Equal rights, opportunities, and treatment of all populations regardless of social, economic, cultural, and gender identities

Icon

Protect Forests

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Protect & Manage Ecosystems
Image
Fog sitting among trees of a dense forest canopy
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

We define the Protect Forests solution as the long-term protection of tree-dominated ecosystems through establishment of protected areas (PAs), managed with the primary goal of conserving nature, and land tenure for Indigenous peoples. These protections reduce forest degradation, avoiding GHG emissions and ensuring continued carbon sequestration by healthy forests. This solution addresses protection of forests on mineral soils. The Protect Peatlands and Protect Coastal Wetlands solutions address protection of forested peatlands and mangrove forests, respectively, and the Restore Forests solution addresses restoring degraded forests.

Extreme weather events
Food security,Health,Equality
Nature protection,Water quality
Overview

Forests store carbon in biomass and soils and serve as carbon sinks, taking up an estimated 12.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr  (including mangroves and forested peatlands; Pan et al., 2024). Carbon stored in forests is released into the atmosphere through deforestation and degradation, which refer to forest clearing or reductions in ecosystem integrity from human influence (DellaSala et al., 2025). Humans cleared an average of 0.4% (16.3 Mha) of global forest area annually 2001–2019 (excluding wildfire but including mangroves and forested peatlands; Hansen et al., 2013). This produced a gross flux of 7.4 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Harris et al., 2021), equivalent to ~14% of total global GHG emissions over that period (Dhakal et al., 2022). Different forest types store varying amounts of carbon and experience different rates of clearing; in this analysis, we individually evaluate forest protection in boreal, temperate, subtropical, and tropical regions. We included woodlands in our definition of forests because they are not differentiated in the satellite-based data used in this analysis.

We consider forests to be protected if they 1) are formally designated as PAs (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2024), or 2) are mapped as Indigenous peoples’ lands in the global study by Garnett et al. (2018). The International Union for Conservation of Nature defines PAs as areas managed primarily for the long-term conservation of nature and ecosystem services. They are disaggregated into six levels of protection, ranging from strict wilderness preserves to sustainable-use areas that allow for some natural resource extraction, including logging. We included all levels of protection in this analysis, primarily because not all PAs have been classified into these categories. We rely on existing maps of Indigenous peoples’ lands but emphasize that much of their extent has not been fully mapped nor recognized for its conservation benefits (Garnett et al., 2018). Innovative and equity-driven strategies for forest protection that recognize the land rights, sovereignty, and stewardship of Indigenous peoples and local communities are critical for achieving just and effective forest protection globally (Dawson et al., 2024; Fa et al., 2020; FAO, 2024; Garnett et al., 2018; Tran et al., 2020; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017).

Indigenous peoples’ lands and PAs reduce, but do not eliminate, forest clearing relative to unprotected areas (Baragwanath et al., 2020; Blackman & Viet 2018; Li et al., 2024; McNicol et al., 2023; Sze et al. 2022; Wolf et al., 2023; Wade et al., 2020). We rely on estimates of current PA effectiveness for this analysis but highlight that improving management to further reduce land use change within PAs is a critical component of forest protection (Jones et al., 2018; Meng et al., 2023; Vijay et al., 2018; Visconti et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2014).

Market-based strategies and other policies can complement legal protections by increasing the value of intact forests and reducing incentives for clearing (e.g., Garett et al., 2019; Golub et al., 2021; Heilmayr et al., 2020; Lambin et al., 2018; Levy et al., 2023; Macdonald et al., 2024; Marin et al., 2022; Villoria et al., 2022; West et al., 2023). The estimates in this report are based on legal protection alone because the effectiveness of market-based strategies is difficult to quantify, but strategies such as sustainable commodities programs, reducing or redirecting agricultural subsidies, and strategic infrastructure planning will be further discussed in an Appendix (coming soon). 

References

Adams, V. M., Iacona, G. D., & Possingham, H. P. (2019). Weighing the benefits of expanding protected areas versus managing existing ones. Nature Sustainability, 2(5), 404–411. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0275-5

Anderegg, W. R. L., Trugman, A. T., Badgley, G., Anderson, C. M., Bartuska, A., Ciais, P., Cullenward, D., Field, C. B., Freeman, J., Goetz, S. J., Hicke, J. A., Huntzinger, D., Jackson, R. B., Nickerson, J., Pacala, S., & Randerson, J. T. (2020). Climate-driven risks to the climate mitigation potential of forests. Science, 368(6497), eaaz7005. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz7005

Arneth, A., Leadley, P., Claudet, J., Coll, M., Rondinini, C., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Shin, Y.-J., Alexander, P., & Fuchs, R. (2023). Making protected areas effective for biodiversity, climate and food. Global Change Biology, 29(14), 3883–3894. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16664

Baragwanath, K., & Bayi, E. (2020). Collective property rights reduce deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(34), 20495–20502. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917874117

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

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

Blackman, A., & Veit, P. (2018). Titled Amazon Indigenous Communities Cut Forest Carbon Emissions. Ecological Economics, 153, 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.06.016

Brennan, A., Naidoo, R., Greenstreet, L., Mehrabi, Z., Ramankutty, N., & Kremen, C. (2022). Functional connectivity of the world’s protected areas. Science, 376(6597), 1101–1104. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl8974

Brinck, K., Fischer, R., Groeneveld, J., Lehmann, S., Dantas De Paula, M., Pütz, S., Sexton, J. O., Song, D., & Huth, A. (2017). High resolution analysis of tropical forest fragmentation and its impact on the global carbon cycle. Nature Communications, 8(1), 14855. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14855

Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., & Balmford, A. (2004). Financial Costs and Shortfalls of Managing and Expanding Protected-Area Systems in Developing Countries. BioScience, 54(12), 1119–1126. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[1119:FCASOM]2.0.CO;2

Buotte, P. C., Law, B. E., Ripple, W. J., & Berner, L. T. (2020). Carbon sequestration and biodiversity co-benefits of preserving forests in the western United States. Ecological Applications, 30(2), e02039. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2039

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

Dawson, N. M., Coolsaet, B., Bhardwaj, A., Booker, F., Brown, D., Lliso, B., Loos, J., Martin, A., Oliva, M., Pascual, U., Sherpa, P., & Worsdell, T. (2024). Is it just conservation? A typology of Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ roles in conserving biodiversity. One Earth, 7(6), 1007–1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.05.001

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

Delacote, P., Le Velly, G., & Simonet, G. (2022). Revisiting the location bias and additionality of REDD+ projects: The role of project proponents status and certification. Resource and Energy Economics, 67, 101277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2021.101277

Delacote, P., Velly, G. L., & Simonet, G. (2024). Distinguishing potential and effective additionality of forest conservation interventions. Environment and Development Economics, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X24000202

DellaSala, D. A., Mackey, B., Kormos, C. F., Young, V., Boan, J. J., Skene, J. L., Lindenmayer, D. B., Kun, Z., Selva, N., Malcolm, J. R., & Laurance, W. F. (2025). Measuring forest degradation via ecological-integrity indicators at multiple spatial scales. Biological Conservation, 302, 110939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110939

Dhakal, S., J.C. Minx, F.L. Toth, A. Abdel-Aziz, M.J. Figueroa Meza, K. Hubacek, I.G.C. Jonckheere, Yong-Gun Kim, G.F. Nemet, S. Pachauri, X.C. Tan, T. Wiedmann, 2022: Emissions Trends and Drivers. In IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Malley, (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.004

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

Dye, A. W., Houtman, R. M., Gao, P., Anderegg, W. R. L., Fettig, C. J., Hicke, J. A., Kim, J. B., Still, C. J., Young, K., & Riley, K. L. (2024). Carbon, climate, and natural disturbance: A review of mechanisms, challenges, and tools for understanding forest carbon stability in an uncertain future. Carbon Balance and Management, 19(1), 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-024-00282-0

Ellison, D., N. Futter, M., & Bishop, K. (2012). On the forest cover–water yield debate: From demand- to supply-side thinking. Global Change Biology, 18(3), 806–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02589.x

ESA CCI (2019). Copernicus Climate Change Service, Climate Data Store: Land cover classification gridded maps from 1992 to present derived from satellite observation. Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS). Accessed November 2024. doi: 10.24381/cds.006f2c9a

Fa, J. E., Watson, J. E., Leiper, I., Potapov, P., Evans, T. D., Burgess, N. D., Molnár, Z., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Duncan, T., Wang, S., Austin, B. J., Jonas, H., Robinson, C. J., Malmer, P., Zander, K. K., Jackson, M. V., Ellis, E., Brondizio, E. S., & Garnett, S. T. (2020). Importance of Indigenous Peoples’ lands for the conservation of Intact Forest Landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 18(3), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2148

FAO. 2024. The State of the World’s Forests 2024 – Forest-sector innovations towards a more sustainable future. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cd1211en

Filoso, S., Bezerra, M. O., Weiss, K. C. B., & Palmer, M. A. (2017). Impacts of forest restoration on water yield: A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 12(8), e0183210. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183210

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

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

Gallemore, C., Bowsher, A., Atheeque, A., Groff, E., & Furtado, J. (n.d.). The geography of avoided deforestation and sustainable forest management offsets: The enduring question of additionality. Climate Policy, 0(0), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2024.2383418

Gallemore, C., Bowsher, A., Atheeque, A., Groff, E., & Furtado, J. (2023). The geography of avoided deforestation and sustainable forest management offsets: The enduring question of additionality. Climate Policy, 0(0), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2024.2383418

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

Garrett, R. D., Levy, S., Carlson, K. M., Gardner, T. A., Godar, J., Clapp, J., Dauvergne, P., Heilmayr, R., le Polain de Waroux, Y., Ayre, B., Barr, R., Døvre, B., Gibbs, H. K., Hall, S., Lake, S., Milder, J. C., Rausch, L. L., Rivero, R., Rueda, X., … Villoria, N. (2019). Criteria for effective zero-deforestation commitments. Global Environmental Change, 54, 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.11.003

Gibbs, H. K., Ruesch, A. S., Achard, F., Clayton, M. K., Holmgren, P., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J. A. (2010). Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16732–16737. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0910275107

Golub, A., Herrera, D., Leslie, G., Pietracci, B., & Lubowski, R. (2021). A real options framework for reducing emissions from deforestation: Reconciling short-term incentives with long-term benefits from conservation and agricultural intensification. Ecosystem Services, 49, 101275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101275

Graham, V., Geldmann, J., Adams, V. M., Negret, P. J., Sinovas, P., & Chang, H.-C. (2021). Southeast Asian protected areas are effective in conserving forest cover and forest carbon stocks compared to unprotected areas. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 23760. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-03188-w

Grantham, H. S., Duncan, A., Evans, T. D., Jones, K. R., Beyer, H. L., Schuster, R., Walston, J., Ray, J. C., Robinson, J. G., Callow, M., Clements, T., Costa, H. M., DeGemmis, A., Elsen, P. R., Ervin, J., Franco, P., Goldman, E., Goetz, S., Hansen, A., … Watson, J. E. M. (2020). Anthropogenic modification of forests means only 40% of remaining forests have high ecosystem integrity. Nature Communications, 11(1), 5978. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19493-3

Gray, C. L., Hill, S. L. L., Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Börger, L., Contu, S., Hoskins, A. J., Ferrier, S., Purvis, A., & Scharlemann, J. P. W. (2016). Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nature Communications, 7(1), 12306. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12306

Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., Ellis, P. W., Houghton, R. A., Lomax, G., Miteva, D. A., Schlesinger, W. H., Shoch, D., Siikamäki, J. V., Smith, P., Woodbury, P., Zganjar, C., Blackman, A., Campari, J., Conant, R. T., Delgado, C., Elias, P., Gopalakrishna, T., Hamsik, M. R., … Fargione, J. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(44), 11645–11650. 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. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693. Data available on-line from: http://earthenginepartners.appspot.com/science-2013-global-forest. Accessed through Global Forest Watch on 01/12/2024. www.globalforestwatch.org

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

Heilmayr, R., Rausch, L. L., Munger, J., & Gibbs, H. K. (2020). Brazil’s Amazon Soy Moratorium reduced deforestation. Nature Food, 1(12), 801–810. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00194-5

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

Herrera, D., Pfaff, A., & Robalino, J. (2019). Impacts of protected areas vary with the level of government: Comparing avoided deforestation across agencies in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(30), 14916–14925. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802877116

Jones, K. R., Venter, O., Fuller, R. A., Allan, J. R., Maxwell, S. L., Negret, P. J., & Watson, J. E. M. (2018). One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science, 360(6390), 788–791. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9565

Kolden, C. A., Abatzoglou, J. T., Jones, M. W., & Jain, P. (2024). Wildfires in 2023. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 5(4), 238–240. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-024-00544-y

Kreye, M. M., Adams, D. C., & Escobedo, F. J. (2014). The Value of Forest Conservation for Water Quality Protection. Forests, 5(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/f5050862

Lambin, E. F., Gibbs, H. K., Heilmayr, R., Carlson, K. M., Fleck, L. C., Garrett, R. D., le Polain de Waroux, Y., McDermott, C. L., McLaughlin, D., Newton, P., Nolte, C., Pacheco, P., Rausch, L. L., Streck, C., Thorlakson, T., & Walker, N. F. (2018). The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nature Climate Change, 8(2), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0061-1

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

Levy, S. A., Cammelli, F., Munger, J., Gibbs, H. K., & Garrett, R. D. (2023). Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon could be halved by scaling up the implementation of zero-deforestation cattle commitments. Global Environmental Change, 80, 102671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2023.102671

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

Lindenmayer, D. (2024). Key steps toward expanding protected areas to conserve global biodiversity. Frontiers in Science, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsci.2024.1426480

Lutz, J. A., Furniss, T. J., Johnson, D. J., Davies, S. J., Allen, D., Alonso, A., Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Andrade, A., Baltzer, J., Becker, K. M. L., Blomdahl, E. M., Bourg, N. A., Bunyavejchewin, S., Burslem, D. F. R. P., Cansler, C. A., Cao, K., Cao, M., Cárdenas, D., Chang, L.-W., … Zimmerman, J. K. (2018). Global importance of large-diameter trees. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 27(7), 849–864. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12747

Macdonald, K., Diprose, R., Grabs, J., Schleifer, P., Alger, J., Bahruddin, Brandao, J., Cashore, B., Chandra, A., Cisneros, P., Delgado, D., Garrett, R., & Hopkinson, W. (2024). Jurisdictional approaches to sustainable agro-commodity governance: The state of knowledge and future research directions. Earth System Governance, 22, 100227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2024.100227

McCallister, M., Krasovskiy, A., Platov, A., Pietracci, B., Golub, A., Lubowski, R., & Leslie, G. (2022). Forest protection and permanence of reduced emissions. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.928518

Marin, F. R., Zanon, A. J., Monzon, J. P., Andrade, J. F., Silva, E. H. F. M., Richter, G. L., Antolin, L. A. S., Ribeiro, B. S. M. R., Ribas, G. G., Battisti, R., Heinemann, A. B., & Grassini, P. (2022). Protecting the Amazon forest and reducing global warming via agricultural intensification. Nature Sustainability, 5(12), 1018–1026. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00968-8

McNicol, I. M., Keane, A., Burgess, N. D., Bowers, S. J., Mitchard, E. T. A., & Ryan, C. M. (2023). Protected areas reduce deforestation and degradation and enhance woody growth across African woodlands. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01053-4

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

Meng, Z., Dong, J., Ellis, E. C., Metternicht, G., Qin, Y., Song, X.-P., Löfqvist, S., Garrett, R. D., Jia, X., & Xiao, X. (2023). Post-2020 biodiversity framework challenged by cropland expansion in protected areas. Nature Sustainability, 6(7), 758–768. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01093-w

Morales-Hidalgo, D., Oswalt, S. N., & Somanathan, E. (2015). Status and trends in global primary forest, protected areas, and areas designated for conservation of biodiversity from the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. Forest Ecology and Management, 352, 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.011

Mykleby, P. M., Snyder, P. K., & Twine, T. E. (2017). Quantifying the trade-off between carbon sequestration and albedo in midlatitude and high-latitude North American forests. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(5), 2493–2501. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071459

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

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

Oldekop, J. A., Rasmussen, L. V., Agrawal, A., Bebbington, A. J., Meyfroidt, P., Bengston, D. N., Blackman, A., Brooks, S., Davidson-Hunt, I., Davies, P., Dinsi, S. C., Fontana, L. B., Gumucio, T., Kumar, C., Kumar, K., Moran, D., Mwampamba, T. H., Nasi, R., Nilsson, M., … Wilson, S. J. (2020). Forest-linked livelihoods in a globalized world. Nature Plants, 6(12), 1400–1407. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-00814-9

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

Phillips, C. A., Rogers, B. M., Elder, M., Cooperdock, S., Moubarak, M., Randerson, J. T., & Frumhoff, P. C. (2022). Escalating carbon emissions from North American boreal forest wildfires and the climate mitigation potential of fire management. Science Advances, 8(17), eabl7161. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abl7161

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

Richter, J., Goldman, E., Harris, N., Gibbs, D., Rose, M., Peyer, S., Richardson, S., & Velappan, H. (2024). Spatial Database of Planted Trees (SDPT Version 2.0) [Dataset]. https://doi.org/10.46830/writn.23.00073

Rogers, B. M., Mackey, B., Shestakova, T. A., Keith, H., Young, V., Kormos, C. F., DellaSala, D. A., Dean, J., Birdsey, R., Bush, G., Houghton, R. A., & Moomaw, W. R. (2022). Using ecosystem integrity to maximize climate mitigation and minimize risk in international forest policy. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.929281

Ruseva, T., Marland, E., Szymanski, C., Hoyle, J., Marland, G., & Kowalczyk, T. (2017). Additionality and permanence standards in California’s Forest Offset Protocol: A review of project and program level implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 198, 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.082

Sarira, T. V., Zeng, Y., Neugarten, R., Chaplin-Kramer, R., & Koh, L. P. (2022). Co-benefits of forest carbon projects in Southeast Asia. Nature Sustainability, 5(5), 393–396. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00849-0

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

Smith, C., Baker, J. C. A., & Spracklen, D. V. (2023). Tropical deforestation causes large reductions in observed precipitation. Nature, 615(7951), 270–275. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05690-1

Soto-Navarro, C., Ravilious, C., Arnell, A., de Lamo, X., Harfoot, M., Hill, S. L. L., Wearn, O. R., Santoro, M., Bouvet, A., Mermoz, S., Le Toan, T., Xia, J., Liu, S., Yuan, W., Spawn, S. A., Gibbs, H. K., Ferrier, S., Harwood, T., Alkemade, R., … Kapos, V. (2020). Mapping co-benefits for carbon storage and biodiversity to inform conservation policy and action. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1794), 20190128. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0128

