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

Extreme Weather Events

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

Income and Work

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

Food Security

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

Equality

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

Nature Protection

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

Water Quality

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

Risks

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

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

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

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

Competing

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

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha of seaweed ecosystem protected

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

Climate Impact

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

CO₂

Trade-offs

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

Subtidal brown
Subtidal red
Both

Global subtidal seaweed ecosystem distribution

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

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

Subtidal brown
Subtidal red
Both

Global subtidal seaweed ecosystem distribution

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

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

Maps Introduction

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

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

Action Word
Protect
Solution Title
Seaweed Ecosystems
Classification
Highly Recommended

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix

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

Seaweed Ecosystem Extent

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

Protected Seaweed Ecosystem Areas

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

Calculation of Effectiveness

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

Avoided Seaweed Ecosystem Conversion

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

Equation A1.

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

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

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

Equation A2.

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

Equation A3.

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

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

Equation A4.

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

Restore Peatlands

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

Key Takeaways

  • Restoring peatlands reduces GHG emissions from drained peatlands, with an overall effectiveness of 19.0-56.0 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 the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (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, Article 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), Article 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

Martens, H. R., Laage, K., Eickmanns, M., Drexler, A., Heinsohn, V., Wegner, N., Muster, C., Diekmann, M., Seeber, E., Kreyling, J., Michalik, P., & Tanneberger, F. (2023). Paludiculture can support biodiversity conservation in rewetted fen peatlands. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 18091. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-44481-0 

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), Article 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), Article 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 t 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 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 56,900,000
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 reduce emissions by 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 and 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

Peatland restoration 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, primarily 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
Gradual

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
Gradual

CO₂ , N₂O

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
47.8
units
Current Not Determined 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
Gradual

CO₂ , N₂O

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
56
units
Current Not Determined 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
Gradual

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 the 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 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 landowners 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 and clear 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 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, 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). Leifeld 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 Annual Cropping

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

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

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

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

Minimal Soil Disturbance

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

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

Permanent Soil Cover

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellows

  • Avery Driscoll

  • Erika Luna

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Eric Toensmeier

  • Aishwarya Venkat, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Emily Cassidy

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

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

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

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

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

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions and removing carbon.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

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

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

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

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

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis

Median 47.80
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

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

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

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

Current Adoption

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

Table 3. Current (2025) adoption level.

Unit: Mha of improved annual cropping

Estimate 267.4
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

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

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

Unit: Mha adopted/yr

Mean 9.99
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

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

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mha

Adoption ceiling 1,067
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

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

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

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mha

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

Unit: Mha installed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 8. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

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

(from nitrous oxide)

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

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

(from SOC)

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

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

Extreme Weather Events

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

Droughts

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

Income and Work

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

Food Security

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

Nature Protection

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

Land Resources

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

Water Quality

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

Risks

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

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

Interactions with Other Solutions

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

COMPETING

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

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

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

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

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha cropland

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

Climate Impact

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

CO₂ , N₂O

Trade-offs

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

t CO2-eq/ha
0≥ 400

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

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

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

t CO2-eq/ha
0≥ 400

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

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

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

Maps Introduction

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

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

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

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Annual Cropping
Classification
Highly Recommended

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness of cover cropping for sequestering carbon: 

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

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

Consensus of effectiveness of reduced tillage for sequestering carbon: Mixed

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

Nitrous oxide reduction: Mixed

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

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

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

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 Coastal Wetlands

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

Key Takeaways

  • Coastal wetlands – including mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrasses – take up carbon through photosynthesis and store it, mainly in sediments.
  • Almost 50% of coastal wetlands have been lost since 1900, and conversion rates remain high. Legal protection of coastal wetlands can reduce the rate of loss.
  • The effectiveness of coastal wetland protection is high: 7.88 t/ha/yr for mangroves, 4.78 t/ha/yr for salt marshes, and 3.56 t/ha/yr for seagrasses.
  • The total climate impact of coastal wetlands is limited by their relatively small areas, with a high achievable adoption level of 38 Mha providing a climate benefit of 0.20 t CO₂‑eq/yr.
Summary

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

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

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

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

Types of wetlands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Christina Richardson, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • Avery Driscoll

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

  • Paul West, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Avery Driscoll

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

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

Equation 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

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

Estimate 1

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

Estimate 2

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

Estimate -6

Negative value indicates cost savings.

Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

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

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

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

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

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

Current Adoption

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

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

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

Unit: million ha protected

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

Unit: million ha protected

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

Unit: million ha protected

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

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

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

Unit: ha/yr protected

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

Unit: ha/yr protected

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

Unit: ha/yr protected

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

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

Credit: Project Drawdown

Enable Download
Off
Adoption Ceiling

We estimate an adoption ceiling of 54.6 million ha of coastal wetlands globally, which includes 15.7 million ha of mangroves, 7.50 million ha of salt marshes, and 31.4 million ha of seagrasses (Tables 5a–c). This estimate is in line with recent existing global estimates of coastal wetlands (36–185 million ha), which have large ranges due to uncertainties surrounding seagrass and salt marsh distributions (Macreadie et al., 2021, Krause et al., 2025). The adoption ceiling of our solution is therefore a conservative estimate of potential climate impact if global areas are indeed larger than calculated. While the protection of all existing coastal wetlands is highly unlikely, these values are used to represent the technical limits of adoption of this solution.

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

Unit: million ha protected

Estimate 15.7

Unit: million ha protected

Estimate 7.50

Unit: million ha protected

Estimate 31.4
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We defined the lower end of the achievable range for coastal wetland protection (under IUCN categories I–IV) as 50% of the adoption ceiling and the higher end of the achievable range as 70% of the adoption ceiling for each ecosystem (Tables 6a–c). These numbers are ambitious but precedent exists to support them. For instance, roughly 11 countries already protect over 70% of their mangroves (Dabalà et al., 2023), and the global “30 by 30” target aims to protect 30% of ecosystems on land and in the ocean by 2030 (Roberts et al., 2020). Further, a significant extent of existing global coastal wetland areas already fall under non-strict protection categories not included in our analysis (V–VI and “Other”). These are prime candidates for conversion to stricter protection categories, so long as the designation confers real conservation benefits; recent work suggests that stricter protection can coincide with increased degradation in some mangroves (Heck et al., 2024).

Current adoption of PAs and MPAs in many countries with the highest land areas of coastal wetlands is low. For example, protection levels (IUCN I–IV) in countries with the top 10 greatest mangrove areas ranges between less than 1% (India, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Papua New Guinea) to 8.8–21.2% (Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Mexico;Dabalà et al., 2023). Expansion of PAs, particularly under IUCN I–IV categories, is a significant challenge with real implementation barriers due to competing land uses and local reliance on these areas for livelihoods. Further, protection does not guarantee conservation benefits, and significant funding is required to maintain/enforce these areas or they run the risk of becoming “paper parks” (Di Minin & Toivonen, 2015). Strong policy and financial incentives for conservation will be necessary to achieve these ambitious goals. Pathways for operationalizing protection could include finance, governance, and stakeholder alignment and will likely require a combination of these tactics around the world. 

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels for ecosystems.

Unit: million ha protected

Current adoption 2.94
Achievable – low 7.85
Achievable – high 11.0
Adoption ceiling 15.7

Unit: million ha protected

Current adoption 1.24
Achievable – low 3.75
Achievable – high 5.25
Adoption ceiling 7.50

Unit: million ha protected

Current adoption 3.86
Achievable – low 15.7
Achievable – high 22.0
Adoption ceiling 31.4
Left Text Column Width

We estimated that coastal wetland protection currently avoids approximately 0.04 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, with potential impacts of 0.27 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the adoption ceiling (Table 7a–c, see Appendix for more information on the calculations). The lower-end achievable scenario (50% protection) would avoid 0.14 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, and the upper-end achievable scenario (70% protection) would avoid 0.20 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Tables 7a–c). These values are in line with Macreadie et al. (2021), who estimated a maximum mitigation potential from avoided emissions due to degradation (land conversion) of 0.30 (range: 0.14–0.47) Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for mangrove, salt marsh, and seagrass ecosystems. Our estimate was slightly lower, but within their range, and differed in a few key ways. We accounted for the effectiveness of protection at reducing degradation (53–59%, instead of assuming 100%), included retained carbon sequestration with each hectare protected, and used slightly different loss rates and ecosystem areas.