Sunderlin, W. D., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R., Santoso, L., & Wunder, S. (2005). Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: An Overview. World Development, 33(9), 1383–1402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.10.004

Sweeney, B. W., Bott, T. L., Jackson, J. K., Kaplan, L. A., Newbold, J. D., Standley, L. J., Hession, W. C., & Horwitz, R. J. (2004). Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(39), 14132–14137. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0405895101

Sze, J. S., Carrasco, L. R., Childs, D., & Edwards, D. P. (2022). Reduced deforestation and degradation in Indigenous Lands pan-tropically. Nature Sustainability, 5(2), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00815-2

Tauli-Corpuz, V., Alcorn, J., Molnar, A., Healy, C., & Barrow, E. (2020). Cornered by PAs: Adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost-effective conservation and climate action. World Development, 130, 104923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104923

Tran, T. C., Ban, N. C., & Bhattacharyya, J. (2020). A review of successes, challenges, and lessons from Indigenous protected and conserved areas. Biological Conservation, 241, 108271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108271

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

Vijay, V., Fisher, J. R. B., & Armsworth, P. R. (2022). Co-benefits for terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem services available from contrasting land protection policies in the contiguous United States. Conservation Letters, 15(5), e12907. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12907

Villoria, N., Garrett, R., Gollnow, F., & Carlson, K. (2022). Leakage does not fully offset soy supply-chain efforts to reduce deforestation in Brazil. Nature Communications, 13(1), 5476. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33213-z

Visconti, P., Butchart, S. H. M., Brooks, T. M., Langhammer, P. F., Marnewick, D., Vergara, S., Yanosky, A., & Watson, J. E. M. (2019). Protected area targets post-2020. Science, 364(6437), 239–241. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav6886

Wade, C. M., Austin, K. G., Cajka, J., Lapidus, D., Everett, K. H., Galperin, D., Maynard, R., & Sobel, A. (2020). What Is Threatening Forests in Protected Areas? A Global Assessment of Deforestation in Protected Areas, 2001–2018. Forests, 11(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11050539

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

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

Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B., & Hockings, M. (2014). The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature, 515(7525), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13947

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

Wolf, C., Levi, T., Ripple, W. J., Zárrate-Charry, D. A., & Betts, M. G. (2021). A forest loss report card for the world’s protected areas. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(4), 520–529. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01389-0

Zafra-Calvo, N., Pascual, U., Brockington, D., Coolsaet, B., Cortes-Vazquez, J. A., Gross-Camp, N., Palomo, I., & Burgess, N. D. (2017). Towards an indicator system to assess equitable management in protected areas. Biological Conservation, 211, 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.014

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Avery Driscoll, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D. 

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Tina Swanson, Ph.D.

  • Paul West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

We estimated that one hectare of forest protection provides total carbon benefits of 0.299–2.204 t CO₂‑eq/yr depending on the biome (Table 1; Appendix). This effectiveness estimate includes avoided emissions and preserved sequestration capacity attributable to the reduction in forest loss conferred by protection (Equation 1). First, we calculated the difference between the rate of human-caused forest loss outside of PAs (Forest lossbaseline) and the rate inside of PAs (Forest lossprotected). We then multiplied the annual rate of avoided forest loss by the sum of the carbon stored in one hectare of forest (Carbonstock) and the amount of carbon that one hectare of intact forest takes up over a 30-yr timeframe (Carbonsequestration). 

Equation 1.

Effectiveness= (Forest lossbaseline- Forest lossprotected)* (Carbonstock + Carbonsequestration) 

Each of these factors varies across biomes. Based on our definition, for instance, the effectiveness of forest protection in boreal forests is lower than that in tropical and subtropical forests primarily because the former face lower rates of human-caused forest loss (though greater wildfire impacts). Importantly, the effectiveness of forest protection as defined here reflects only a small percentage of the carbon stored (394 t CO₂‑eq ) and absorbed (4.25 t CO₂‑eq/yr ) per hectare of forest (Harris et al., 2021). This is because humans clear ~0.4% of forest area annually, and forest protection is estimated to reduce human-caused forest loss by an average of 40.5% (Curtis et al., 2018; Wolf et al., 2023). 

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at avoiding emissions and sequestering carbon (t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-yr basis), with carbon sequestration calculated over a 30-yr timeframe. Differences in values between biomes are driven by variation in forest carbon stocks and sequestration rates, baseline rates of forest loss, and effectiveness of PAs at reducing forest loss. See the Appendix for source data and calculation details. Emissions and sequestration values may not sum to total effectiveness due to rounding.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr

Avoided emissions 0.207
Sequestration 0.091
Total effectiveness 0.299

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr

Avoided emissions 0.832
Sequestration 0.572
Total effectiveness 1.403

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr

Avoided emissions 1.860
Sequestration 0.344
Total effectiveness 2.204

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr

Avoided emissions 1.190
Sequestration 0.300
Total effectiveness 1.489
Left Text Column Width
Cost

We estimated that forest protection costs approximately US$2/t CO₂‑eq (Table 2). Data related to the costs of forest protection are limited, and these estimates are uncertain. The costs of forest protection include up-front costs of land acquisition and ongoing costs of management and enforcement. The market price of land reflects the opportunity cost of not using the land for other purposes (e.g., agriculture or logging). Protecting forests also generates revenue, notably through increased tourism. Costs and revenues vary across regions, depending on the costs of land and enforcement and potential for tourism. 

The cost of land acquisition for ecosystem protection was estimated by Dienerstein et al. (2024), who found a median cost of US$988/ha (range: US$59–6,616/ha), which we amortized over 30 years. Costs of PA maintenance were estimated at US$9–17/ha/yr (Bruner et al., 2004; Waldron et al., 2020). These estimates reflect the costs of effective enforcement and management, but many existing PAs do not have adequate funds for effective enforcement (Adams et al., 2019; Barnes et al., 2018; Burner et al., 2004). Tourism revenues directly attributable to forest protection were estimated to be US$43/ha/yr (Waldron et al., 2020), not including downstream revenues from industries that benefit from increased tourism. Inclusion of a tourism multiplier would substantially increase the estimated economic benefits of forest protection.

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis

median 2
Left Text Column Width
Methods and Supporting Data

Crezee, B. et al. Mapping peat thickness and carbon stocks of the central Congo Basin using field data. Nature Geoscience 15: 639-644 (2022). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-00966-7. Data downloaded from https://congopeat.net/maps/, using classes 4 and 5 only (peat classes). 

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

ESA CCI (2019). Copernicus Climate Change Service, Climate Data Store: Land cover classification gridded maps from 1992 to present derived from satellite observation. Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store (CDS). Accessed November 2024. doi: 10.24381/cds.006f2c9a

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

Giri C, Ochieng E, Tieszen LL, Zhu Z, Singh A, Loveland T, Masek J, Duke N (2011). Status and distribution of mangrove forests of the world using earth observation satellite data (version 1.3, updated by UNEP-WCMC). Global Ecology and Biogeography 20: 154-159. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00584.x . Data URL: http://data.unep-wcmc.org/datasets/4

Gumbricht, T. et al. An expert system model for mapping tropical wetlands and peatlands reveals South America as the largest contributor. Global Change Biology 23, 3581–3599 (2017). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.13689 

Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S. V., Goetz, S. J., Loveland, T. R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C. O., & Townshend, J. R. G. (2013). High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science, 342(6160), 850–853. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693. Data available on-line from: http://earthenginepartners.appspot.com/science-2013-global-forest. Accessed through Global Forest Watch on 01/12/2024. www.globalforestwatch.org

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

Hastie, A. et al. Risks to carbon storage from land-use change revealed by peat thickness maps of Peru. Nature Geoscience 15: 369-374 (2022). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-00923-4

Miettinen, J., Shi, C. & Liew, S. C. Land cover distribution in the peatlands of Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra and Borneo in 2015 with changes since 1990. Global Ecological Conservation. 6, 67– 78 (2016). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989415300470

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

Wolf, C., Levi, T., Ripple, W. J., Zárrate-Charry, D. A., & Betts, M. G. (2021). A forest loss report card for the world’s protected areas. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(4), 520–529. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01389-0

Xu et al. PEATMAP: Refining estimates of global peatland distribution based on a meta-analysis. CATENA 160: 134-140 (2018). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0341816217303004 

Learning Curve

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

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

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

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

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

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Additionality, or the degree to which emissions reductions are above and beyond a baseline, is a key caveat for emissions avoided through forest protection (e.g., Fuller et al., 2020; Ruseva et al., 2017). Emissions avoided via forest protection are only considered additional if that forest would have been cleared or degraded without protection (Delacote et al., 2022; Delacote et al., 2024; Gallemore et al., 2020). In this analysis, additionality is addressed by using baseline rates of forest loss outside of PAs in the effectiveness calculation. Additionality is particularly important when forest protection is used to generate carbon offsets. However, the likelihood of forest removal in the absence of protection is often difficult to determine at the local level.

Permanence, or the durability of stored carbon over long timescales, is another important consideration not directly addressed in this solution. Carbon stored in forests can be compromised by natural factors, like drought, heat, flooding, wildfire, pests, and diseases, which are further exacerbated by climate change (Anderegg et al., 2020; Dye et al., 2024). Forest losses via wildfire in particular can create very large pulses of emissions (e.g., Kolden et al. 2024; Phillips et al. 2022) that negate accumulated carbon benefits of forest protection. Reversal of legal protections, illegal forest clearing, biodiversity loss, edge effects from roads, and disturbance from permitted uses can also cause forest losses directly or reduce ecosystem integrity, further increasing vulnerability to other stressors (McCallister et al., 2022).

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

We estimated that approximately 1,673 Mha of forests are currently recognized as PAs or Indigenous peoples’ lands (Table 3; Garnett et al., 2018; UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2024). Using two different maps of global forests that differ in their methodologies and definitions (ESA CCI, 2019; Hansen et al., 2013), we found an upper-end estimate of 1,943 Mha protected and a lower-end estimate of 1,404 Mha protected. These two maps classify forests using different thresholds for canopy cover and vegetation height, different satellite data, and different classification algorithms (see the Appendix for additional details). 

Based on our calculations, tropical forests make up the majority of forested PAs, with approximately 936 Mha under protection, followed by boreal forests (467 Mha), temperate forests (159 Mha), and subtropical forests (112 Mha). We estimate that 49% of all forests have some legal protection, though only 7% of forests are under strict protection (IUCN class I or II), with the remaining area protected under other IUCN levels, as OECMs, or as Indigenous peoples’ lands.

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current (circa 2023) forest and woodland area under legal protection by biome (Mha). The low and high values are calculated using two different maps of global forest cover that differ in methodology for defining a forest (ESA CCI, 2019; Hansen et al., 2013). Biome-level values may not sum to global totals due to rounding.

Unit: Mha

low 313
mean 467
high 621

Unit: Mha

low 135
mean 159
high 183

Unit: Mha

low 85
mean 112
high 138

Unit: Mha

low 872
mean 936
high 1,000

Unit: Mha

low 1,404
mean 1,673
high 1,943
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

We calculated the rate of PA expansion based on the year the PA was established. We do not have data on the expansion rate of Indigenous peoples’ lands, so the calculated adoption trend reflects only PAs. An average of 19 Mha of additional forests were protected each year between 2000 and 2020 (Table 4; Figure 1), representing a roughly 2% increase in PAs per year (excluding Indigenous peoples’ lands that are not located in PAs). There were large year-to-year differences in how much new forest area was protected over this period, ranging from only 6.4 Mha in 2020 to over 38 Mha in both 2000 and 2006. Generally, the rate at which forest protection is increasing has been decreasing, with an average increase of 27 Mha/yr between 2000–2010 declining to 11 Mha/yr between 2010–2020. Recent rates of forest protection (2010–2020) are highest in the tropics (5.6 Mha/yr), followed by temperate regions (2.4 Mha/yr) and the boreal (2.0 Mha/yr), and lowest in the subtropics (0.7 Mha/yr).

left_text_column_width

Figure 1. Trend in forest protection by climate zone. These values reflect only the area located within PAs; Indigenous peoples’ lands, which were not included in the calculation of the adoption trend, are excluded.

Enable Download
On

Table 4. 2000–2020 adoption trend.

Unit: Mha protected/yr

25th percentile 1.3
mean 2.8
median (50th percentile) 2.0
75th percentile 3.4

Unit: Mha protected/yr

25th percentile 1.9
mean 2.8
median (50th percentile) 2.5
75th percentile 3.1

Unit: Mha protected/yr

25th percentile 0.5
mean 1.0
median (50th percentile) 0.7
75th percentile 1.1

Unit: Mha protected/yr

25th percentile 5.4
mean 12.5
median (50th percentile) 7.7
75th percentile 17.8

Unit: Mha protected/yr

25th percentile 9
mean 19
median (50th percentile) 13
75th percentile 25
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

We estimated an adoption ceiling of 3,370 Mha of forests globally (Table 5), defined as all existing forest areas, excluding peatlands and mangroves. Of the calculated adoption ceiling, 469 Mha of boreal forests, 282 Mha of temperate forests, 211 Mha of subtropical forests, and 734 Mha of tropical forests are currently unprotected. The high and low values represent estimates of currently forested areas from two different maps of forest cover that use different methodologies and definitions (ESA CCI, 2019; Hansen et al., 2013). While it is not socially, politically, or economically realistic that all existing forests could be protected, these values represent the technical upper limit to adoption of this solution. Additionally, some PAs allow for ongoing sustainable use of resources, enabling some demand for wood products to be met via sustainable use of trees in PAs.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mha protected

low 686
mean 936
high 1,186

Unit: Mha protected

low 385
mean 441
high 498

Unit: Mha protected

low 260
mean 323
high 385

Unit: Mha protected

low 1,557
mean 1,669
high 1,782

Unit: Mha protected

low 2,889
mean 3,370
high 3,851
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We defined the lower end of the achievable range for forest protection as all high integrity forests in addition to forests in existing PAs and Indigenous peoples’ lands, totaling 2,297 Mha. We estimated that there are 624 Mha of unprotected high integrity forests, based on maps of forest integrity developed by Grantham et al. (2020). High integrity forests have experienced little disturbance from human pressures (i.e., logging, agriculture, and buildings), are located further away from areas of human disturbance, and are well-connected to other forests. High integrity forests are a top priority for protection as they have particularly high value with respect to biodiversity and ecosystem service provisioning. These forests are also not currently being used to meet human demand for land or forest-derived products, and thus their protection may be more feasible. 

To estimate the upper end of the achievable range, we excluded the global areas of planted trees and tree crops from the adoption ceiling (Richter et al., 2024), comprising approximately 335 Mha globally (Table 6). Planted trees include tree stands established for crops such as oil palm, products such as timber and fiber production, and those established as windbreaks or for ecosystem services such as erosion control. These stands are often actively managed and are unlikely to be protected.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels. 

Unit: Mha protected

Current Adoption 467
Achievable – Low 847
Achievable – High 861
Adoption ceiling 936

Unit: Mha protected

Current Adoption 159
Achievable – Low 204
Achievable – High 378
Adoption ceiling 441

Unit: Mha protected

Current Adoption 112
Achievable – Low 126
Achievable – High 219
Adoption ceiling 323

Unit: Mha protected

Current Adoption 936
Achievable – Low 1,120
Achievable – High 1,577
Adoption ceiling 1,669

Unit: Mha protected

Current Adoption 1,673
Achievable – Low 2,297
Achievable – High 3,035
Adoption ceiling 3,370
Left Text Column Width

We estimated that forest protection currently avoids approximately 2.00 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, with potential impacts of 2.49 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the low-achievable scenario, 3.62 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr  at the high-achievable scenario, and 4.10 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the adoption ceiling (Table 7). Although not directly comparable due to the inclusion of different land covers, these values are aligned with Griscom et al. (2017) estimates that forest protection could avoid 3.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr and the IPCC estimate that protection of all ecosystems could avoid 6.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Nabuurs et al., 2022).

Note that the four adoption scenarios vary only with respect to the area under protection. Increases in either the rate of forest loss that would have occurred if the area had not been protected or in the effectiveness of PAs at avoiding forest loss would substantially increase the climate impacts of forest protection. For instance, a hypothetical 50% increase in the rate of forest loss outside of PAs would increase the carbon impacts of the current adoption, low achievable, high achievable, and adoption ceiling scenarios to 3.0, 3.7, 5.4, and 6.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, respectively. Similarly, if legal forest protection reduced forest loss twice as much as it currently does, the climate impacts of the four scenarios would increase to 3.9, 4.8, 7.0, and 7.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, respectively.

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Boreal 0.14
Achievable – Low 0.25
Achievable – High 0.26
Adoption ceiling 0.28

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.22
Achievable – Low 0.29
Achievable – High 0.53
Adoption ceiling 0.62

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.25
Achievable – Low 0.28
Achievable – High 0.48
Adoption ceiling 0.71

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 1.39
Achievable – Low 1.67
Achievable – High 2.35
Adoption ceiling 2.49

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 2.00
Achievable – Low 2.49
Achievable – High 3.62
Adoption ceiling 4.10
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Water quality

Forests act as a natural water filter and can maintain and improve water quality (Melo et al., 2021). Forests can also retain nutrients from polluting the larger watershed (Sweeney et al., 2004). For example, forests can uptake excess nutrients like nitrogen, reducing their flow into surrounding water (Sarira et al., 2022). These excessive nutrients can cause eutrophication and algal blooms that negatively impact water quality and aquatic life. 

Biodiversity

Forests are home to a wide range of species and habitats and are essential for safeguarding biodiversity. Forests have high above- and belowground carbon density, high tree species richness, and often provide habitat to threatened and endangered species (Buotte et al., 2020). PAs can aid in avoiding extinctions by protecting rare and threatened species (Dinerstein et al. 2024). In Southeast Asia, protecting 58% of threatened forests could safeguard about half of the key biodiversity areas in the region (Sarira et al., 2022). 

Resilience to extreme weather events

Protected forests are more biodiverse and therefore more resilient and adaptable, providing higher-quality ecosystem services to surrounding communities (Gray et al., 2016). Protected forests can also buffer surrounding areas from the effects of extreme weather events. By increasing plant species richness, forest preservation can contribute to drought and fire tolerance (Buotte et al., 2020). Forests help regulate local climate by reducing temperature extremes (Lawrence et al., 2022). Studies have shown that the extent of forest coverage helps to alleviate vulnerability associated with heat effects (Walton et al., 2016). Tropical deforestation threatens human well-being by removing critical local cooling effects provided by tropical forests, exacerbating extreme heat conditions in already vulnerable regions (Seymour et al., 2022).

Food security

Protecting forests in predominantly natural areas can improve food security by supporting crop pollination of nearby agriculture. Sarira et al. (2022) found that protecting 58% of threatened forests in Southeast Asia could support the dietary needs of about 305,000–342,000 people annually. Forests also provide a key source of income and livelihoods for subsistence households and individuals (de Souza et al., 2016; Herrera et al., 2017; Naidoo et al., 2019). By maintaining this source of income through forest protection, households can earn sufficient income to ensure food security. 

Health

Protected forests can benefit the health and well-being of surrounding communities through impacts on the environment and local economies. Herrera et al. (2017) found that in rural areas of low- and middle-income countries, household members living downstream of higher tree cover had a lower probability of diarrheal disease. Proximity to PAs can benefit local tourism, which may provide more economic resources to surrounding households. Naidoo et al. (2019) found that households near PAs in low- and middle-income countries were more likely to have higher levels of wealth and were less likely to have children who were stunted. Reducing deforestation can improve health by lowering vector-borne diseases, mitigating extreme weather impacts, and improving air quality (Reddington et al., 2015). 

Equality

Indigenous peoples have a long history of caring for and shaping landscapes that are rich with biodiversity (Fletcher et al., 2021). Indigenous communities provide vital ecological functions for preserving biodiversity, like seed dispersal and predation (Bliege Bird & Nimmo, 2018). Indigenous peoples also have spiritual and cultural ties to their lands (Garnett et al., 2018). Establishing protected areas must prioritize the return of landscapes to Indigenous peoples so traditional owners can feel the benefits of biodiversity. However, the burden of conservation should not be placed on Indigenous communities without legal recognition or support (Fa et al., 2020). In fact, land grabs and encroachments on Indigenous lands have led to greater deforestation pressure (Sze et al., 2022). Efforts to protect these lands must include legal recognition of Indigenous ownership to support a just and sustainable conservation process (Fletcher et al., 2021).

left_text_column_width
Risks

Ecosystem protection initiatives that are not led by or undertaken in close collaboration with local communities can compromise community sovereignty and create injustice and inequity (Baragwanath et al., 2020; Blackman & Viet 2018; Dawson et al., 2024; Fa et al., 2020; FAO, 2024; Garnett et al. 2018; Sze et al. 2022; Tauli-Corpuz et al., 2020). Forest protection has the potential to be a win-win for climate and communities, but only if PAs are established with respect to livelihoods and other socio-ecological impacts, ensuring equity in procedures, recognition, and the distribution of benefits (Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017).

Leakage is a key risk of relying on forest protection as a climate solution. Leakage occurs when deforestation-related activities move outside of PA boundaries, resulting in the relocation of, rather than a reduction in, emissions from forest loss. If forest protection efforts are not coupled with policies to reduce incentives for forest clearing, leakage will likely offset some of the emissions avoided through forest protection. Additional research is needed to comprehensively quantify the magnitude of leakage effects, though two regional-scale studies found only small negative effects (Fuller et al., 2020; Herrera et al., 2019).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Other intact and degraded ecosystems often occur within areas of forest protection. Therefore, forest protection can facilitate natural restoration of these other degraded ecosystems, and increase the health of adjacent ecosystems.

left_text_column_width

Reducing the demand for agricultural land will reduce barriers to forest protection.

left_text_column_width

Competing

Forest protection will decrease the availability and increase the prices of wood feedstocks for other applications.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

1 hectare of forest protected

tCO2-eq/unit/yr
0.3
units
Current 4.67×10⁸8.47×10⁸8.61×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

GtCO2-eq/yr
Current 0.14 0.250.26
US$ per tCO2-eq
2
Emergency Brake

CO₂

Solution Basics

1 hectare of forest protected

tCO2-eq/unit/yr
1.4
units
Current 1.59×10⁸2.04×10⁸3.77×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

GtCO2-eq/yr
Current 0.22 0.290.53
US$ per tCO2-eq
2
Emergency Brake

CO₂

Solution Basics

1 hectare of forest protected

tCO2-eq/unit/yr
2.2
units
Current 1.12×10⁸1.26×10⁸2.19×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

GtCO2-eq/yr
Current 0.25 0.280.48
US$ per tCO2-eq
2
Emergency Brake

CO₂

Solution Basics

1 hectare of forest protected

tCO2-eq/unit/yr
1.49
units
Current 9.36×10⁸1.12×10⁹1.58×10⁹
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

GtCO2-eq/yr
Current 1.39 1.672.35
US$ per tCO2-eq
2
Emergency Brake

CO₂

% tree cover
0100

Tree cover, 2000 (excluding mangroves and peatlands)

We exclude mangroves and peatlands because they are addressed in other solutions.

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

Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C.O., and Townshend, J.R.G. (2013). High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change [Data set]. Science 342 (15 November): 850-53. https://glad.earthengine.app/view/global-forest-change

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

% tree cover
0100

Tree cover, 2000 (excluding mangroves and peatlands)

We exclude mangroves and peatlands because they are addressed in other solutions.

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

Hansen, M.C., Potapov, P.V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S.A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S.V., Goetz, S.J., Loveland, T.R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C.O., and Townshend, J.R.G. (2013). High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change [Data set]. Science 342 (15 November): 850-53. https://glad.earthengine.app/view/global-forest-change

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

Geographic Guidance Introduction

The adoption, potential adoption, and effectiveness of forest protection are highly geographically variable. While forest protection can help avoid emissions anywhere that forests occur, areas with high rates of forest loss from human drivers and particularly carbon-rich forests have the greatest potential for avoiding emissions via forest protection. The tropics and subtropics are high-priority areas for forest protection as they contain 55% of currently unprotected forest area, forest loss due to agricultural expansion is particularly concentrated in these regions (Curtis et al., 2018; West et al., 2014; Gibbs et al., 2010), and tend to have larger biomass carbon stocks than boreal forests (Harris et al., 2021). 

Developed countries also have significant potential to protect remaining old and long unlogged forests and foster recovery in secondary natural forests. The top 10 forested countries include Canada, the USA, Russia and even Australia, with the latter moving towards ending commodity production in its natural forests and increasing formal protection. Restoration of degraded forests is addressed in the “Forest Restoration” solution, but including regenerating forests in well designed protected areas is well within the capacity of every developed country.

Buffering and reconnecting existing high integrity forests is a low risk climate solution that increases current and future forest ecosystem resilience and adaptive capacity (Brennan et al., 2022; Brink et al., 2017; Grantham et al., 2020; Rogers et al., 2022). Forests with high ecological integrity provide outsized benefits for carbon storage and biodiversity and have greater resilience, making them top priorities for protection (Grantham et al., 2020; Rogers et al., 2022). Within a given forest, large-diameter trees similarly provide outsized carbon storage and biodiversity benefits, comprising only 1% of trees globally but storing 50% of the above ground forest carbon (Lutz et al., 2018). Additionally, forests that improve protected area connectivity (Brennan et al., 2022; Brink et al., 2017), areas at high risk of loss (particularly to expansion of commodity agriculture; Curtis et al., 2018; Hansen et al., 2013), and areas with particularly large or specialized benefits for biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being (Dinerstein et al., 2024; Sarira et al., 2022; Soto-Navarro et al., 2020) may be key targets for forest protection.

Action Word
Protect
Solution Title
Forests
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Set achievable targets and pledges for PA designation and set clear effectiveness goals for PAs, emphasizing the effectiveness of current PAs before seeking to expand designations.
  • Use a variety of indicators to measure effectiveness, such as estimated avoided deforestation.
  • Ensure public procurement utilizes deforestation-free products and supply chains.
  • Grant Indigenous communities full property rights and autonomy and support them in monitoring, managing, and enforcing PAs.
  • Ensure PAs don’t displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Invest in PA infrastructure, monitoring, management, and enforcement mechanisms.
  • Utilize real-time monitoring and satellite data such as the “Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation” (DETER).
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes like the Forest Stewardship Council for sustainable logging practices.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid roads and other development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Create processes for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution.
  • Remove harmful agricultural and logging subsidies.
  • Prioritize reducing food loss and waste.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use forest resources sustainably.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Set achievable targets and pledges for PA designation and set clear effectiveness goals for PAs, emphasizing the effectiveness of current PAs before seeking to expand designations
  • Use a variety of indicators to measure effectiveness, such as estimated avoided deforestation.
  • Ensure PAs don’t displace, violate rights, or reduce access to vital resources for local and Indigenous communities.
  • Utilize real-time monitoring and satellite data such as the “Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation” (DETER).
  • Create sustainable use regulations for PA areas that provide resources to the local community.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Grant Indigenous communities full property rights and autonomy and support them in monitoring, managing, and enforcing PAs.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes like the Forest Stewardship Council for sustainable logging practices.
  • Create processes for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution.
  • Create education programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use forest resources sustainably.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Create deforestation-free supply chains, utilizing data, information, and the latest technology to inform product sourcing.
  • Integrate deforestation-free business and investment policies and practices in Net-Zero strategies.
  • Only purchase carbon credits from high-integrity, verifiable carbon markets and do not use them as replacements for reducing emissions.
  • Help shift the public narrative around carbon markets as integrity increases to boost education, dialogue, and awareness.
  • Develop financial instruments to invest in PA jurisdictions, focusing on supporting Indigenous communities.
  • Join or create public-private partnerships, alliances, or coalitions of stakeholders and rightsholders to support PAs and advance deforestation-free markets.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes like the Forest Stewardship Council for sustainable logging practices.
  • Conduct proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for public relations and communications.
  • Support education programs that educate the public on PA regulations, the benefits of the regulations, and how to use forest resources sustainably.
  • Leverage political influence to advocate for stronger PA policies at national and international levels, especially policies that reduce deforestation pressure. 

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Ensure operations utilize deforestation-free products and supply chains.
  • Advocate for PAs and for public investments and evaluation indicators to strengthen the effectiveness of PAs.
  • Assist in managing and monitoring PAs, utilizing real-time monitoring and satellite data such as the “Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation” (DETER).
  • Provide financial support for PAs management, monitoring, and enforcement.
  • Assist in conducting proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Advocate for creating legal grievance processes, dispute resolution mechanisms, and restitution procedures for violations or disagreements over PAs.
  • Support high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Help shift the public narrative around carbon markets as integrity increases to boost education, dialogue, and awareness.
  • Support PAs, businesses, and investors by sharing data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid deforestation.
  • Help shift public narratives to mobilize public action and build political will for PAs by creating educational campaigns and strengthening networks of stakeholders and rightsholders.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes like the Forest Stewardship Council for sustainable logging practices.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for legal protection and public relations.
  • Advocate for non-timber forest products to support local and Indigenous communities.
  • Advocate to remove harmful agricultural subsidies and prioritize reducing food loss and waste.

Further information:

Investors
  • Create deforestation-free investment portfolios, utilizing data, information, and the latest technology to inform investments.
  • Invest in PA infrastructure, monitoring, management, and enforcement mechanisms.
  • Invest in green bonds or high-integrity carbon credits for forest conservation efforts.
  • Develop financial instruments to invest in PA jurisdictions, focusing on supporting Indigenous communities.
  • Support PAs, other investors, and NGOs by sharing data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid investments that drive deforestation.
  • Join, support, or create science-based certification schemes like the Forest Stewardship Council for sustainable logging practices.
  • Help shift public narratives to mobilize public action and build political will for PAs by creating educational campaigns and strengthening networks of stakeholders and rightsholders.
  • Require portfolio companies to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains and ask that they demonstrate strong PA practices.
  • Consider opportunities to invest in forest monitoring technologies or bioeconomy products derived from standing forests (e.g., nuts, berries, or other derivatives)

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Ensure operations utilize deforestation-free products and supply chains.
  • Provide financial support for PAs management, monitoring, and enforcement.
  • Assist in monitoring PAs, utilizing real-time monitoring and satellite data such as the “Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation” (DETER).
  • Assist in conducting proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Support and finance high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Help shift the public narrative around carbon markets as integrity increases to boost education, dialogue, and awareness.
  • Support PAs, businesses, and investors by sharing data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid deforestation.
  • Help shift public narratives to mobilize public action and build political will for PAs by creating educational campaigns and strengthening networks of stakeholders and rightsholders.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for public relations and communications.
  • Financially support Indigenous land tenure.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes like the Forest Stewardship Council for sustainable logging practices.
  • Advocate for PAs and for public investments and evaluation indicators to strengthen the effectiveness of PAs.
  • Advocate for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution processes.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Advocate for PAs and for public investments and evaluation indicators to strengthen the effectiveness of PAs.
  • Assist in monitoring PAs, utilizing real-time monitoring and satellite data such as the “Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation” (DETER).
  • Assist in conducting proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Advocate for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution processes.
  • Support high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Help shift the public narrative around carbon markets as integrity increases to boost education, dialogue, and awareness.
  • Support PAs, businesses, and investors by sharing data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid deforestation.
  • Help shift public narratives to mobilize public action and build political will for PAs by creating educational campaigns and strengthening networks of stakeholders and rightsholders.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for public relations and communications.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Improving PA monitoring methods and data collection, utilizing satellite imagery and GIS tools.
  • Develop land-use planning tools that help avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Create tools for local communities to monitor PAs, such as mobile apps, e-learning platforms, and mapping tools.
  • Conduct evaluations of the species richness of potential PAs and recommend areas of high biodiversity to be designated as PAs.
  • Develop verifiable carbon credits using technology such as blockchain to improve the integrity of carbon markets.
  • Develop supply chain tracking software for investors and businesses seeking to create deforestation-free portfolios and products.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Ensure purchases and investments utilize deforestation-free products and supply chains.
  • Advocate for PAs and for public investments and evaluation indicators to strengthen the effectiveness of PAs.
  • Assist in monitoring PAs, utilizing real-time monitoring and satellite data such as the “Real-Time System for Detection of Deforestation” (DETER).
  • Assist in conducting proactive land-use planning to avoid infrastructure or development projects that may interfere with PAs or incentivize deforestation.
  • Advocate for legal grievances, dispute resolution, and restitution processes.
  • Support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for public relations and communications.
  • Assist with evaluations of the species richness of potential PAs and advocate for PAs in areas of high biodiversity that are threatened.
  • Help shift public narratives to mobilize public action and build political will for PAs by creating educational campaigns and strengthening networks of stakeholders and rightsholders.
  • Undertake forest protection and expansion initiatives locally by working to preserve existing forests and restore degraded forest areas.
  • Engage in citizen science initiatives by partnering with researchers or conservation groups to monitor PAs and document threats. 

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

There is high scientific consensus that forest protection is a key strategy for reducing forest loss and addressing climate change. Rates of forest loss are lower inside of PAs and Indigenous peoples’ lands than outside of them. Globally, Wolf et al. (2021) found that rates of forest loss inside PAs are 40.5% lower on average than in unprotected areas, and Li et al. (2024) estimated that overall forest loss is 14% lower in PAs relative to unprotected areas. Regional studies find similar average effects of PAs on deforestation rates. For instance, McNichol et al. (2023) reported 39% lower deforestation rates in African woodlands in PAs relative to unprotected areas, and Graham et al. (2021) reported 69% lower deforestation rates in PAs relative to unprotected areas in Southeast Asia. In the tropics, Sze et al. (2022) found that rates of forest loss were similar between Indigenous lands and PAs, with forest loss rates reduced 17–29% relative to unprotected areas. Baragwanath & Bayi (2020) reported a 75% decline in deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon when Indigenous peoples are granted full property rights.

Reductions in forest loss lead to proportionate reductions in CO₂ emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that ecosystem protection, including forests, peatlands, grasslands, and coastal wetlands, has a technical mitigation potential of 6.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 4.0 Gt of which are available at a carbon price less than US$100 tCO₂‑eq/yr  (Nabuurs et al., 2022). Similarly, Griscom et al. (2017) found that avoiding human-caused forest loss is among the most effective natural climate solutions, with a potential impact of 3.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (including forests on peatlands), nearly 2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr of which is achievable at a cost below US$10/t CO₂‑eq/yr.

The results presented in this document were produced through analysis of 12 global datasets. We recognize that geographic biases can influence the development of global datasets and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Appendix

In this analysis, we integrated global land cover data, maps of forest loss rates, shapefiles of PAs and Indigenous people’s lands, country-scale data on reductions in forest loss inside of PAs, and biome-scale data on forest carbon stocks and sequestration rates to calculate currently protected forest area, total global forest area, and avoided emissions from forest protection. Forested peatlands and mangroves are excluded from this analysis and addressed in the Protect Peatlands and Protect Coastal Wetlands solutions, respectively.

Land cover data

We used two land cover data products to estimate forest extent inside and outside of PAs and Indigenous people’s lands, including: 1) the Global Forest Watch (GFW) tree cover dataset (Hansen et al., 2013), resampled to 30 second resolution, and 2) the 2022 European Space Agency Climate Change Initiative (ESA CCI) land cover dataset at native resolution (300 m). For the ESA CCI dataset, all non-flooded tree cover classes (50, 60, 70, 80, 90) and the “mosaic tree and shrub (>50%)/herbaceous cover (<50%)” class (100) and associated subclasses were included as forests. Both products are associated with uncertainty, which we did not address directly in our calculations. We include estimates from both products in order to provide readers with a sense of the variability in values that can stem from different land cover classification methods, which are discussed in more detail below.

These two datasets have methodological differences that result in substantially different classifications of forest extent, including their thresholds for defining forests, their underlying satellite data, and the algorithms used to classify forests based on the satellite information. For example, the ESA CCI product classifies 300-meter pixels with >15% tree cover as forests (based on our included classes), attempts to differentiate tree crops, relies on a 2003–2012 baseline land cover map coupled with a change-detection algorithm, and primarily uses imagery from MERIS, PROBA-V, and Sentinel missions (ESA CCI 2019). In contrast, the Global Forest Watch product generally requires >30% tree cover at 30-meter resolution, does not exclude tree crops, relies on a regression tree model for development of a baseline tree cover map circa 2010, and primarily uses Landsat ETM+ satellite imagery (Hansen et al., 2013). We recommend that interested readers refer to the respective user guides for each data product for a comprehensive discussion of the complex methods used for their development.