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption for ecosystems.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.02
Achievable – low 0.06
Achievable – high 0.09
Adoption ceiling 0.12

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.01
Achievable – low 0.02
Achievable – high 0.03
Adoption ceiling 0.04

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.01
Achievable – low 0.06
Achievable – high 0.08
Adoption ceiling 0.11
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Extreme Weather Events

Wetlands buffer coastal communities from waves and storm surge due to extreme weather and have important roles in disaster risk mitigation (Sheng et al., 2022; Guannel et al., 2016). Mangroves slow the flow of water and reduce surface waves to protect more than 60 million people in low-lying coastal areas, mainly in low- and middle-income countries (McIvor et al., 2012; Hochard et al., 2021). Wetlands also protect structures against damage during storms and lead to savings in insurance claims (Barbier et al., 2013; Sheng et al., 2022). Mangroves provide an estimated US$65 billion in flood protection globally (Menéndez et al., 2020). A study of the damages of Hurricane Sandy found that wetlands in the northeastern United States avoided US$625 million in direct flood damages (Narayan et al., 2017).

Income and Work

Wetlands are a contributor to local livelihoods, providing employment for coastal populations via the fisheries and tourism that they support. Coastal ecosystems, such as mangroves, are crucial for subsistence fisheries as they sustain approximately 4.1 million small-scale fishers (Leal and Spalding, 2022). Wetlands provide sources of income for low-income coastal communities as they make small-scale fishing accessible, requiring limited gear and materials to fish (Cullen-Unsworth & Unsworth, 2018). The economic value of mangrove ecosystem services is estimated at US$33,000–57,000/ha/yr and is a major contributor to the national economies of low- and middle-income countries with mangroves (UNEP, 2014).

Food Security

Mangroves support the development of numerous commercially important fish species and strengthen overall fishery productivity. For example, research conducted across 6,000 villages in Indonesia found that rural coastal households near high and medium-density mangroves consumed more fish and aquatic animals than households without mangroves nearby (Ickowitz et al., 2023). Seagrasses also support fisheries as 20% of the world’s largest fisheries rely on seagrasses for habitats (Jensen, 2022). The amount and diversity of species within seagrasses also provide important nutrition for fishery species (Cullen-Unsworth & Unsworth, 2018).

Equality

Coastal wetlands are significant in cultural heritages and identities for nearby people. They can be associated with historical, religious, and spiritual values for communities and especially for Indigenous communities (UNEP, 2014). For example, a combination of sea-level rise and oil and gas drilling have contributed to the decline of coastal wetlands in Louisiana, which threatens livelihoods and deep spiritual ties of local Indigenous tribes (Baniewicz, 2020; Hutchinson, 2022). Indigenous people have a long history of managing and protecting coastal wetlands (Mathews & Turner, 2017). Efforts to protect these areas must include legal recognition of Indigenous ownership to support a just and sustainable conservation process (Fletcher et al., 2021).

Nature Protection

Coastal wetlands are integral in supporting the biodiversity of surrounding watersheds. High species diversity of mangroves and seagrasses provide a unique habitat for marine life, birds, insects, and mammals, and contain numerous threatened or endangered species (Green and Short, 2003; U.S. EPA, 2025a). A variety of species rely on wetlands for food and shelter, and they can provide temporary habitats for species during critical times in their life cycles, such as migration and breeding (Unsworth et al., 2022). Wetlands can improve water quality, making the surrounding ecosystem more favorable to supporting marine life (Cullen-Unsworth & Unsworth, 2018). Seagrasses can improve coral health by filtering water and reducing pathogens that could cause disease (Cullen-Unsworth & Unsworth, 2018).

Land Resources

Wetlands reduce coastal erosion which can benefit local communities during strong storms (Jensen, 2022). Wetlands mitigate erosion impacts by absorbing wave energy that would degrade sand and other marine sediments (U.S. EPA, 2025b). Specifically, mangroves reduce erosion through their aerial root structure that retain sediments that would otherwise degrade the shoreline (Thampanya et al., 2006).