We used the Forest Landscape Integrity Index map developed by Grantham et al. (2020), which classifies forests with integrity indices ≥9.6 as high integrity. These forests are characterized by minimal human disturbance and high connectivity. Mangroves and peatlands were excluded from this analysis. We used a map of mangroves from Giri et al. (2011) and a map of peatlands compiled by Global Forest Watch to define mangrove and peatland extent (accessed at https://data.globalforestwatch.org/datasets/gfw::global-peatlands/about). The peatlands map is a composite of maps from five publications: Crezee et al. (2022), Gumbricht et al. (2017), Hastie et al. (2022), Miettinen et al. (2016), and Xu et al. (2018). For each compiled dataset, the data were resampled to 30-second resolution by calculating the area of each grid cell occupied by mangroves or peatlands. For each grid cell containing forests, the “eligible” forest area was calculated by subtracting the mangrove and peatland area from the total forest area for each forest cover dataset (GFW, ESA CCI, and high-integrity forests).

Protected forest areas

We identified protected forest areas using the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA, 2024), which contains boundaries for each PA and additional information, including their establishment year and IUCN management category (Ia to VI, not applicable, not reported, and not assigned). For each PA polygon, we extracted the forest area from the GFW, ESA CCI, and high-integrity dataset (after removing the peatland and mangrove areas).

Each protected area was classified into a climate zone based on the midpoint between its minimum and maximum latitude. Zones included tropical (23.4°N–23.4°S), subtropical (23.4°–35° latitude), temperate (35°–50° latitude), and boreal (>50° latitude) in order to retain some spatial variability in emissions factors. We aggregated protected forest cover areas (from each of the two forest cover datasets and the high-integrity forest data) by IUCN class and climate zone. To evaluate trends in adoption over time, we also aggregated protected areas by establishment year. We used the same method to calculate the forest area that could be protected, extracting the total area of each land cover type by climate zone (inside and outside of existing PAs). 

We used maps from Garnett et al. (2018) to identify Indigenous people’s lands that were not inside established PAs. We calculated the total forest area within Indigenous people’s lands (excluding PAs, mangroves, and peatlands) using the same three forest area data sources. 

Forest loss and emissions factors

Forest loss rates were calculated for unprotected areas using the GFW forest loss dataset for 2001–2022, resampled to 1 km resolution. Forest losses were reclassified according to their dominant drivers based on the maps originally developed by Curtis et al. (2018), with updates accessible through GFW. Dominant drivers of forest loss include commodity agriculture, shifting agriculture, urbanization, forestry, and wildfire. We classified all drivers except wildfire as human-caused forest loss for this analysis. We calculated the area of forest loss attributable to each driver within each climate zone, which represented the “baseline” rate of forest loss outside of PAs. 

To calculate the difference in forest loss rates attributable to protection, we used country-level data from Wolf et al. (2021) on the ratio of forest loss in unprotected areas versus PAs, controlling for a suite of socio-environmental characteristics. We classified countries into climate zones based on their median latitude and averaged the ratios within climate zones. We defined the avoided forest loss attributable to protection as the product of the baseline forest loss rate and the ratio of forest loss outside versus inside of PAs.

We calculated the carbon benefits of avoided forest loss by multiplying avoided forest loss by average forest carbon stocks and sequestration rates. Harris et al. (2021) reported carbon stocks and sequestration rates by climate zone (boreal, temperate, subtropical, and tropical), and forest type. Carbon stocks and sequestration rates for primary and old secondary (>20 years old) forests were averaged for this analysis. We calculated carbon sequestration over a 20-yr period to provide values commensurate with the one-time loss of biomass carbon stocks.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Enhance Public Transit

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Transportation
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift to Alternatives
Image
Train with city in the distance
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

We define the Enhance Public Transit solution as increasing the use of any form of passenger transportation that uses publicly available vehicles (e.g., buses, streetcars, subways, commuter trains, and ferries) operating along fixed routes. It does not include increasing the use of publicly available forms of transportation without fixed routes, such as taxis, except when these transport options supplement a larger public transit system (for example, to help passengers with disabilities). It also does not include increasing the use of vehicles traveling over long distances, such as intercity trains, intercity buses, or aircraft. The cost per climate unit is the cost to the transit provider, not the passenger.

Income & work,Health,Equality
Nature protection,Air quality
Overview

Public transit vehicles are far more fuel-efficient – and thus less GHG-intensive – on a per-pkm basis than fossil fuel–powered cars. Diesel-powered buses emit fewer GHGs/pkm than cars because of their much higher occupancy. Electric buses further reduce GHG emissions (Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2018), as do forms of public transit that already run on electricity. Finally, a fleet of large, centralized public transit vehicles operating along fixed routes is usually easier to electrify than a fleet of fossil fuel–powered cars. 

Enhancing public transit to reduce emissions from transportation relies on two processes. First is increasing the modal share of existing public transit networks by encouraging people to travel by public transit rather than car. This requires building new public transit capacity while also overcoming political, sociocultural, economic, and technical hurdles. Second is improving the emissions performance of public transit networks through electrification and efficiency improvements. We accommodate the latter in this solution by assuming that all shifted trips to buses are electric buses.

These two processes are linked in complex ways. For example, construction of the new public transit networks needed to accommodate additional demand creates an opportunity to install low-carbon vehicles and infrastructures, and bringing additional passengers onto an underused public transit network generates close to zero additional GHG emissions. However, since these complexities are difficult to calculate, we assume that all increases in public transit ridership are supported by a linear increase in capacity.

Buses, trains, streetcars, subways, and other public-transit vehicles predate cars. During the 19th century, most cities developed complex and efficient networks of streetcars and rail that carried large numbers of passengers (Norton, 2011; Schrag, 2000). As a result, it’s clear that a good public transit network can provide for the basic mobility needs of most people, and can therefore substitute for most – if not all – transportation that fossil fuel–powered cars currently provide. Today, public transit networks worldwide already collectively deliver trillions of pkm, not only in big cities but also in small towns and rural areas. 

We identified several different types of public transit:

Buses

Low-capacity vehicles running on rubber tires on roads. Buses in the baseline are a mix of diesel and electric. For the purposes of this solution, we assume that all buses serving shifted trips are electric.

Trams or streetcars

Mid-capacity vehicles running on steel rails that for at least part of their routes run on roads with traffic, rather than in a dedicated rail corridor or tunnel.

Metros, subways, or light rail

High-capacity urban train systems using their own dedicated right-of-way that may or may not be underground.

Commuter rail

Large trains running mostly on the surface designed to bring large numbers of commuters from the suburbs into the core of a city that often overlap with regional or intercity rail.

Other modes

Ferries, cable cars, funiculars, and other forms of public transit that generally play a marginal role.

We assessed all modes together rather than individually because public transit relies on the interactions among different vehicles to maximize the reach, speed, and efficiency of the system. Public transit reduces emissions of CO₂,  methane, and nitrous oxide to the atmosphere by replacing fuel-powered cars, which emit these gases from their tailpipes. Some diesel-powered buses in regions that have low quality diesel emit black carbon. The black carbon global annual total emissions from transportation is negligible compared with carbon emissions and is therefore not quantified in our study. 

References

American Public Transit Association. (2020). Economic impact of public transportation investment – American Public Transportation Association. https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/research-reports/economic-impact-of-public-transportation-investment/

American Public Transit Association. (2021). National Transit Database Tables. American Public Transportation Association. https://www.apta.com/research-technical-resources/transit-statistics/ntd-data-tables/

Beaudoin, J., Farzin, Y. H., & Lin Lawell, C.-Y. C. (2015). Public transit investment and sustainable transportation: A review of studies of transit’s impact on traffic congestion and air quality. Research in Transportation Economics, 52, 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2015.10.004

Bloomberg New Energy Finance. (2018). Electric buses in cities: Driving towards cleaner air and lower CO₂ .

Börjesson, M., Fung, C. M., & Proost, S. (2020). How rural is too rural for transit? Optimal transit subsidies and supply in rural areas. Journal of Transport Geography, 88, 102859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102859

Borck, R. (2019). Public transport and urban pollution. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 77, 356–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2019.06.005

Brown, A. E. (2017). Car-less or car-free? Socioeconomic and mobility differences among zero-car households. Transport Policy, 60, 152–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.09.016

Brunner, H., Hirz, M., Hirschberg, W., & Fallast, K. (2018). Evaluation of various means of transport for urban areas. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 8(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13705-018-0149-0

Christensen, L., & Vázquez, N. S. (2013). Post-harmonised European National Travel Surveys. Proceedings from the Annual Transport Conference at Aalborg University, 20(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5278/ojs.td.v1i1.5701

Department for Transport. (2024). Transport Statistics Finder: Interactive Dashboard. Department for Transport. https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMGE2YTQ5YTMtMDkwNC00MjBmLWFkNjUtMjBjZjUzZWU0ZjNmIiwidCI6IjI4Yjc4MmZiLTQxZTEtNDhlYS1iZmMzLWFkNzU1OGNlNzEzNiIsImMiOjh9

Ecke, L. (2023, December 19). German Mobility Panel—Startseite (KIT) [Text]. Lisa Ecke. https://mobilitaetspanel.ifv.kit.edu/english/

Federal Highway Administration. (2022). Summary of Travel Trends: 2022 National Household Travel Survey. US Department of Transportation. https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/2022/pub/2022_NHTS_Summary_Travel_Trends.pdf

Goel, D., & Gupta, S. (2017). The Effect of Metro Expansions on Air Pollution in Delhi. The World Bank Economic Review, 31(1), 271–294. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhv056

Gouldson, A., Sudmant, A., Khreis, H., & Papargyropoulou, E. (2018). The Economic and Social Benefits of Low-Carbon Cities: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. https://urbantransitions.global/en/publication/the-economic-and-social-benefits-of-low-carbon-cities-a-systematic-review-of-the-evidence/

Guo, S., & Chen, L. (2019). Can urban rail transit systems alleviate air pollution? Empirical evidence from Beijing. Growth and Change, 50(1), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12266

Health Affairs. (2021). Public Transportation in the U.S. RWJF. https://www.rwjf.org/content/rwjf-web/us/en/insights/our-research/2021/07/public-transportation-in-the-us-a-driver-of-health-and-equity.html

Hemmat, W., Hesam, A. M., & Atifnigar, H. (2023). Exploring noise pollution, causes, effects, and mitigation strategies: A review paper. European Journal of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, 1(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.59324/ejtas.2023.1(5).86

Ilie, N., Iurie, N., Alexandr, M., & Vitalie, E. (2014). Rehabilitation of the tram DC traction with modern power converters. 2014 International Conference and Exposition on Electrical and Power Engineering (EPE), 704–709. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEPE.2014.6970000

International Transport Forum. (2020). Good to Go? Assessing the Environmental Performance of New Mobility (Corporate Partnership Board). OECD. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/environmental-performance-new-mobility.pdf

IPCC. (2023). Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation—IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/renewable-energy-sources-and-climate-change-mitigation/

Kennedy, C. A. (2002). A comparison of the sustainability of public and private transportation systems: Study of the Greater Toronto Area. Transportation, 29(4), 459–493. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016302913909

Kuminek, T. (2013). Energy Consumption in Tram Transport. Logistics and Transport. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Energy-Consumption-in-Tram-Transport-Kuminek/2aa2d97130a8e51ea7f64913c2065e8437126774

Lim, L. K., Muis, Z. A., Hashim, H., Ho, W. S., & Idris, M. N. M. (2021). Potential of Electric Bus as a Carbon Mitigation Strategies and Energy Modelling: A Review. Chemical Engineering Transactions, 89, 529–534. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2189089

Lovasi, G. S., Treat, C. A., Fry, D., Shah, I., Clougherty, J. E., Berberian, A., Perera, F. P., & Kioumourtzoglou, M.-A. (2023). Clean fleets, different streets: Evaluating the effect of New York City’s clean bus program on changes to estimated ambient air pollution. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 33(3), 332–338. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-022-00454-5

Litman, T. (2024). Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs.

Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2014). Fear and safety in transit environments from the women’s perspective. Security Journal, 27(2), 242–256. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2014.9

Mahmoud, M., Garnett, R., Ferguson, M., & Kanaroglou, P. (2016). Electric buses: A review of alternative powertrains. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, 673–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.019

Martinez, D., Mitnik, O., Salgado, E., Yãnez-Pagans, P., & Scholl, L. (2020). Connecting to Economic Opportunity: The Role of Public Transport in Promoting Women’s Employment in Lima | Journal of Economics, Race, and Policy. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41996-019-00039-9

Mees, P. (2010). Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile Age. Earthscan.

Norton, P. D. (2011). Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. MIT Press.

Ortiz, F. (2002). Biodiversity, the City, and Sprawl. Boston University Law Review, 82(1), 145–194.

Padeiro, M., Louro, A., & da Costa, N. M. (2019). Transit-oriented development and gentrification: A systematic review. Transport Reviews, 39(6), 733–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2019.1649316

Prieto-Curiel, R., & Ospina, J. P. (2024). The ABC of mobility. Environment International, 185, 108541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108541

Qi, Y., Liu, J., Tao, T., & Zhao, Q. (2023). Impacts of COVID-19 on public transit ridership. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 12(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2021.11.003

Rodrigues, A. L. P., & Seixas, Sonia. R. C. (2022). Battery-electric buses and their implementation barriers: Analysis and prospects for sustainability. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 51, 101896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101896

Rodriguez Mendez, Q., Fuss, S., Lück, S., & Creutzig, F. (2024). Assessing global urban CO₂ removal. Nature Cities, 1(6), 413–423. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-024-00069-x

Serulle, N. U., & Cirillo, C. (2016). Transportation needs of low income population: A policy analysis for the Washington D.C. metropolitan region. Public Transport, 8(1), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-015-0119-2

Schaller, B. (2017). Unsustainable? The Growth of App-Based Ride Services and Traffic, Travel and the Future of New York City. Schaller Consulting.

Schrag, Z. M. (2000). “The Bus Is Young and Honest”: Transportation Politics, Technical Choice, and the Motorization of Manhattan Surface Transit, 1919-1936. Technology and Culture, 41(1), 51–79.

Sertsoz, M., Kusdogan, S., & Altuntas, O. (2013). Assessment of Energy Efficiencies and Environmental Impacts of Railway and Bus Transportation Options. In I. Dincer, C. O. Colpan, & F. Kadioglu (Eds.), Causes, Impacts and Solutions to Global Warming (pp. 921–931). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7588-0_48

Statistics Netherlands. (2024, July 4). Mobility; per person, personal characteristics, modes of travel and regions [Webpagina]. Statistics Netherlands. https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/figures/detail/84709ENG

Swanstrom, T., Winter, W., & Wiedlocher, L. (2010). The Impact of Increasing Funding for Public Transit. https://librarysearch.adelaide.edu.au/discovery/fulldisplay/alma9928308820601811/61ADELAIDE_INST:UOFA

Tayal, D., & Mehta, A. (2021). Working Women, Delhi Metro and Covid-19: A Case Study in Delhi-NCR | The Indian Journal of Labour Economics. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41027-021-00313-1?fromPaywallRec=true

UITP. (2024). A global analysis of transit data. CityTransit Data. https://citytransit.uitp.org

US Department of Transportation. (2010). Public transportation’s role in responding to climate change. US Department of Transportation. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/PublicTransportationsRoleInRespondingToClimateChange2010.pdf

Van Acker, V., & Witlox, F. (2010). Car ownership as a mediating variable in car travel behaviour research using a structural equation modelling approach to identify its dual relationship. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(1), 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.05.006

Venter, C., Jennings, G., Hidalgo, D., & Pineda, A. (2017). The equity impacts of bus rapid transit: A review of the evidence and implications for sustainable transport: International Journal of Sustainable Transportation: Vol 12 , No 2—Get Access. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15568318.2017.1340528

Xiao, C., Goryakin, Y., & Cecchini, M. (2019). Physical Activity Levels and New Public Transit: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 56(3), 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.10.022

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Cameron Roberts

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows

  • James Gerber

  • Yusuf Jameel 

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Heather Jones

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Amanda Smith

  • Tina Swanson

Effectiveness

Our calculations suggest that an efficiently designed public transit system using the best available vehicle technologies (especially battery-electric buses) would save 58.26 t CO₂‑eq /million pkm (0.000058 t CO₂‑eq /pkm) on a 100-yr basis compared with fossil fuel–powered cars, in line with the estimates by other large transportation focused organizations (International Transport Forum, 2020; US Department of Transportation, 2010). This number is highly sensitive to public transit vehicle occupancy, which we estimated using the most recent available data (American Public Transit Association, 2021). Increasing the number of trips taken via public transit would likely increase occupancy, although ideally not to the point of passenger discomfort. This elevated ridership would significantly reduce public transit’s pkm emissions.

To arrive at this figure, we first estimated the emissions of fossil fuel–powered cars as 115 t CO₂‑eq /million pkm (0.000115 t/pkm, 100-yr basis). We then separately calculated the emissions of commuter rail, metros and subways, trams and light rail systems, and electric buses. We used data on the modal share of different vehicles within public transit systems around the world (although much of the available data are biased towards systems in the United States and Europe) to determine what each transit system’s emissions would be per million pkm given our per-million-pkm values for different transit vehicles (UITP, 2024). The median of these city-level values is 58 t CO₂‑eq /pkm (0.000058 t/pkm, 100-yr basis). Subtracting this value from the per-pkm emissions for cars gives us the public transit GHG savings figure cited above. Note that none of these values includes embodied emissions (such as emissions from producing cars, buses, trains, roads, etc.), or upstream emissions (such as those from oil refineries).

Pessimistic assumptions regarding the emissions and occupancy of public transit vehicles, and optimistic assumptions about emissions from cars, can suggest a much more marginal climate benefit from public transit (see the 25th percentile row in Table 1). In most cases, however, well-managed public transit is likely to produce a meaningful climate benefit. Such an outcome will depend on increasing the average occupancy of vehicles, which faces a challenge because transit has seen declining occupancies since the COVID-19 pandemic (Qi et al., 2023). For this reason, encouraging additional use of public transit networks without expanding these networks can have an outsized impact because it will allow the substitution of fossil fuel–powered car trips by trips on public transit vehicles for which emissions would not change meaningfully as a result of adding passengers.

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

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

25th percentile 0.127
mean 61.76
median (50th percentile) 58.27
75th percentile 106.7

The extremely large range of values between the 25th and 75th percentile is the result of 1) the large diversity of public transit systems in the world and 2) multiplying multiple layers of uncertainty (e.g., varying estimates for occupancy, energy consumption per vehicle kilometer (vkm), percent of pkm reliant on buses vs. trains).

Left Text Column Width
Cost

Under present-day public transit costs and revenues, it costs the transit provider US$0.23 to transport a single passenger one kilometer. In comparison, travel by car costs the consumer US$0.42/pkm. On a per passenger basis, for the transit provider, public transit is almost 50% cheaper than car transportation, costing US$0.20/pkm less. Combined with the emissions reductions from using public transit, this means that the emissions reductions from shifting people out of cars onto public transit has a net negative cost, saving US$3,300/t CO₂‑eq mitigated (Table 2). 

This figure includes all relevant direct costs for travel by public transit and by car, including the costs of infrastructure, operations, vehicle purchase, and fuel. It does not include external costs, such as medical costs resulting from car crashes. Capital costs (i.e., the large fixed costs of building public transit infrastructure) are accounted for via the annualized capital costs listed in public transit agencies’ financial reports. 

A very large proportion of the total costs of providing public transit is labor (e.g., wages for bus drivers and station attendants). This cost is unlikely to come down as a result of technological innovations (Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2018).

For an individual passenger, however, the marginal costs of public transit (i.e., the fares they pay) can sometimes be higher than the marginal costs of driving. This is in large part due to many external costs of driving which are borne by society at large (Litman, 2024). However, increasing the public transit availability would likely increase occupancy, which would in turn drive costs down.

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

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

median -3300

Transit provider cost, not passenger cost.

Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Public transit is a largely mature technology with limited opportunities for radical cost-saving innovation. While our research did not find any papers reporting a learning curve in public transit as a whole, battery-electric buses are in fact subject to many of the same experience effects of other battery-electric vehicles. Although there are no studies assessing declines in the cost of electric buses as a whole, there are studies assessing learning curves for their batteries, which is the most costly component. The cost of batteries used in battery-electric buses has declined 19.25% with each doubling of installed capacity (Table 3).

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Learning rate: drop in cost per doubling of the installed solution base.

Unit: %

25th percentile 18.63
mean 19.25
median (50th percentile) 19.25
75th percentile 19.88

This applies only to the cost of batteries in electric buses, not to public transportation as a whole.

Left Text Column Width
Speed of Action

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

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

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

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Public transit competes for passengers not just with cars, but also with other transportation modes – some of which have lower emissions on average. If an increase in public transit’s modal share comes at the expense of nonmotorized transportation (i.e., pedestrian travel or cycling), or electric bicycles, this will result in a net increase in emissions. Similarly, public transit could generate additional trips that would not have occurred if the public transit network those trips were taken on did not exist. Under this scenario, a net increase in emissions would occur; however, these new trips might bring additional social benefits that would outweigh these new emissions.

Low occupancy could also diminish the climate benefit of enhancing public transit. While it is certainly possible to build effective and efficient public transit networks in suburban and rural areas, there is a risk that such networks could have high per-pkm GHG emissions if they have low average occupancy (Mees, 2010). It is therefore important to efficiently plan public transit networks, ensure vehicles are right-sized and have efficient powertrains, and promote high levels of ridership even in rural areas to maximize the climate benefit of these kinds of networks.

Upscaling public transit networks – and, crucially, convincing more motorists to use them – is an enduring challenge that faces cultural resistance in some countries, issues with cost, and sometimes a lack of political will. Successfully enhancing public transit will require that these hurdles are overcome.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

In cities around the world surveyed over the last 15 years, public transit has an average modal share of approximately 26.2% of trips. In comparison, fossil fuel–powered cars account for 51.4% of all trips, while nonmotorized transportation accounts for 22.4% (Prieto-Curiel & Ospina, 2024). The 26.2% of trips taken via public transit corresponds to approximately 16.7 trillion pkm traveled on public transit in cities every year (Table 4).

These numbers are calculated from modal share data (i.e., the percentage of trips in a given city that are taken via various modes of transportation). We estimated total pkm traveled by assuming a global average daily distance traveled, using travel surveys from the United States as well as several European countries (Christensen & Vázquez, 2013; Department for Transport, 2024; Ecke, 2023; Federal Highway Administration, 2022; Statistics Netherlands, 2024). We used Prieto-Curiel and Ospina’s (2024) global population-weighted mean modal share as our global adoption value. The other statistical measures in Table 4 reflect the distribution of estimates drawn from the literature, most of which do not account for population, and therefore give too much weight to small cities, skewing the results. 

We assumed that Prieto-Curiel and Ospina’s data refers only to urban modal share. While the database does include some small towns and rural areas, most of the modal share data we found comes from cities. Public transit can be useful in rural areas (Börjesson et al, 2020), but we did not attempt to estimate rural public transit adoption in this assessment .

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Current (2024) adoption level.

Unit: million pkm/yr 

25th percentile 512,900
Population-weighted mean 16,720,000
median (50th percentile) 5,106,000
75th percentile 15,080,000

We used the population-weighted mean calculated by Prieto-Curiel and Ospina (2024) as our authoritative estimate to carry forward to other calculations.

Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Based on data from Prieto-Curiel and Ospina (2024) and the UITP (2024) for 1,097 cities worldwide, the rate of adoption of public transit has not changed since 2010, with the median annual growth rate equal to 0 (Table 5). This was calculated using all of the cities in Prieto-Curiel and Ospina’s (2024) database for which modal share data exist.

Despite the lack of a global trend in public transit use, some cities, including Amsterdam, Edinburgh, and Leeds, report double-digit growth rates in the use of public transit.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. 2023–2024 adoption trend.

Unit: million pkm/yr

25th percentile -697,100
mean 71,490
median (50th percentile) 0.00
75th percentile 1,791,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

Public transit could theoretically replace all trips currently undertaken by fossil fuel–powered cars. This would amount to 75 trillion pkm on public transit annually, worldwide (Table 6). This would not be feasible to achieve in practice, as it would require construction of new public transit vehicles and infrastructure on an unfeasibly large scale, and massive changes to living patterns for many people. It would also be much more expensive than we calculated above, because such a change would require extending public transit coverage into areas where it would be highly uneconomic. Public transit is capable of providing a good transportation option in rural areas, but there is a limit to its benefits when population densities are low even by rural standards. Even in cities, this scenario would require a radical redesign of some neighborhoods to prioritize public transit. Such large public transit coverage would also inevitably shift other modes of transportation, such as pedestrian travel and cycling, leading to an even higher pkm total than that suggested by current adoption of fossil fuel–powered cars.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: million pkm/yr

median (50th percentile) 75,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

The achievable range of public transit adoption is 22.2–41.9 trillion pkm traveled by public transit in cities globally.

To estimate the upper bound of achievable adoption, we assumed that urban trips taken by fossil fuel–powered car (currently 51.4% of trips globally) can be shifted to public transit until public transit increases to 76.6% of trips (the current highest modal share of public transit in any city with a population of more than 1 million) or until car travel decreases to 12.0% of trips (the current lowest modal share of fossil fuel–powered cars in any city with a population of more than 1 million). This equals a shift of 25.2 trillion pkm from fossil fuel–powered car travel to public transit, which, added to present-day public transit trips (16.7 trillion trips/yr), equals 41.9 trillion pkm/yr (Table 7).

To set the lower bound, we performed the same calculation as above, but on a regional basis, adding up all the resultant modal shifts to get a global figure. For example, every northern European city might reach the public transit modal share of London (44.5% of trips), while every South Asian city might reach that of Mumbai (52.0% of trips). Having done that, we then added together the public transit adoption rates from all world regions, apart from three (Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia) for which we did not find any modal share data. This corresponds to a shift of 5.5 trillion pkm/yr from cars to public transit, and a total achievable public transit adoption rate of 22.2 trillion pkm/yr.

Achieving both of these levels of adoption would require not only major investments in expanding public transit networks, but also major changes in how cities are planned so as to allow more areas to be effectively served by transit. These levels of adoption would also require overcoming cultural and political resistance to abandoning cars in favor of public modes. However, unlike the scenario discussed under Adoption Ceiling, these scenarios are feasible, since they are based on real achievements by cities around the world.

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: million pkm/yr

Current Adoption 16,720,000
Achievable – Low 21,980,000
Achievable – High 41,910,000
Adoption Ceiling 75,000,000
Left Text Column Width

If all public transit trips were taken by fossil fuel–powered cars instead of by public transit, they would result in an additional 0.97 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr of emissions (Table 8).

The global potential climate impact of enhancing public transit, if all car trips were shifted onto public transit systems, is 4.37 Gt. As discussed under Adoption Ceiling, this is an unrealistic scenario.

In a more realistic scenario, if every city in the world shifted car traffic onto public transit until it reached the public transit modal share of Hong Kong (i.e., the high estimate of achievable adoption), it would save 2.44 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr globally. Meanwhile, if every city shifts car trips to public transit until it reaches the car modal share of the region’s least car-dependent city (i.e., the low estimate of achievable adoption), it would save 1.28 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.

left_text_column_width

Table 8. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.97
Achievable – Low 1.28
Achievable – High 2.44
Adoption Ceiling 4.37
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Air Quality

GHG emissions from transportation are often emitted with other harmful air pollutants. Consequently, reducing fuel consumption by replacing transport by fossil fuel–powered cars with public transit can lead to cleaner air. The scale of this benefit varies by location and is influenced by differences in emission levels between private and public transit travels and the relative demand substitutability between modes (Beaudoin et al., 2015). For U.S. cities, significant investment in public transit could cut pollution around 1.7% on average (Borck, 2019). The benefits are more significant in low- and middle-income countries, where fossil fuel–powered cars are more polluting due to lenient air quality regulations (Goel & Gupta, 2017; Guo & Chen, 2019).

Health Benefits

Improved air quality due to enhanced public transit has direct health benefits, such as lowering cardiovascular disease risk, and secondary health benefits, such as increased physical activity (Xiao et al., 2019), fewer traffic-related injuries, lower rates of cancer, and enhanced access to health-care facilities and nutritious food (Gouldson et al., 2018; Health Affairs, 2021).

Equality

Limited access to transportation restricts labor participation, particularly for women. Expanding public transit can foster gender equity by improving women’s access to employment opportunities. For example, in Peru expansion of public transit has led to improvements in women’s employment and earnings (Martinez et al., 2020). Similarly, in India, the extension of the light rail system in Delhi has increased women’s willingness to commute for work (Tayal & Mehta, 2021).

Public transit enhances community connectivity by providing accessible transportation options. Expanded mobility allows individuals to reach employment, health-care, education, and recreational sites with greater ease, heightening social inclusion. The social equity benefits of public transit are especially significant for low-income people in terms of time and cost savings and safety and health benefits (Serulle & Cirillo, 2016; Venter et al., 2017). 

Income and work

Investment in enhancing public transit can also generate substantial economic returns. The APTA estimated that each US$1 billion invested in transit can create 49,700 jobs and yield a five-to-one economic return (APTA, 2020). According to another study, shifting 50% of highway funds to mass transit systems in 20 U.S. metropolises could generate more than 1 million new transit jobs within five years (Swanstrom et al., 2010). 

Nature protection

An indirect benefit of enhanced public transit is its contribution to reducing resource consumption, such as the minerals used in manufacturing personal vehicles. Enhanced public transit can also improve land-use efficiency by curbing urban sprawl, which helps reduce pollution and limit biodiversity loss (Ortiz, 2002). 

left_text_column_width
Risks

If expanded service on high-quality public transit systems replaced journeys from nonmotorized transportation or electric bicycles rather than from cars – or if expanded service on high-quality public transit systems generated journeys that would not have otherwise happened – this will have a net-negative climate impact, since public transit has higher per-pkm GHG emissions than electric bicycles or not traveling (International Transport Forum, 2020). 

There may be cases where public transit networks cannot be implemented efficiently enough to provide a meaningful benefit compared to fossil fuel–powered cars in terms of GHG emissions. This would occur in places where there are so few potential riders that most trips would have a very low occupancy. The result would be a much higher rate of emissions per pkm. However, effective public transit networks can be built in suburban and even rural areas (Börjesson et al., 2020; Mees, 2010).

Finally, expanding public transit networks has proven very difficult in recent years. Entrenched preferences for car travel, reluctance on the part of governments to invest heavily in new transit infrastructure, and local political challenges over land use, noise, gentrification, and similar issues are all obstacles to increased public transit use. Public transit expansion has faced stronger headwinds in recent years in particular, due to both the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and competition from new (and mostly less sustainable) mobility services, such as app-based ride-hailing (Shaller, 2017).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

For people living without cars, public transit provides a crucial service that is hard to replace for certain kinds of trips, such as trips over long distances, with small children, or carrying large objects. As a result, public transit plays a large role in making it more viable for people to live without owning a car (Brown, 2017). Research suggests that the key to a low-carbon mobility system is to reduce the need for people to own cars altogether (Van Acker & Witlox, 2010).

left_text_column_width

Public transit requires a lot less space than cars. Some of this space could be reallocated to ecosystem conservation through revegetation and other land-based methods of GHG sequestration (Rodriguez Mendez et al., 2024).

left_text_column_width

Competing 

Electric cars and public transit compete for pkm. Consequently, increased use of public transit could reduce kilometers traveled using electric cars. 

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

million passenger kilometers (million pkm)

tCO2-eq/unit/yr
58.27
units/yr
Current 1.67×10⁷2.2×10⁷4.19×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

GtCO2-eq/yr
Current 0.97 1.282.44
US$ per tCO2-eq
-3,300
Gradual

CO₂, CH₄, N₂O

Trade-offs

Public transit vehicles are sometimes unsafe, particularly for vulnerable groups such as women (Loukaitou-Sideris, 2014). In some circumstances – although this remains controversial – new public transit routes can also lead to gentrification of neighborhoods, forcing people to move far away from city centers and use cars for travel (Padeiro et al., 2019). 

Expansion of public transit networks could also have negative consequences in areas directly adjacent to transit infrastructure. Diesel buses create air pollution (Lovasi et al., 2022), and public transit networks of all types can create noise pollution (Hemmat et al., 2023).

left_text_column_width
Population (millions)
1
10
30
Active Mobility
Public Transport
Private Cars

Primary mode of transport

Mapping the primary mode of transportation reveals mobility patterns and opportunities to shift travel toward lower-emitting modes.

Prieto-Curiel, R. and Ospina, Juan P. (2024). The ABC of mobility [Data set]. Environmental International, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108541. Retrieved May 9, 2025 from https://github.com/rafaelprietocuriel/ModalShare/tree/main

Population (millions)
1
10
30
Active Mobility
Public Transport
Private Cars

Primary mode of transport

Mapping the primary mode of transportation reveals mobility patterns and opportunities to shift travel toward lower-emitting modes.

Prieto-Curiel, R. and Ospina, Juan P. (2024). The ABC of mobility [Data set]. Environmental International, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108541. Retrieved May 9, 2025 from https://github.com/rafaelprietocuriel/ModalShare/tree/main

Geographic Guidance Introduction

Public transit is most effective in urban areas with high population density, where buses, subways, trams, and commuter rail can efficiently carry large numbers of passengers. Electrified or low-emission transit modes achieve the greatest climate impact, especially in regions with clean electricity grids (Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2018). However, even diesel-based public transit systems can outperform fossil fuel-powered cars on a per-pkm basis if they have high ridership and operate efficiently.

Socioeconomic and political factors, including investment capacity, institutional coordination, and public perceptions of reliability, safety, and comfort, highly influence the adoption and effectiveness of public transit. Regions with well-funded public infrastructure, integrated fare systems, and strong governance tend to have the highest adoption and climate benefits. Conversely, underinvestment, informal transit dominance, or poorly maintained systems can undermine public transit’s potential (Börjesson et al., 2020; Mees, 2010).

High public transit adoption is seen in Western and Northern Europe, Post-Soviet countries, East Asia (including Japan, South Korea, and China), and some Latin American cities, like Bogotá and Santiago. In contrast, many developing regions face barriers to public transit expansion, such as inadequate funding, urban sprawl, or a reliance on informal minibus systems. However, these same areas offer some of the highest potential for impact. Rapid urbanization, growing demand for mobility, and severe air quality challenges create strong incentives to expand and modernize transit networks.

Action Word
Enhance
Solution Title
Public Transit
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Use public transit and create incentive programs for government employees to use public transit.
  • Improve and invest in local public transit infrastructure, increasing routes and frequency while improving onboard safety, especially for women.
  • Electrify public buses, vans, and other vehicles used in the public transit system.
  • Implement the recommendations of transit-oriented development, such as increasing residential and commercial density, placing development near stations, and ensuring stations are easily accessible.
  • Provide online information, ticketing, and payment services.
  • Implement regional or nationwide public transit ticketing systems.
  • Consider a wide range of policy options that include demand-side options, such as free fare or fare reductions, and that are informed by citizen-centered approaches.
  • Create dedicated coordinating bodies across government agencies, businesses, and the public to develop public transit.
  • Disincentivize car trips in areas serviced by public transit through reduced access, increases in parking fares, congestion charges, taxes, or other means.
  • Incorporate social signaling in public transit information and signage, such as smiley faces and “sustainable transport” labels.
  • Develop public transit awareness campaigns – starting from early childhood – focusing on internally motivating factors such as money saved, health benefits, reduced pollution, free time while traveling, and lifestyle sustainability.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Use public transit and create incentive programs for government employees to utilize public transit.
  • Increase routes and frequency while also improving onboard safety, especially for women.
  • Electrify public buses, vans, and other vehicles used in the public transit system.
  • Incorporate social signaling in public transit information and signage, such as smiley faces and “sustainable transport” labels.
  • Provide online information, ticketing, and payment services
  • Implement regional or nationwide public transit ticketing systems.
  • Consider a wide range of policy options that include demand-side options, such as free fare or fare reductions, and that are informed through citizen-centered approaches.
  • Create dedicated coordinating bodies across government agencies, businesses, and the public to develop public transit.
  • Develop public transit awareness campaigns – starting from early childhood – focusing on internally motivating factors such as money saved, health benefits, reduced pollution, free time while traveling, and a sustainable lifestyle.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Use public transit and encourage employees to do so when feasible.
  • Encourage public transit use for company purposes.
  • Offer employees who agree to forego a free parking space the annualized cash value or cost of that parking space as a salary increase.
  • Incorporate company policies on public transit use into company sustainability and emission reduction initiatives and communicate how they support broader company goals.
  • Ensure your business is accessible via public transit and offer information on nearest access points both online and in person.
  • Offer employees pre-tax commuter benefits to include reimbursement for public transit expenses.
  • Create and distribute educational materials for employees on commuting best practices.
  • Partner with, support, and/or donate to infrastructure investments and public transit awareness campaigns.
  • Advocate for better public transit systems with city officials.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Use public transit and encourage staff to do so when feasible.
  • Offer staff pre-tax commuter benefits to include reimbursement for public transit expenses.
  • Offer employees who agree to forego a free parking space the annualized cash value or cost of that parking space as a salary increase.
  • Expand access to underserved communities by providing fare assistance through microgrants and/or public-private partnerships.
  • Create, support, or partner with existing public transit awareness campaigns that – starting from early childhood – focus on internally motivating factors such as money saved, health benefits, reduced pollution, free time while traveling, and a sustainable lifestyle.
  • Ensure your office is accessible via public transit and offer information – online and in person – on the nearest access points.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved infrastructure and incentives for riders.
  • Advocate for infrastructure improvements and note specific locations where improvements can be made.
  • Encourage local businesses to create employee incentives.
  • Host or support community participation in local public transit infrastructure design.
  • Join public-private partnerships to encourage, improve, or operate public transit.