Water Quality

Coastal wetlands improve the water quality of watersheds by filtering chemicals, particles (including microplastics), sediment, and cycling nutrients (Unsworth et al. 2022). There is even evidence that wetlands can remove viruses and bacteria from water, leading to better sanitation and health for marine wildlife and humans (Lamb et al., 2017).

Risks

There are several risks associated with coastal wetland protection. Leakage, wherein protection in one region could prompt degradation of another, could reduce climate benefits (Renwick et al., 2015). Strict conservation of coastal wetlands could impact local economies, creating “poverty traps” if protection threatens livelihoods (McNally et al., 2011). Conservation projects also risk unequal distribution of benefits (Lang et al., 2023). In places where habitats are fragmented or existing infrastructure limits landward migration, even protected coastal wetlands are at risk of being lost with climate change (commonly known as “the coastal squeeze”; Borchert et al., 2018). Funding gaps risk reversal of climate benefits despite initial conservation efforts; most MPAs and PAs report a lack of funding (Balmford et al., 2004; Bruner et al., 2004). If coastal wetlands are subjected to human impacts that protection cannot prevent, such as upgradient nutrient pollution, there could also be a risk of increased GHG emissions (Feng et al., 2025) and ecosystem degradation.

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Other ecosystems often occur adjacent to areas of coastal wetlands, and the health of nearby ecosystems can be improved by the services provided by intact coastal wetlands (and vice versa). 

Competing

Mangrove deforestation can occur for fuel wood needs. Fuel wood sourced from mangroves could be replaced with wood sourced from other forested ecosystems.

Protecting coastal wetlands could limit near-shore land availability for renewable energy technologies and competes with the following solution for land:

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
07.647.88median
units
Current 2.94×10⁶ 07.85×10⁶1.1×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.02 0.060.09
US$ per t CO₂-eq
1
Emergency Brake

CO₂

Solution Basics

ha protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
04.384.78median
units
Current 1.24×10⁶ 03.75×10⁶5.25×10⁶
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.01 0.020.03
US$ per t CO₂-eq
2
Emergency Brake

CO₂

Solution Basics

ha protected

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
03.153.56median
units
Current 3.86×10⁶ 01.57×10⁷2.2×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.01 0.060.08
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-6
Emergency Brake

CO₂

Trade-offs

Trade-offs associated with protection of coastal wetlands include emission of other GHGs not quantified in this solution that have higher global warming potentials (GWP) than CO₂. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions can be measurable in coastal wetland ecosystems, though it is important to recognize that degradation can significantly impact the magnitude and types of effluxes, too. In mangroves, methane evasion can offset carbon burial by almost 20% based on a 20-yr GWP (Rosentreter et al., 2018). In seagrasses, methane and nitrous oxide effluxes can offset burial on average, globally, by 33.4% based on a 20-yr GWP and 7.0% based on a 100-yr GWP (Eyre et al., 2023). Finally, conservation of coastal land can also restrict development of desirable coastal property for other uses.

% mangroves
> 0100

Global mangrove ecosystem distribution

Mangrove ecosystems cover approximately 15.7 million ha globally; just five countries (Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and Nigeria) contain nearly 50% of the world’s mangrove ecosystem area (FAO, 2020). Green shaded areas indicate the general location of mangrove ecosystems; zoom in for details.

Liu, L., Zhang, X., & Zhao, T. (2022). GWL_FCS30: global 30 m wetland map with fine classification system using multi-sourced and time-series remote sensing imagery in 2020 [Data set, Version 1]. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7340516

% mangroves
> 0100

Global mangrove ecosystem distribution

Mangrove ecosystems cover approximately 15.7 million ha globally; just five countries (Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, and Nigeria) contain nearly 50% of the world’s mangrove ecosystem area (FAO, 2020). Green shaded areas indicate the general location of mangrove ecosystems; zoom in for details.

Liu, L., Zhang, X., & Zhao, T. (2022). GWL_FCS30: global 30 m wetland map with fine classification system using multi-sourced and time-series remote sensing imagery in 2020 [Data set, Version 1]. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7340516

Maps Introduction

The current adoption, potential adoption, and effectiveness of coastal wetland protection is ecosystem-dependent (mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses) and geographically variable. While coastal wetland protection can help avoid GHG emissions anywhere they occur, ecosystems with high rates of loss from human activity, and large unprotected areas have the greatest potential for avoiding emissions via protection. 