Further information:

Investors
  • Use public transit and encourage staff to do so when feasible.
  • Encourage public transit use for company purposes.
  • Invest in electric battery and component suppliers for public buses and vehicle fleets.
  • Deploy capital to efforts that improve public transit comfort, convenience, access, and safety.
  • Seek investment opportunities that reduce material and maintenance costs for public transit.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Use public transit and encourage staff to do so when feasible.
  • Award grants to local organizations advocating for improved public transit and services.
  • Expand access to underserved communities by providing fare assistance through microgrants and/or public-private partnerships.
  • Improve and finance local infrastructure and public transit capacity.
  • Build local capacity for infrastructure design, maintenance, and construction.
  • Assist with local policy design or provide means for assessments, data collection, citizen participation, and other steps in the policymaking process.
  • Create, support, or partner with existing public transit awareness campaigns that – starting from early childhood – focus on internally motivating factors such as money saved, health benefits, reduced pollution, free time while traveling, and a sustainable lifestyle.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Lead by example and use public transit regularly.
  • Create, support, or partner with existing public transit awareness campaigns that – starting from early childhood – focus on internally motivating factors such as money saved, health benefits, reduced pollution, free time while traveling, and a sustainable lifestyle.
  • Share detailed information on local public transit routes.
  • Assist with local policy design or provide means for assessments, data collection, citizen participation, and other steps in the policymaking process.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved infrastructure, noting specific locations that need improvements and incentives for riders.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Use public transit and encourage your colleagues to use public transit when feasible.
  • Improve electric batteries and electrification infrastructure for public buses and vehicles.
  • Develop models for policymakers to demonstrate the impact of public transit policies on pollutant emissions, health, and other socioeconomic variables.
  • Conduct randomized control trials and collect longitudinal data on the impacts of interventions to increase public transit usage.
  • Innovate better, faster, and cheaper public transit networks – focusing on infrastructure, operations, and public transit vehicles.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Use public transit and encourage your household and neighbors to use public transit when feasible.
  • Share your experiences with public transit, as well as tips and reasons for choosing this mode of transportation.
  • Advocate to local officials for infrastructure improvements and note specific locations where improvements can be made.
  • Advocate to employers and local businesses to provide incentives and start local initiatives.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing transportation emissions: High

Experts agree that public transit usually produces fewer GHG/pkm than fossil fuel–powered cars (Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2018; Brunner et al., 2018; Ilie et al., 2014; International Transport Forum, 2020; Kennedy, 2002; Kuminek, 2013; Lim et al., 2021; Mahmoud et al., 2016; Rodrigues & Seixas, 2022; Sertsoz et al., 2013). There is also consensus on two points: First, shifting people from cars to public transit even under status-quo emissions levels will reduce transport emissions overall; second, opportunities exist to decarbonize the highest-emitting parts of public transit systems through electrification, especially buses (Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2018).

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2023), public transit can help decrease vehicle travel and lower GHG emissions by reducing both the number and length of trips made in fossil fuel–powered cars (medium confidence). Adjustments to public transportation operations – such as increasing bus stop density, reducing the distance between stops and households, improving trip duration and frequency, and lowering fares – can encourage a shift from fossil fuel–powered car use to public transit.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance (2018) provides a good overview of the state of electric buses – a technology crucial to reduce the public transit fleet’s fossil fuel consumption, and help transition these fleets entirely to electric power. It determined that electric buses have significantly lower operating costs and can be more cost-effective than conventional buses when considering total ownership costs.

Litman (2024) found that “High quality (relatively fast, convenient, comfortable, and integrated) transit can attract discretionary passengers who would otherwise drive, which reduces traffic problems including congestion, parking costs, accidents, and pollution emissions. This provides direct user benefits, since they would not change mode if they did not consider themselves better off overall.”

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 28 reviews and meta-analyses and 23 original studies reflecting current evidence from 32 countries, primarily the American Public Transit Association (APTA, 2020), Bloomberg New Energy Finance (2018), International Transport Forum (2020), and UITP (2024). We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Improve Landfill Management

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Electricity & Industry
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Cut Fugitive Emissions
Image
Methane tap valve from a landfill
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Landfill management is the process of reducing methane emissions from landfill gas (LFG). As bacteria break down organic waste in an environment without oxygen, they produce methane and release it into the atmosphere if there are no controls in place. This solution focuses on two methane abatement strategies: 1) gas collection and control systems (GCCSs) and methane use/destruction, and 2) biocovers. When methane is used or destroyed it is converted into CO₂ (Garland et al., 2023).

Income & work,Health,Equality
Air quality
Overview

Landfill management relies on several practices and technologies that prevent methane from being released into the atmosphere. When organic material is broken down, it creates LFG, which usually is half methane and half CO₂, and water vapor (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2024a). Methane that is directly released into the atmosphere has a GWP of 81 over a 20-yr basis and a GWP of 28 over a 100-yr basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2023). This means methane is 81 times more effective at trapping heat than CO₂. Because methane is a short-lived climate pollutant that has a much stronger warming effect than CO₂ over a given time period, abating methane will have a relatively large near-term impact on slowing global climate change (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2023). LFG contains trace amounts of oxygen, nitrogen, sulfides, hydrogen, and other organic compounds that can negatively affect nearby environments with odors, acid rain, and smog (New York State Government, 2024).

Methods for reducing methane emissions can be put into two broad strategies (Garland et al., 2023):

GCCS and methane use/destruction utilizes pipes to route LFG to be used as an energy source or to flare. The gas can be used on-site for landfill equipment or refined into biomethane and sold; unrefined LFG can also be sold to local utilities or industries for their own use. In areas where electricity generation is carbon intensive, the LFG can help to reduce local emissions by displacing fossil fuels. Methane that can’t be used for energy is burned in a flare during system downtime or at the end of the landfill life, when LFG production has decreased and collecting it no longer makes economic sense. High-efficiency (enclosed) flares have a 99% methane destruction rate. Open flares can be used but research from Plant et al. (2022) has found that the methane destruction rate in practice is much lower than the 90% value the EPA assumes. 

Biocovers are a type of landfill cover designed to promote bacteria that convert methane to CO₂ and water. Biocovers have an organic layer that provides an environment for the bacteria to grow and a gas distribution layer to separate the landfill waste from the organic layer. Non-biocover landfill covers – made with impermeable material like clay or synthetic materials – can also be used to prevent methane from being released. The methane oxidation from these covers will be minimal – they mostly serve to limit LFG from escaping – but they can then be used in conjunction with GCCS to improve gas collection. Landfills also use daily and interim landfill covers. It is important to note that studies on biocover abatement potential and cost are limited and biocovers may not be appropriate for all situations.

Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) involves regularly monitoring for methane leaks and modifying or replacing leaking equipment. LDAR does not directly reduce emissions but is used to determine where to apply the above technology and practices and is considered a critical part of methane abatement strategies. Methane can be monitored through satellites, drones, continuous sensors, or on-site walking surveys (Carbon Mapper, 2024). LDAR is an important step in identifying where methane escapes from the gas collection infrastructure or landfill cover. Quick repairs help reduce GHG emissions while allowing more methane to be used for energy or fuel. The Appendix shows where methane can escape from landfills.

References

Abichou, T. (2020). Using methane biological oxidation to partially finance sustainable waste management systems and closure of dumpsites in the Southern Mediterranean region. Euro-Mediterranean Journal for Environmental Integration. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-020-00157-z 

Auth, K., & Kincer, J. (2022). Untangling ‘stranded assets’ and ‘carbon lock-in’. Energy for Growth Hub. https://energyforgrowth.org/article/untangling-stranded-assets-and-carbon-lock-in/ 

Ayandele, E., Frankiewicz, T., & Garland, E. (2024a). Deploying advanced monitoring technologies at US landfills. RMI. https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2024/03/wasteMAP_united_states_playbook.pdf 

Ayandele, E., Bodas, J., Krishnakumar, A., & Orakwe, L. (2024b). Mitigating methane emissions from municipal solid waste: A playbook for Lagos, Nigeria. RMI. https://rmi.org/insight/waste-methaneassessment-platform/ 

Ayandele, E., Bodas, J., Gautam,l S., & Velijala, V. (2024c). Sustainable organic waste management: A playbook for Lucknow, India. RMI. https://www.teriin.org/policy-brief/sustainable-organic-waste-management-playbook-lucknow-india 

Barton, D. (2020). Fourth five-year review report for Fresno municipal sanitary landfill superfund site Fresno county, California. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/09/100021516.pdf 

Brender, J. D., Maantay, J. A., Chakraborty, J. (2011). Residential proximity to environmental hazards and adverse health outcomes. American Journal of Public Health, 101(S1). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3222489/pdf/S37.pdf 

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

Carbon Mapper (2024, March 28). Study finds landfill point source emissions have an outsized impact and opportunity to tackle U.S. waste methane. https://carbonmapper.org/articles/studyfinds-landfill 

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

City of Saskatoon. (2023). Landfill gas collection & power generation system. Retrieved September 2, 2024. https://www.saskatoon.ca/services-residents/power-water-sewer/saskatoon-light-power/sustainable-electricity/landfill-gas-collection-power-generation-system 

DeFabrizio, S., Glazener, W., Hart, C., Henderson, K., Kar, J., Katz, J., Pratt, M. P., Rogers, M., Ulanov, A., & Tryggestad, C. (2021). Curbing methane emissions: How five industries can counter a major climate threat. McKinsey Sustainability. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/sustainability/our%20insights/curbing%20methane%20emissions%20how%20five%20industries%20can%20counter%20a%20major%20climate%20threat/curbing-methane-emissions-how-five-industries-can-counter-a-major-climate-threat-v4.pdf 

Dobson, S., Goodday, V., & Winter, J. (2023). If it matters, measure it: A review of methane sources and mitigation policy in Canada. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 16(3-4), 309–429. https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000146

Fries, J. (2020, March 26). Unique landfill gas solution found. Penticton Herald. https://www.pentictonherald.ca/news/article_874b5c9c-6fb5-11ea-87ce-2b2aedf77300.html 

Garland E., Alves O., Frankiewicz T., & Ayandele E. (2023). Mitigating landfill methane. RMI. https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/06/landfill_monitoring_memo_series.pdf 

Global Climate & Health Alliance. (2024). Methane & health. Retrieved September 24, 2024. https://climateandhealthalliance.org/initiatives/methane-health/ 

Global Methane Initiative. (2022). Policy maker’s handbook for measurement, reporting, and verification in the biogas sector. https://www.globalmethane.org/resources/details.aspx?resourceid=5182

Global Methane Initiative (2024). 2023 accomplishments in methane mitigation, recovery, and use through U.S.-supported international efforts. https://www.epa.gov/gmi/us-government-global-methane-initiative-accomplishments 

Global Methane Pledge (2023). Lowering organic waste methane initiative (LOW-Methane). Retrieved March 6, 2025. https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/news/lowering-organic-waste-methane-initiative-low-methane 

Gómez-Sanabria, A., & Höglund-Isaksson, L. (2024). A comprehensive model for promoting effective decision-making and sustained climate change stabilization for South Africa. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/19897/1/Final_Report_SAFR.pdf

Government of Canada. (2024). Canada gazette, part I, volume 158, number 26: Regulations respecting the reduction in the release of methane (waste sector). Retrieved September 2, 2024. https://canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2024/2024-06-29/html/reg5-eng.html 

Industrious Labs. (2024a). The hidden cost of landfills. https://cdn.sanity.io/files/xdjws328/production/657706be7f29a20fe54692a03dbedce8809721e8.pdf 

Industrious Labs. (2024b). Turning down the heat: How the U.S. EPA can fight climate change by cutting landfill emissions. https://cdn.sanity.io/files/xdjws328/production/b562620948374268b8c6da61ec1c44960a8d5879.pdf 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Sixth assessment report (AR6).https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/ 

International Energy Agency. (2021). Global methane tracker 2021: Methane abatement and regulation. https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2021/methane-abatement-and-regulation 

International Energy Agency. (2023). Net zero roadmap: A global pathway to keep the 1.5℃ goal in reach - 2023 update. https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-roadmap-a-global-pathway-to-keep-the-15-0c-goal-in-reach 

International Energy Agency. (2025). Methane tracker: Data tools. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/methane-tracker 

Krause, M. Kenny, S., Stephensons, J. & Singleton, A (2023). Food waste management: Quantifying methane emissions from landfilled food waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-10/food-waste-landfill-methane-10-8-23-final_508-compliant.pdf

Malley, C. S., Borgford-Parnell, N. Haeussling, S., Howard, L. C., Lefèvre E. N., & Kuylenstierna J. C. I. (2023). A roadmap to achieve the global methane pledge. Environmental Research: Climate, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/acb4b4 

Martin Charlton Communications. (2020). Features : Landfill biocovers. APEGS. https://www.apegs.ca/features-landfill-biocovers 

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

MethaneSAT. (n.d.). Solving a crucial climate challenge. Retrieved September 2, 2024. https://www.methanesat.org/satellite/ 

Nesser, H., Jacob, D. J., Maasakkers, J. D., Lorente, A., Chen, Z., Lu, X., Shen, L., Qu, Z., Sulprizio, M. P., Winter, M., Ma, S., Bloom, A. A., Worden, J. R., Stavins, R. N., & Randles, C. A. . (2024). High-resolution US methane emissions inferred from an inversion of 2019 TROPOMI satellite data: Contributions from individual states, urban areas, and landfills. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 24, 5069-5091 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5069-2024 

New York State Government. (2024). Important things to know about landfill gas. Retrieved September 3, 2024. https://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/outdoors/air/landfill_gas.htm 

Nisbet, E. G., Fisher, R. E., Lowry, D., France, J. L., Allen, G., Bakkaloglu, S., Broderick, T. J., Cain, M., Coleman, M., Fernandez, J., Forster, G., Griffiths, P. T., Iverach, C. P., Kelly, B. F. J., Manning, M. R., Nisbet-Jones, P. B. R., Pyle, J. A., Townsend-Small, A., al-Shalaan, A., Warwick, N., & Zazeri, G. (2020). Methane mitigation: Methods to reduce emissions,on the path to the Paris agreement. Review of Geophysics, 58(1). https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000675 

Ocko, I. B., Sun, T., Shindell, D., Oppenheimer, M. Hristov, A. N., Pacala, S. W., Mauzerall, D. L., Xu, Y. & Hamburg, S. P. (2021). Acting rapidly to deploy readily available methane mitigation measures by sector can immediately slow global warming. Environmental Research, 16(5). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf9c8 

Olaguer, E. P. (2021). The potential ozone impacts of landfills. Atmosphere, 12(7), 877. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12070877 

Plant, G., Kort, E. A., Brandt, A. R., Chen, Y., Fordice, G., Negron, A. M. G., Schwietzke, S., Smith, M., & Zavala-araiza, D. (2022). Estimates of solid waste disposal rates and reduction targets for landfill gas emissions. Science, 377(6614), 1566-1571 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abq0385 

Powell J. T., Townsend, T. G., & Zimmerman, J. B. (2015). Estimates of solid waste disposal rates and reduction targets for landfill gas emissions. Nature Climate Change, 6, 162-165 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2804

SaveOnEnergy. (2024). Landfills: The truths about trash dumps by the numbers. Retrieved September 2, 2024. https://www.saveonenergy.com/resources/landfill-statistics/ 

Scarapelli, T. R., Cusworth, D. H., Duren, R. M., Kim, J., Heckler, J., Asner, G. P., Thoma, E., Krause, M. J., Heins, D., & Thorneloe, S. (2024). Investigating major sources of methane emissions at US landfills. Environmental Science & Technology. 58(29). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c07572

Scharff, H. Soon, H., Taremwa, S. R., Zegers, D., Dick, B., Zanon, T. V. B., & Shamrock, J. (2023). The impact of landfill management approaches on methane emissions. Waste Management & Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X231200742 

Scheutz, C., Pedersen, R. B., Petersen, P. H., Jørgensen, J. H. B., Ucendo, I. M. B., Mønster, J. G., Samuelsson, J., Kjeldsen, P. (2014). Mitigation of methane emission from an old unlined landfill in Klintholm, Denmark using a passive biocover system. Waste Management. 34(7), 1179-1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.03.015 

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

Sperling Hansen Associates (2020). 7 Mile landfill operational biocover study. https://www.rdmw.bc.ca/media/2020%2003%2017%207Mile%20Landfill%20Operational%20Biocover%20Study.pdf 

Stern, J. C., Chanton, J., Ahicou, T., Powelson, D., Yuan, L., Escoriza, S. & Bogner, J.. (2007). Use of a biologically active cover to reduce landfill methane emissions and enhance methane oxidation. Waste Management 27(9), 1248-1258 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.07.018 

Stone, E. (2023, September 7). Landfills: 'Zombie' landfills emit tons of methane decades after shutting down. Here's why that's a big problem. LAist. https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/zombie-landfills-emit-tons-of-methane-decades-after-shutting-down-heres-why-thats-a-big-problem 

Sweeptech. (2022). What is a landfill site’s environmental impact?. Retrieved March 7, 2025. https://www.sweeptech.co.uk/what-is-a-landfill-site-and-how-does-landfill-impact-the-environment/#:~:text=The%20average%20size%20of%20a,for%20these%20massive%20waste%20dumps. 

Tangri, N. (2010). Respect for recyclers: Protecting the climate through zero waste. Gaia. https://www.no-burn.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Respect-for-Recyclers-English_1.pdf 

Towprayoon, S., Ishigaki, T., Chiemchaisri, C., & Abdel-Aziz, A. O. (2019). Chapter 3: Solid waste disposal. In 2019 refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. International Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/pdf/5_Volume5/19R_V5_3_Ch03_SWDS.pdf

Trashcans Unlimited. (2022). Biggest landfill in the world. Retrieved March 7, 2025. https://trashcansunlimited.com/blog/biggest-landfill-in-the-world/ 

UN Environment Program. (2021). Global methane assessment: Benefits and costs of mitigating methane emissions. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-methane-assessment-benefits-and-costs-mitigating-methane-emissions 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2019). Global non-CO₂ greenhouse gas emission projections & mitigation 2015 - 2050. https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/transitioning-low-gwp-alternatives-residential-and-commercial-air

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024a). Basic information about landfill gas. Retrieved September 2, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/lmop/basic-information-about-landfill-gas 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024b). Benefits of landfill gas energy projects. Retrieved September 23, 2024. https://www.epa.gov/lmop/benefits-landfill-gas-energy-projects 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). Accomplishments of the landfill methane outreach program. Retrieved March 5, 2025. https://www.epa.gov/lmop/accomplishments-landfill-methane-outreach-program 

Van Dingenen, R., Crippa, M., Maenhout, G., Guizzardi, D., & Dentener, F. (2018). Global trends of methane emissions and their impacts on ozone concentrations. European Commission. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c40e6fc4-dbf9-11e8-afb3-01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

Vasarhelyi, K. (2021, April 15). The hidden damage of landfills. University of Colorado Boulder. https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2021/04/15/hidden-damage-landfills#:~:text=The%20average%20landfill%20size%20is,liners%20tend%20to%20have%20leaks 

Waste Today. (2019, June 26). How landfill covers can help improve operations. Retrieved April 13, 2025. https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/news/interim-daily-landfill-covers/ 

Zhang, T. (2020, May 8). Landfill earth: A global perspective on the waste problem. Universitat de Barcelona. https://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/bitstream/2445/170328/1/Landfill%20Eart.%20A%20Global%20Perspective%20on%20the%20Waste%20Problem.pdf 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Jason Lam

Contributors

  • Yusuf Jameel

  • Daniel Jasper

  • James Gerber

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Erika Luna

  • Paul West

  • Amanda Smith

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

Effectiveness

According to the IPCC, preventing 1 Mt of emitted methane avoids 81.2 Mt CO₂‑eq on a 20-yr basis and 27.9 Mt CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis (Smith et al., 2021, Table 1). If the methane is burned (converted into CO₂), the contribution to GHG emissions is still less than that of methane released directly into the atmosphere. Methane abatement can immediately limit future global climate change because of its outsized impact on global temperature change, especially when looking at a 20-yr basis.

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

Unit: tCO₂‑eq/Mt of methane abated

100-yr GWPl 27,900,000
Left Text Column Width
Cost

To abate 1 Mt of methane, GCCS and methane use/destruction have an initial cost of around US$410 million, an operating cost of roughly US$191 million, and revenue in the neighborhood of US$383 million. The net savings over a 30-yr amortization period is US$179 million. This means capturing and selling landfill methane will be a net economic gain for most landfill operators. We included LDAR operating costs in the overall operating costs for GCCS and methane use/destruction, although LDAR can be used prior to installation or with other strategies such as biocovers. We split the median costs for GCCS and methane use/destruction between 20-yr and 100-yr GWP (Table 2a).

Biocovers have an initial cost to abate 1 Mt of methane around US$380 million, operating costs of roughly US$0.4 million, and revenue of about US$0 million, and an overall net cost over a 30-yr amortization period of US$13 million. This means that using biocovers to abate landfill methane has a net cost. If a carbon credit system is in place, biocovers can recoup the costs or generate profits. Biocovers are reported to have lower installation and operation costs than GCCS because they are simpler to install and maintain, and can be used where local regulations might limit a landfill operator’s ability to capture and use methane (Fries, 2020). Table 2b shows that the median costs for biocovers are split between 20-yr and 100-yr GWP.

We found very limited data for the baseline scenario, which follows current practices without methane abatement. We considered the baseline costs to be zero for initial costs, operational costs, and revenue because landfills without management – such as open landfills or sanitary landfills with no methane controls – release methane as part of their regular operations, do not incur additional maintenance or capital costs, and lack any energy savings from capturing and using methane.

Few data were available to characterize the initial costs of implementing landfill methane capture. We referenced reports from Ayandele et al. (2024a), City of Saskatoon (2023), DeFabrizio et al. (2021), and Government of Canada (2024), but the context and underlying assumptions costs were not always clear. 

Landfills are typically 202–243 ha (Sweeptech, 2022); however, the size can vary greatly, with the world’s largest landfill covering 890 ha (Trashcans Unlimited, 2022). Because larger landfills make more methane, facility size helps determine which methane management strategies make the most sense. We assumed the average landfill covered 243 ha when converting costs to our common unit. 

Data on revenues from the sale of collected LFG are also limited. We found some reports of revenue generated at a municipal level or monetized benefits from GHG emission reductions priced according to a social cost of methane or carbon credit system (Abichou, 2020; Government of Canada, 2024). These values may not apply at a global scale, especially when the credits are supported by programs such as the United States’ use of Renewable Identification Numbers.

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq

Median (100-yr basis) -6.42
Median (20-yr basis) -2.21

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq

Median (100-yr basis) 0.47
Median (20-yr basis) 0.16
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Landfill GCCSs are mature; we do not foresee declining implementation costs for these solutions due to extensive use of the same installation equipment and materials in other industries and infrastructure. Automation of GCCS settings and monitoring may improve efficiencies, but installation costs will stay largely the same. 

Landfill covers are a mature technology, having been used to control odors, fires, litter, and scavenging since 1935 (Barton, 2020). Biocover landfill cover costs could decrease as recycled organic materials are increasingly used in their construction. It is not clear how the cost of biocovers might decrease as adoption grows. 

Though LDAR might provide gains around efficiencies, little research offers insights here.

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

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

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

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

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Approximately 61% of methane generated from food waste happens within 3.6 years of being landfilled (Krause, et al., 2023). In the United States, the EPA requires GCCS to be installed after five years of the landfill closing, meaning that much of the food waste methane will evade GCCS before it is installed (Industrious Labs, 2024b). In contrast, biocovers can quickly (up to three months) reduce methane emissions once the bacteria have established (Stern et al., 2007). GCCS and biocovers should be installed as soon as possible to capture as much of the early methane produced from food waste. Due to unstable methane production during early- and end-of-life gas production, low-calorific flares or biocovers may be needed to destroy any poor-quality gas that has collected. Strategies that prevent organic waste from being deposited at landfills are captured in other Project Drawdown solutions: Deploy Methane Digesters, Increase Composting, and Reduce Food Loss and Waste.

The effectiveness of landfill management depends on methane capture and destruction efficiency. The EPA previously assumed methane capture efficiency to be 75% and then revised it to 65%; however, the actual recovery rate in the United States is closer to 43% (Industrious Labs, 2024b). 

Our assessment does not include the impact of the CO₂ created from the destruction of methane.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

We found little literature quantifying the current adoption of LFG methane abatement. We estimate that GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies account for approximately 1.6 Mt/yr of abated global methane. 

We did not find unaggregated data about current adoption of biocovers or global data for landfill methane abatement that we could use to allocate the contribution to each landfill methane abatement strategy. A large portion of data for current adoption is from sources focused on landfills in the U.S.. Around 70 Mt of methane is currently being emitted globally from landfills in 2024 (IEA, 2025; Ocko et al., 2021). 

Table 3a shows the statistical ranges among the sources we found for current adoption of GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies. We were not able to find sources measuring the current adoption of biocovers and the amount of methane abated and assume it was 0 in 2023 (Table 3b).

The EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program helps reduce methane emissions from U.S. landfills. The program has worked with 535 of more than 3,000 U.S. landfills (EPA, 2024; Vasarhelyi, 2021). Global Methane Initiative (GMI) members abated 4.7 Mt of methane from 2004 to 2023 (GMI, 2024). Because GMI members cover only 70% of human-caused methane emissions overall – including wastewater and agricultural emissions this is an overestimate of current landfill methane abatement. Holley et al. (2024) determined that while some methane abatement was occuring in Mexico, only 0.13 Mt of methane was abated from 2018 to 2020, which is about 12% of Mexico’s 2021 solid waste sector methane emissions. India and Nigeria recently installed some GCCS and methane use/destruction systems, but these are excluded from our analysis due to unclear data (Ayandele et al., 2024b; Ayandele et al., 2024c). Industrious Labs (2024b) found that GCCS were less common than expected – the EPA assumes a 75% gas recovery rate for well-managed landfills. A study on Maryland landfills found that only half had GCCS in place, with an average collection efficiency of 59% (Industrious Labs, 2024b). 

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current (2023) adoption level.

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

25th percentile 1.26
mean 1.64
median (50th percentile) 1.59
75th percentile 2.00

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

25th percentile 0
mean 0
median (50th percentile) 0
75th percentile 0
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Few studies explicitly quantify the adoption of methane abatement technologies over time; we estimated the adoption trend to be 0.22 Mt/yr of methane abated – mainly from GCCS and methane use/destruction. We were not able to find unaggregated data for the adoption trend of biocovers, so we estimated adoption from EPA (2024), GMI (2024), Industrious Labs (2024b), and Van Dingenen et al. (2018). The EPA (2024) provided adoption data for a limited number of U.S. landfills that showed increasing methane abatement 2000–2013, a plateau 2013–2018, and slower progress 2018–2023 (Figure 2).

left_text_column_width
Enable Download
Off

GMI (2024) show a gradual increase in methane abatement 2011–2022. However, these data do not differentiate landfill methane abatement from other abatement opportunities, and even include wastewater systems and agriculture. When the GMI (2024) data are used to estimate adoption trends, they result in an overestimate. Van Dingenen et al. (2018) attributed a decreasing trend in landfill methane emissions 1990–2012 to landfill regulations implemented in the 1990s. Table 4a shows statistical ranges among the sources we found for the adoption trend of landfill methane strategies. Due to a lack of sources, we assume a zero value for the adoption trend of biocovers (and the amount of methane abated) as shown in Table 4b.

left_text_column_width

Table 4. 2011–2022 adoption trend.

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

25th percentile 0.05
mean 0.38
median (50th percentile) 0.22
75th percentile 0.54

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

25th percentile 0
mean 0
median (50th percentile) 0
75th percentile 0
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

GCCS and methane use/destruction have an estimated adoption ceiling of 70 Mt/yr of methane abated based on the IEA’s (2025) estimate for methane emissions from the landfill waste sector. We assumed that current landfill methane emissions would remain the same into the future with no changes in waste produced or waste diversion employed.

Biocovers have an estimated adoption ceiling of 70 Mt/yr of methane based on the IEA’s (2025) estimate for methane emissions from the landfill waste sector. We assumed that current landfill methane emissions would remain the same into the future with no changes in waste produced or waste diversion employed.

The maximum possible abatement of LFG methane critically depends on the efficiency of the abatement technology; Powell et al. (2015) found that closed landfills (those not actively receiving new waste) were 17% more efficient than open landfills. Even so, research from Nesser et al. (2024) found that the gas capture efficiency among United States landfills was significantly lower than EPA assumptions – closer to 50% rather than 75%. Industrious Labs (2024b) found that landfill methane emissions could be reduced by up to 104 Mt of methane 2025–2050. Using biocovers and installing GCCS earlier (with consistent operation standards) may help reduce emissions throughout the landfill’s lifespan. Tables 5a and 5b show the adoption ceiling for GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies, and for biocovers when used separately.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

median (50th percentile) 70

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

median (50th percentile) 70
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

The amount of methane that can be abated from landfills is highly uncertain due to the difficulty in quantifying where and how much methane is emitted and how much of those emissions can be abated. 

GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies have an achievable adoption range of 5–35 Mt/yr of methane (Table 6a). These values are aligned with estimates from DeFabrizio et al. (2021) and Scharff et al. (2023) for landfill methane abatement. 

Biocovers have an achievable adoption range of 35–57 Mt/yr of methane (Table 6b). This value is aligned with estimates of biocover gas destruction efficiency from Duan et al. (2022) and Scheutz et al. (2014). 

The use of these methane abatement strategies would still release around 13–65 Mt/yr of methane into the atmosphere (IEA, 2025). The amount of methane abated from both GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies and biocovers will vary with what kind of waste reduction and organic diversion is used (which can increase or decrease depending on the amount of organics sent to landfills). 

We referenced CCAC (2024), EPA (2011), Fries (2020), Industrious Labs (2024b), Lee et al. (2017), and Sperling Hansen (2020) when looking at the achievable adoption for global landfill methane abatement. Several resources focused on landfills in Canada, Denmark, South Korea, and the United States. We based the adoption achievable for biocovers only on sources that include the percentage of gas capture (destruction) efficiency over landfill sites. We exclude studies that include the percentage of biogas oxidized because they focus on specific areas where biocovers were applied. It is important to note that biocovers do not capture methane – they destroy it through methane oxidation. In addition, biocovers’ gas capture efficiency will not reach its optimal rate until the bacteria establishes. It may take up to three months (Stern et al., 2007) for methane oxidation rates to stabilize, and – because environmental changes can impact the bacteria’s methane oxidation rate – the value presented here likely overestimates biocover methane abatement potential in practice. Stern et al. (2007) found that biocovers can be a methane sink and oxidation rates of 100% have been measured at landfills. 

Few studies have examined how methane abatement is affected when all strategies are combined. A single landfill’s total methane abatement would likely increase with each added strategy, the total methane abatement is not expected to be additive between the strategies. For example, If a GCCS system can capture a large portion of LFG methane, then adding a biocover to the same landfill will play a reduced role in methane abatement. The values presented do not consider which geographies are best suited for specific methane abatement strategies. Compared with reality, those values may appear generous. 

Long-term landfill methane abatement will be necessary to manage emissions from previously deposited organic waste. Strong regulations for waste management can encourage methane abatement strategies at landfills and/or reduce the amount of organics sent their way. The infrastructure for these methane abatement strategies can still be employed in geographies without strong regulations. Tables 6a and 6b show the statistical low and high achievable ranges for GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies and for biocovers (when used separately) based on different reported sources for adoption ceilings.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

Current Adoption 1.60
Achievable – Low 4.50
Achievable – High 34.78
Adoption Ceiling 69.56

Unit: Mt/yr methane abated

Current Adoption 0.00
Achievable – Low 35.13
Achievable – High 57.04
Adoption Ceiling 69.56
Left Text Column Width

Landfill methane abatement has a high potential for climate impact. 

GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies can significantly reduce landfill GHG emissions (table 7a).

Biocovers can be a useful strategy for controlling LFG methane (table 7b) because they can oxidize methane in areas where GCCS and methane use/destruction strategies are not applicable. In addition, this strategy can help destroy methane missed from GCCS and even remove methane from the atmosphere (Stern et al., 2007). The lower cost for installation and operation when compared to installing GCCS systems and increased applicability at landfills large and small are encouraging factors for broadening their use around the world. 

LDAR can help identify methane leaks,allowing for targeted abatement (Industrious Labs, 2024a). 

Research has not quantified how methane abatement is affected by combining these strategies. We anticipate that the total methane abatement would increase with each additional strategy, but we don’t expect them to be additive. The general belief is that biocovers are useful for reducing methane emissions in areas where a GCCS cannot be installed and will also help to remove residual methane emissions from GCCS systems. If there is a large increase in waste diversion, the abatement potential could be 0.13–1.59 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr for landfill methane abatement (DeFabrizio et al, 2021; Duan et al., 2022). In this scenario there will also be reduced sources of revenue due to lower LFG methane production affecting the economics.

UNEP (2021) underscored the need for additional methane measures to stay aligned with 1.5 °C scenarios. Meeting these goals requires the implementation of landfill GCCS and biocovers as well as improved waste diversion strategies – such as composting or reducing food loss and waste – to reduce methane emissions. The amount of landfill methane available to abate will grow or shrink depending on the amount of organic waste sent to landfills. Previously deposited organic waste will still produce methane for many years and will still require methane abatement.

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.04
Achievable – Low 0.13
Achievable – High 0.97
Adoption Ceiling 1.94

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.13
Achievable – Low 0.37
Achievable – High 2.82
Adoption Ceiling 5.65

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0
Achievable – Low 0.98
Achievable – High 1.59
Adoption Ceiling 1.94

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 20-yr basis

Current Adoption 0
Achievable – Low 2.85
Achievable – High 4.63
Adoption Ceiling 5.65
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Air quality

Using LFG for energy in place of other non-renewable sources – such as coal or fuel oil – reduces emissions of air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and particulate matter (EPA, 2024b; Siddiqua et al., 2022). Untreated LFG is also a source of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in low concentrations. Capturing and burning LFG to generate electricity reduces the hazards of these air pollutants. Methane emissions can contribute to landfill fires, which pose risks to the health and safety of nearby communities by releasing black carbon and carbon monoxide (Global Climate & Health Alliance [GCHA], 2024). Reducing landfill fires by capturing methane can also help improve local air quality. Landfill methane emissions can contribute to ozone pollution, particularly when other non-methane ozone precursors are present (Olaguer, 2021). 

Health

Landfill emissions can contribute to health issues such as cancer, respiratory and neurological problems, low birth weight, and birth defects (Brender et al., 2011; Industrious Labs, 2024a; Siddiqua et al. 2022). By reducing harmful air pollutants, capturing landfill methane emissions minimizes the health risks associated with exposure to these toxic landfill compounds. Capturing LFG can reduce malodorous landfill emissions – pollutants such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide – that impact human well-being (Cai et al., 2018).

Equality

Landfill management practices that reduce community exposure to air pollution have implications for environmental justice (Casey et al., 2021). A large review of waste sites in the United States and Europe found that landfills are disproportionately located near low-income communities and near neighborhoods with racially and ethnically marginalized populations (Marzutti et al., 2010). Reducing disproportionate exposures to air pollution from landfills may mitigate poor health outcomes in surrounding communities (Brender et al., 2011).

Income and work

Generating electricity from LFG can create local jobs in drilling, piping, design, construction, and operation of energy projects. In the United States, LFG energy projects can create 10–70 jobs per project (EPA, 2024b).

left_text_column_width
Risks

GCCS can be voluntarily implemented with sufficient methane generated by the landfill and favorable natural gas prices, but when natural gas prices are low, it makes less economic sense (IEA, 2021). There is also a risk of encouraging organics to be sent to landfills in order to maintain methane capture rates. Reducing the amount of waste made in the first place will allow us to better utilize our resources and for the organic waste that is created; it can be better served with waste diversion strategies such as composting or methane digesters. 