For instance, seagrass ecosystems have the lowest current adoption of protection, ~12%, and highest adoption ceiling (31.4 Mha) (Tables 3 and 6). Protecting seagrasses also potentially can save money (–US$23/ha, Table 2) because they do not generally require land purchase (McCrea-Strub et al., 2011). Protection of seagrasses could therefore provide meaningful climate impact as well as substantial economic and ecologic benefits (Unsworth et al., 2022). 

For seagrasses, countries like Australia (~10 Mha), Indonesia (~3 Mha), the United States (~0.5 Mha), and regions such as the Gulf of Mexico (~2 Mha) and the Western Mediterranean (~0.4 Mha), could be good initial targets for protection due to their significant seagrass extents (Green and Short, 2003). Countries that contain the top 10 largest areas of mangroves (Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Myanmar, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea) might have the greatest potential to significantly expand adoption and scale climate impact (Dabalà et al., 2023). Likewise, salt marsh protection might be most beneficial in countries with the greatest extent, such as the United States (~1.7 Mha), Australia (~1.3 Mha), Russia (~0.7 Mha), and China (~0.6 Mha) (Mcowen et al., 2017).

Action Word
Protect
Solution Title
Coastal Wetlands
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Grant Indigenous communities full property rights and autonomy; support them in monitoring, managing, and enforcing MPAs/PAs/IPLs.
  • Ensure effective enforcement and monitoring of existing PAs using real-time and satellite data, if available.
  • Create or strengthen legislative protections for coastal wetlands, requiring their consideration during land use planning and allowing for local decision-making.
  • Start expanding PAs by first designating coastal wetlands adjacent to existing MPAs/PAs/IPLs.
  • Increase designated PAs and MPAs and consider all benefits (e.g., climate, human well-being, biodiversity) and dynamics (e.g., water flows, soil, agriculture) when designating PAs to ensure maximum benefits.
  • Ensure PAs and MPAs don’t displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information; create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Integrate river, watershed, and dam management into coastal wetland protection.
  • Streamline regulations and legal requirements, when possible to simplify management and designation of MPAs/PAs/IPLs.
  • Use financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, payments for ecosystem services (PES), and debt-for-nature swaps to protect coastal wetlands from development.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid roads and other development projects that might interfere with MPAs and PAs.
  • Coordinate MPA and PA efforts horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts), ensuring an inclusive process for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Incorporate MPAs/PAs/IPLs into local, national, and international climate plans (i.e., Nationally Determined Contributions).
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain coastal wetlands.
  • Create processes for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution.
  • Create sustainable use regulations for protected coastal wetland areas that provide resources to local communities.
  • Empower local communities to manage coastal wetlands and ensure a participatory approach to designating and managing MPAs and PAs.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on MPA regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Avoid draining or degrading coastal wetlands.
  • Avoid developing intact coastal wetlands, including small-scale shoreline developments such as docks.
  • Invest in coastal wetland conservation, restoration, sustainable management practices, specialized research facilities, and other R&D efforts.
  • Participate in stakeholder engagements and help policymakers designate coastal wetlands, create regulations, and implement robust monitoring and enforcement.
  • Grant Indigenous communities full property rights and autonomy and support them in monitoring, managing, and enforcing PAs.
  • Ensure protected coastal wetlands don’t displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Integrate river, watershed, and dam management into coastal wetland protection.
  • Use real-time monitoring and satellite data to manage and enforce PA and MPA regulations.
  • Create sustainable use regulations for protected coastal wetland areas that provide resources to the local community.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with protected coastal wetlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs and MPAs.
  • Advocate for or use financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to protect coastal wetlands from development.
  • Utilize financial mechanisms such as biodiversity offsets, PES, high-integrity voluntary carbon markets, and debt-for-nature swaps to fund coastal wetland protection.
  • Help classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information as well as create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Coordinate PA and MPA efforts horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts), ensuring an inclusive process for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain coastal wetlands.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on MPA/PA/IPL regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Ensure operations, development, and supply chains are not degrading coastal wetlands or interfering with PA or MPA management.
  • Integrate coastal wetland protection into net-zero strategies, if relevant.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Only purchase carbon credits from high-integrity, verifiable carbon markets, and do not use them as replacements for less carbon-intensive operations or claim them as offsets.
  • Consider donating to established coastal wetland protection funds in place of carbon credits.
  • Take advantage of financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to coastal wetlands from development.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Leverage political influence to advocate for stronger coastal wetland protection policies at national and international levels.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid roads and other development projects that might interfere with PAs and MPAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing MPAs/PAs/IPLs, expansion of new MPAs/PAs/IPLs, and more public investments.
  • Help manage and monitor protected coastal wetlands using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Provide financial support for MPAs/PAs/IPLs, monitoring, and enforcement.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with protected coastal wetlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or MPAs.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support the capacity of Indigenous and local communities for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Use or advocate for financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to protect coastal wetlands from development.
  • Help classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information as well as create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain coastal wetlands.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on MPA/PA/IPL regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.

Further information:

Investors
  • Ensure investment portfolios do not degrade coastal wetlands or interfere with MPAs/PAs/IPLs, using data, information, and the latest technology to inform investments.
  • Invest in coastal wetland protection, monitoring, management, and enforcement mechanisms.
  • Use financial mechanisms such as credible biodiversity offsets, PES, voluntary high-integrity carbon markets, and debt-for-nature swaps to fund coastal wetland protection.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for legal protection and public relations.
  • Share data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid investments that drive coastal wetland destruction with other investors and nongovernmental organizations.
  • Provide favorable loans to Indigenous communities and entrepreneurs and businesses protecting wetlands.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing MPAs/PAs/IPLs, expansion of new MPAs/PAs/IPLs, and public investments.
  • Help manage and monitor protected coastal wetlands, using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Provide technical and financial assistance to low- and middle-income countries and communities to protect coastal wetlands.
  • Provide financial support to organizations and institutions developing and deploying monitoring technology and conducting wetland research.
  • Help manage and monitor protected coastal wetlands using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with protected coastal wetlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or MPAs.
  • Help classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information as well as create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain coastal wetlands.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on MPA/PA/IPL regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing MPAs/PAs/IPLs, expansion of new MPAs/PAs/IPLs, and for public investments.
  • Advocate for or use financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, PES, and debt-for-nature swaps to protect coastal wetlands from development.
  • Help manage and monitor protected coastal wetlands using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with protected coastal wetlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or MPAs.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon and biodiversity markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for legal protection, management, and public relations.
  • Help classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information as well as create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.
  • Create programs that educate the public on MPA/PA/IPL regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Study ecosystem services provided by coastal wetlands and catalogue the benefits.
  • Improve mapping of coastal wetland areas, carbon content and dynamics, tidal impacts, degradation types and levels, and emissions data – specifically methane and nitrous oxide.
  • Improve monitoring methods using field measurements, models, satellite imagery, and GIS tools.
  • Research adjacent technologies and practices such as seaweed farm management, kelp forest conservation, sediment management, and biodiversity restoration.
  • Conduct meta-analyses or synthesize existing literature on coastal wetlands and protection efforts.
  • Explore ways to use smart management systems for PAs and MPAs, including the use of real-time and satellite data.
  • Develop land-use planning tools that help avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with PAs and MPAs or incentivize drainage.
  • Create tools for local communities to monitor coastal wetlands, such as mobile apps, e-learning platforms, and mapping tools.
  • Develop verifiable carbon credits using technology such as blockchain to improve the integrity of carbon markets.
  • Develop supply chain tracking software for investors and businesses seeking to create sustainable portfolios and products.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Avoid draining or degrading coastal wetlands.
  • Avoid developing intact coastal wetlands, including small-scale shoreline developments such as docks.
  • Help manage and monitor protected coastal wetlands using real-time monitoring and satellite data.
  • Establish coordinating bodies for farmers, developers, landowners, policymakers, dam operators, and other stakeholders to holistically manage PAs.
  • Advocate for enhanced enforcement of existing MPAs/PAs/IPLs, expansion of new MPAs/PAs/IPLs, and public investments.
  • Help conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that might interfere with protected coastal wetlands or incentivize drainage.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs or MPAs.
  • Help revise existing or create new high-integrity carbon and biodiversity markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Support Indigenous communities' capacity for management, legal protection, and public relations.
  • Use or advocate for financial incentives such as subsidies, tax breaks, and PES to protect coastal wetlands from development.
  • Help classify and map coastal wetlands and tidal information as well as create local, national, and international standards for classification.
  • Ensure PAs and MPAs don’t displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Work with insurance companies to reduce insurance premiums for properties that protect or maintain coastal wetlands.
  • Participate or volunteer in local coastal wetland protection efforts.
  • Plant native species to help improve the local ecological balance and stabilize the soil – especially on waterfront property.
  • Use nontoxic cleaning and gardening supplies, purchase unbleached paper products, and recycle to help keep pollution and debris out of wetlands.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes for sustainable management of coastal wetlands.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on MPA/PA/IPL regulations, the benefits of coastal wetlands, and how to use resources sustainably.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

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

There is high scientific consensus that coastal wetland protection is an important strategy for reducing wetland loss due to degradation and that degradation results in carbon stock loss from coastal wetlands. Rates of wetland loss are generally lower inside PAs than outside them. An analysis of over 4,000 PAs (wetland and non-wetland area) showed 59% of sites are in “sound management,” which generally reflects PAs with strong enforcement, management implementation, and conservation outcome indicators (Leverington et al., 2010). Here we used a conservative effectiveness of 59% for salt marshes and mangroves that are under legal protection, consistent with the value from Leverington et al. (2010). Other regional studies show similar PA effectiveness values, with 25–50% of wetland PAs in China exhibiting moderate to very high conservation effectiveness (Lu et al., 2016).

Seagrasses differ from mangroves and salt marshes in that they fall under MPA designation because they are subtidal, or submerged. In an analysis of effectiveness of 66 MPAs in 18 countries, nearly 53% of MPAs reported positive or slightly positive ecosystem outcomes (Rodríguez-Rodríguez & Martínez-Vega, 2022). Less is known about MPA effectiveness for seagrass meadows specifically; we assumed an effectiveness of 53% – similar to other MPAs.

Prevention of degradation via legal coastal wetlands protection avoids emissions by preserving carbon stocks while also retaining carbon sequestration capacity. Degradation of coastal wetlands results in measurable loss of short- and long-lived carbon stocks, with emissions that vary based on ecosystem and degradation type (Donato et al., 2011, Holmquist et al., 2023, Lovelock et al., 2017, Mcleod et al., 2011, Pendleton et al., 2012). Estimates of existing carbon stocks in coastal wetlands are substantial, ranging between 8.97–32.7 Gt of carbon (32.9–120 Gt CO₂‑eq ), most of which is likely susceptible to degradation (Macreadie et al., 2021).

The results presented in this document synthesize findings from 14 global datasets. We recognize that geographic bias in the information underlying global data products creates bias and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions and understudied ecosystems.

Appendix

In this analysis, we integrated global land cover data; shapefiles of PAs, MPAs, and IPLs; and ecosystem type (mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses) data on carbon emissions and sequestration rates to calculate currently protected coastal wetland area, total global coastal wetland area, and avoided emissions and additional sequestration from coastal wetland protection by ecosystem type (mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrasses).

Land Cover Data

We used two land cover data products to estimate coastal wetland extent by ecosystem type (mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses) inside and outside of PAs, MPAs, and IPLs: 1) a global 30 m wetland map, GWL_FCS30, for mangroves and salt marshes (Zhang et al., 2023), and 2) the global distribution of seagrasses map from UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC & Short, 2021).

Protected Coastal Wetland Areas

The IUCN defines PAs, including MPAs, as geographically distinct areas managed primarily for the long-term conservation of nature and ecosystem services. They are further disaggregated into six levels of protection, ranging from strict wilderness preserves to sustainable use areas that allow for some natural resource extraction (including logging). We calculated all levels of protection but only considered protection categories I–IV in our analysis of adoption. We recognized that other protection categories might provide conservation benefits. We excluded categories labeled as “Not Applicable (NAP),” “Not Reported (NR),” “Not Assigned (NAS),” as well as categories VI and VII. We also estimated IPL area based on available data, but emphasized that much of their extent has not been fully mapped nor recognized for its conservation benefits (Garnett et al., 2018). Additionally, the IPL dataset only covered land and therefore did not include seagrass ecosystems explicitly beyond the extent that ecosystems bordering terrestrial IPL areas were captured within the 1 km pixels of analysis. Coastal wetlands also lack data on the effectiveness of protection with IPLs, so we did not include IPL data as currently protected in our estimates.

We identified protected coastal wetland areas using the World Database on PAs (UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2024), which contains boundaries for each PA or MPA and additional information, including their establishment year and IUCN management category (Ia to VI, NAP, NR, and NAS). For each PA or MPA polygon, we extracted the coastal wetland area based on the datasets in the Land Cover Data section. Our spatial analysis required the center point of the pixel of each individual ecosystem under consideration to be covered by the PA or MPA polygon in order to be classified as protected, which is a relatively strict spatial extraction technique that likely leads to lower estimates of conservation compared to previous work with differing techniques (Dabalà et al., 2023).

We used the maps of IPLs from Garnett et al. (2018) to identify IPLs that were not inside of established PAs. We calculated the total coastal wetland area within IPLs (excluding PAs and MPAs) using the same coastal wetland data sources.

Coastal Wetland Loss, Additional Sequestration, and Emissions Factors

We aggregated coastal wetland loss rates by ecosystem type (mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses). We used data on PA and MPA effectiveness to calculate the difference in coastal wetland loss rates attributable to protection (Equation A1). We compiled baseline estimates of current rates of coastal wetland degradation from all causes (%/yr) from existing literature as shown in the “Detailed coastal wetland loss data” tab of the Supporting Data spreadsheet and used in conjunction with estimates of reductions in loss, 53–59%, associated with protection.

Equation A1.

\[ Wetland\text{ }loss_{avoided}=(Wetland\text{ }loss_{baseline}\times Reduction\text{ }in\text{ }loss) \]

We then used the ratio of coastal wetland loss in unprotected areas versus PAs to calculate avoided CO₂ emissions and additional carbon sequestration for each adoption unit. Specifically, we estimated the carbon benefits of avoided coastal wetland loss by multiplying avoided coastal wetland loss by avoided CO₂ emissions (30-yr time horizon; Equation A2) and carbon sequestration rates (30-yr time horizon; Equation A3) for each ecosystem type. Importantly, the emissions factors we used account for carbon in above- and below-ground biomass and generally do not assume 100% loss of carbon stocks because many land use impacts may retain some stored carbon, some of which is likely resistant to degradation (see the “2. current state effectiveness tab” in the spreadsheet for more information). We derived our estimates of retained carbon sequestration from global databases on sediment organic carbon burial rates in each ecosystem (see the “2. current state effectiveness tab” in the spreadsheet for more information).

Equation A2.

\[ Avoided\text{ } emissions = Wetland\text{ }loss_{avoided} \times \sum_{t=1}^{30}{Emissions} \]

Equation A3.

\[ Sequestration = Wetland\text{ }loss_{avoided} \times \sum_{t=1}^{30}{Sequestration} \]

We then estimated effectiveness (Equation A4) as the avoided CO₂ emissions and the retained carbon sequestration capacity attributable to the reduction in wetland loss conferred by protection estimated in Equations S1–S3.

Equation A4.

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

Finally, we calculated climate impact (Equation A5) by multiplying the adoption area under consideration by the estimated effectiveness from Equation A4.

Equation A5.

\[ Climate\text{ }impact = Effectiveness \times Adoption \]

Appendix References

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

UNEP-WCMC, & Short, F. T. (2021). Global distribution of seagrasses (version 7.1) [Data set]. UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre. https://doi.org/10.34892/x6r3-d211

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

Zhang, X., Liu, L., Zhao, T., Chen, X., Lin, S., Wang, J., Mi, J., & Liu, W. (2023). GWL_FCS30: a global 30 m wetland map with a fine classification system using multi-sourced and time-series remote sensing imagery in 2020. Earth System Science Data, 15(1), 265–293. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-265-2023

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon
Subscribe to Income &amp; work
back to top