Without policy support, regulation, carbon pricing mechanism, or other economic incentives – biocover adoption may be limited by installation costs. Some tools (like the United Nations’ clean development mechanism) encourage global landfill methane abatement projects. There have been criticisms of this mechanism’s effectiveness for failing to support waste diversion practices and focusing solely on GCCS and incinerator strategies (Tangri, 2010). Collected LFG methane can be used to reduce GHG emissions for hard to abate sectors but continued reliance on methane for industries where it is easier to switch to clean alternatives could encourage new natural gas infrastructure to be built which risks becoming a stranded asset and locking infrastructure to emitting forms of energy (Auth & Kincer, 2022).

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Landfill management can have a reinforcing impact on other solutions that reduce the amount of methane released to the atmosphere. By using strategies like GCCS, methane destruction, and LDAR, the landfill waste sector can help demonstrate the effectiveness and economic case for abating methane. This would build momentum for widespread adoption of methane abatement because successes in this sector can be leveraged in others as well. For example, processes and tools for identifying methane leaks are useful beyond landfills; LDAR as a key strategy for identifying methane emissions can be applied and studied more widely.

left_text_column_width

Competing

Landfill management can have a competing impact with solutions that provide clean electricity. Capturing methane uses natural gas infrastructure and can reduce the cost of using methane and natural gas as a fuel source. As a result, it could prolong the use of fossil fuels and slow down the transition to clean electricity sources.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

1 Mt methane abated

tCO2-eq/unit
2.79×10⁷
units
Current 1.594.534.78
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

GtCO2-eq/yr
Current 0.04 0.130.97
US$ per tCO2-eq
-6
Emergency Brake

CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, BC

Solution Basics

1 Mt methane abated

tCO2-eq/unit
2.79×10⁷
units
Current 035.1357.04
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

GtCO2-eq/yr
Current 0 0.981.59
US$ per tCO2-eq
0
Emergency Brake

CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, BC

Trade-offs

Landfill management strategies outlined in this solution can help to reduce methane emissions that reach the atmosphere. However, the methane used as fuel or destroyed will still emit GHGs. Strategies to capture CO₂ emissions from methane use will be needed to avoid adding any GHG emissions to the atmosphere. Research on this topic takes global methane emissions from landfills in 2023, and assumes they were fully combusted and converted to CO₂ emissions.

left_text_column_width
Mt CO2–eq
< 0.5
0.5–1
1–3
3–5
> 5

Annual emissions from solid waste disposal sites, 2024

Landfills release methane when organic material breaks down. Globally, municipal solid waste was responsible for about 67 Mt of methane emissions in 2023. This methane contributed 19% of total anthropogenic methane emissions in 2023, and is equivalent to 1,809 Mt CO2-eq based on a 100-year time scale.

Raniga, K., (2024). Waste sector: Estimating CH4 emissions from solid waste disposal sites [Data set]. WattTime, Climate TRACE Emissions Inventory. Retrieved April 21, 2025 from https://climatetrace.org

International Energy Agency. (2024). Methane tracker: Data tools. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/methane-tracker

Mt CO2–eq
< 0.5
0.5–1
1–3
3–5
> 5

Annual emissions from solid waste disposal sites, 2024

Landfills release methane when organic material breaks down. Globally, municipal solid waste was responsible for about 67 Mt of methane emissions in 2023. This methane contributed 19% of total anthropogenic methane emissions in 2023, and is equivalent to 1,809 Mt CO2-eq based on a 100-year time scale.

Raniga, K., (2024). Waste sector: Estimating CH4 emissions from solid waste disposal sites [Data set]. WattTime, Climate TRACE Emissions Inventory. Retrieved April 21, 2025 from https://climatetrace.org

International Energy Agency. (2024). Methane tracker: Data tools. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-tools/methane-tracker

Geographic Guidance Introduction

Methane emissions from landfills can vary geographically (IPCC, 2006) since rates of organic matter decomposition and methane generation depend on climate. In practice, however, landfill management has a more significant impact on related emissions and is correlated with country income levels.  

Many high-income countries have landfills that are considered sanitary landfills (where waste is covered daily and isolated from the environment) and have high waste collection rates. Basic covers are placed on the landfills to reduce the risk of odor, scavenging, and wildlife accessing the waste, and there are regulations in place to manage and capture landfill gas (LFG) emissions. These landfills are better prepared to install Gas Collection and Control Systems (GCCS) and methane use or destruction infrastructure. 

For landfills in low- and middle-income countries, existing waste management practices and regulations can vary widely. In countries like the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Nigeria, waste may not be regularly collected; when it is, it is often placed in open landfills where waste lies uncovered, as documented by Ayandele et al. (2024d). This can negatively impact the environment by attracting scavengers and pest animals to the landfill. When this occurs, methane is more easily released to the atmosphere or burned as waste, the latter process creating pollutants that impact the nearby environment (not to mention generating additional GHG emissions).

Overall, managing methane emissions from landfills can be improved everywhere with stronger regulations for high-income countries that will ensure the methane generated from landfills is captured with GCCS and used or destroyed. For low- and middle-income countries, regular waste collection and storage of waste in sanitary landfills need to be implemented first before GCCS technology can be installed. Biocovers can be used around the world but may have the most impact in low- and middle-income countries as they may not have the expertise or infrastructure to effectively use GCCS methane use or destruction strategies (Ayandele et al., 2024d).

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Landfill Management
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Set standards for landfill emissions and goals for reductions.
  • Improve LDAR and emissions estimates by setting industry standards and investing in public research.
  • Mandate early installation of landfill covers and/or GCCSs for new landfills; mandate immediate installation for existing landfills.
  • Set standards for landfill covers and GCCS.
  • Invest in infrastructure to support biogas production and utilization.
  • Regulate industry practices for timely maintenance, such as wellhead turning and equipment monitoring.
  • Set standards for methane destruction, such as high-efficiency flares.
  • Conduct or fund research to fill the literature gap on policy options for landfill methane.
  • Reduce public food waste and loss, invest in infrastructure to separate organic waste before reaching the landfill (see Reduce Food Loss and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Improve LDAR at landfills for surface and fugitive emissions.
  • Install landfill biocovers as well as GCCSs.
  • Invest in infrastructure to support biogas production and utilization.
  • Ensure timely maintenance, such as wellhead turning and equipment monitoring.
  • Improve methane destruction practices, such as using high-efficiency flares.
  • Set goals to reduce landfill methane emissions from operations and help set regional, national, international, and industry reduction goals.
  • Conduct, contribute to, or fund research on technical solutions (e.g., regional abatement strategies) and policy options for landfill methane.
  • Separate food and organic waste from non-organic waste to create separate disposal streams (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Require suppliers to meet standards for low-carbon waste management.
  • If your company participates in the voluntary carbon market, fund high-integrity projects that reduce landfill emissions.
  • Proactively collaborate with government and regulatory actors to support policies that abate landfill methane.
  • Reduce your company’s food waste and loss (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Assist with monitoring and estimating landfill emissions.
  • Help design policies and regulations that support landfill methane abatement.
  • Publish research on policy options for landfill methane abatement.
  • Join or support efforts such as the Global Methane Alliance.
  • Encourage policymakers to create ambitious targets and regulations.
  • Pressure landfill companies and operators to improve their practices.
  • Reduce your organization’s food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Investors
  • Contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Invest in projects that abate landfill methane emissions.
  • Pressure and influence private landfill operators within investment portfolios to implement methane abatement strategies, noting that some strategies, such as selling captured methane, can be sources of revenue and add value for investors.
  • Pressure and influence other portfolio companies to incorporate waste management and landfill methane abatement into their operations and/or net-zero targets.
  • Provide capital for nascent or regional landfill methane abatement technologies and LDAR instruments.
  • Seek impact investment opportunities, such as sustainability-linked loans in entities that set landfill methane abatement targets.
  • Reduce your company’s food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Provide capital for methane monitoring, de-risking, and abatement in the early stages of implementing landfill methane reduction technologies.
  • Support global, national, and local policies that reduce landfill methane emissions.
  • Support accelerators or multilateral initiatives like the Global Methane Hub.
  • Explore opportunities to fund landfill methane abatement strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, proper methane destruction, monitoring technologies, and other equipment upgrades.
  • Advance awareness of the air quality, public health, and climate benefits of landfill methane abatement.
  • Reduce your organization’s food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • If applicable, contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • Provide technical assistance (e.g., monitoring and reporting landfill emissions) to businesses, government agencies, and landfill operators working to reduce methane emissions.
  • Help design policies and regulations that support landfill methane abatement.
  • Educate the public on the urgent need to abate landfill methane.
  • Join or support joint efforts such as the Global Methane Alliance.
  • Advocate to policymakers for more ambitious targets and regulations for landfill emissions.
  • Pressure landfill operators to improve their practices.
  • Reduce your food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop new LDAR technologies that reduce cost and required capacity.
  • Develop new biocover technologies sensitive to regional supply chains and/or availability of materials.
  • Improve methane destruction practices to reduce CO₂ emissions.
  • Research and improve estimates of landfill methane emissions.
  • Create new mechanisms to reduce public food waste and loss, and separate organic waste from landfill waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • If possible, contract with waste collection facilities that utilize methane reduction strategies such as landfill covers, GCCSs, and robust monitoring systems.
  • If harmful landfill management practices impact you, document your experiences.
  • Share documentation of harmful practices and/or other key messages with policymakers, the press, and the public.
  • Advocate to policymakers for more ambitious targets and regulations for landfill emissions.
  • Support public education efforts on the urgency and need to address landfill methane.
  • Reduce your food waste and loss, separate organic waste from other forms, and compost organic waste (see Reduce Food Loss  and Waste, Increase Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters solutions).

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in abating landfill methane emissions: High

There is a high consensus that methane abatement technologies are effective; they can often be deployed cost effectively with an immediate mitigating effect on climate change. 

Though many strategies are universally agreed-upon as effective, waste management practices vary between countries from what we found in our research. China, India, and the United States are the three largest G20 generators of municipal solid waste, though much of the data used in our assessment are from Western countries (Zhang, 2020). Ocko et al. (2021) found that economically feasible methane abatement options (including waste diversion) could reduce 80% of landfill methane emissions from 2020 levels by 2030. Methane abatement can reduce methane emissions from existing organic waste – which Stone (2023) notes can continue for more than 30 years. 

Scharff et al. (2023) found capture efficiencies of 10–90% depending on the LFG strategy used. They compared passive methods, late control of the landfill life, and early gas capture at an active landfill. The EPA (Krause et al., 2023) found that 61% of methane generated by food waste – which breaks down relatively quickly – evades gas capture systems at landfills. This illustrates how early installation of these capture systems can greatly help reduce the total amount of methane emitted from landfills. The EPA findings also highlight the potential impact of diverting organic waste from landfills, preventing LFG from being generated in the first place. 

Ayandele et al. (2024c) found that the working face of a landfill can be a large source of LFG and suggest that timely landfill covers – biocover-style or otherwise – can reduce methane released; timing of abatement strategies is important. Daily and interim landfill covers can prevent methane escape before biocovers are installed. 

Biocovers have a reported gas destruction rate of 26–96% (EPA, 2011; Lee et al. 2017). They could offer a cost-effective way to manage any LFG that is either missed by GCCS systems or emitted in the later stages of the landfill when LFG production decreases and is no longer worth capturing and selling (Martin Charlton Communications, 2020; Nisbet et al., 2020; Sperling Hansen Associates, 2020). Biocovers can also be applied soon after organic waste is deposited at a landfill as daily or interim covers where it is not as practical to install GCCS infrastructure and gas production has not yet stabilized (Waste Today, 2019). Scarapelli et al. (2024) found in the landfills they studied that emissions from working faces are poorly monitored and 79% of the observed emissions originated from landfill work faces. Covering landfill waste with any type of landfill cover (biocover or not), will reduce the work face emissions. 

LDAR can reduce landfill methane emissions by helping to locate the largest methane leaks and so allowing for more targeted abatement strategies. LDAR can also help identify leaks in landfill covers or in the GCCS infrastructure (Industrious Labs, 2024a). 

The results presented in this document summarize findings from 24 reviews and meta-analyses and 26 original studies reflecting current evidence from six countries, Canada, China, Denmark, Mexico, South Korea, and the United States, and from sources examining global landfill methane emissions. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Appendix

The following figures provide examples of where methane can escape from landfills and where sources of emissions have been found. This shows the difficulty in identifying where methane emissions are coming from and the importance of well maintained infrastructure to ensure methane is being abated.

left_text_column_width

Figure A1. Sources of methane emissions at landfills. Source: Garland et al. (2023).

Diagram of landfill components and emissions sources

Source: Garland E., Alves O., Frankiewicz T., & Ayandele E. (2023). Mitigating landfill methane. RMI. https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/06/landfill_monitoring_memo_series.pdf 

Enable Download
On

Figure A2. Source of methane leaks at landfills. Source: Ayandele et al. (2024a).

Source: Ayandele, E., Frankiewicz, T., & Garland, E. (2024a). Deploying advanced monitoring technologies at US landfills. RMI. 

Enable Download
On
Updated Date

Deploy Clean Cooking

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Buildings
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Energy Sources
Image
Family cooking on a clean stove indoors
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

We define the Deploy Clean Cooking solution as the use of cleaner cooking fuels (liquid petroleum gas, natural gas, electricity, biogas, and ethanol) in place of polluting fuels such as wood, charcoal, dung, kerosene, and coal, and/or the use of efficient cookstove technologies (together called cleaner cooking solutions). Replacing unclean fuel and cookstoves with cleaner approaches can drastically reduce GHG emissions while offering health and biodiversity benefits.

Income & work,Health,Equality
Nature protection,Air quality
Overview

Worldwide, cooking is responsible for an estimated 1.7 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis), (World Health Organization [WHO], 2023), or almost 3% of annual global emissions. Most of these emissions come from burning nonrenewable biomass fuels. Only the CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis is reported here due to lack of data on the relative contributions of GHGs. The International Energy Agency (IEA, 2023a) states that 2.3 billion people in 128 countries currently cook with coal, charcoal, kerosene, firewood, agricultural waste, or dung over open fires or inefficient cookstoves because they do not have the ability to regularly cook using cleaner cooking solutions. Even when sustainably harvested, biomass fuel is not climate neutral because it emits methane and black carbon (Smith, 2002).

Clean cooking reduces GHG emissions through three pathways: 

Improving efficiency

Traditional biomass or charcoal cookstoves are less than 15% efficient (Khavari et al., 2023), meaning most generated heat is lost to the environment rather than heating the cooking vessel and food. Cleaner fuels and technologies can be many times more efficient, using less energy to prepare meals than traditional fuels and cookstoves (Kashyap et al., 2024). 

Reducing carbon intensity

Cleaner fuels have lower carbon intensity, producing significantly fewer GHG emissions per unit of heat generated than conventional fuels. Carbon intensity includes CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxides as well as black carbon. For instance, charcoal cookstoves emit approximately 572 kg CO₂‑eq /GJ of heat delivered for cooking (Cashman et al., 2016). In contrast, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and biogas emit about 292 and 11 kg CO₂‑eq /GJ, respectively (Cashman et al., 2016) and, excluding the embodied carbon, stoves that heat with electricity generated from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, or hydroelectric have zero emissions.

Reducing deforestation

Cleaner cooking also helps mitigate climate change by reducing deforestation (Clean Cooking Alliance [CCA], 2023) and associated GHG emissions. 

Figure 1. Classification of household cooking fuels as clean (green) and polluting (orange). Adapted from Stoner et al. 2021.

Source: Stoner, O., Lewis, J., Martínez, I. L., Gumy, S., Economou, T., & Adair-Rohani, H. (2021). Household cooking fuel estimates at global and country level for 1990 to 2030. Nature communications, 12(1), 5793.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26036-x

References

Afrane, G., & Ntiamoah, A. (2011). Comparative life cycle assessment of charcoal, biogas, and liquefied petroleum gas as cooking fuels in Ghana. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 15(4), 539-549. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00350.x

Afrane, G., & Ntiamoah, A. (2012). Analysis of the life-cycle costs and environmental impacts of cooking fuels used in Ghana. Applied energy, 98, 301-306. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261912002590

Anenberg, S. C., Balakrishnan, K., Jetter, J., Masera, O., Mehta, S., Moss, J., & Ramanathan, V. (2013). Cleaner cooking solutions to achieve health, climate, and economic cobenefits. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es304942e

Bailis, R., Drigo, R., Ghilardi, A., & Masera, O. (2015). The carbon footprint of traditional woodfuels. Nature Climate Change, 5(3), 266-272. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2491

Bensch, G., Jeuland, M., & Peters, J. (2021). Efficient biomass cooking in Africa for climate change mitigation and development. One Earth, 4(6), 879-890. https://www.cell.com/one-earth/pdf/S2590-3322(21)00296-7.pdf

Bennitt, F. B., Wozniak, S. S., Causey, K., Burkart, K., & Brauer, M. (2021). Estimating disease burden attributable to household air pollution: new methods within the Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet Global Health, 9, S18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00126-1

Bergero, C., Gosnell, G., Gielen, D., Kang, S., Bazilian, M., & Davis, S. J. (2023). Pathways to net-zero emissions from aviation. Nature Sustainability, 6(4), 404-414. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-01046-9

​​Biswas, S., & Das, U. (2022). Adding fuel to human capital: Exploring the educational effects of cooking fuel choice from rural India. Energy Economics, 105, 105744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2021.105744

Cabiyo, B., Ray, I., & Levine, D. I. (2020). The refill gap: clean cooking fuel adoption in rural India. Environmental Research Letters, 16(1), 014035. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd133

Cashman, S., Rodgers, M., & Huff, M. (2016). Life-cycle assessment of cookstove fuels in India and China. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/600/R-15/325. https://cleancooking.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/496-1.pdf

Clean Cooking Alliance (CCA). (2023). Accelerating clean cooking as a nature-based solution. https://cleancooking.org/reports-and-tools/accelerating-clean-cooking-as-a-nature-based-climate-solution/

Clean Cooking Alliance. (2022). Clean cooking as a catalyst for sustainable food systems. https://cleancooking.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CCA_Clean-Cooking-as-a-Catalyst-for-Sustainable-Food-Systems.pdf

Climate & Clean Air Coalition (2024). Nationally determined contributions and clean cooking. https://www.ccacoalition.org/resources/nationally-determined-contributions-and-clean-cooking

Choudhuri, P., & Desai, S. (2021). Lack of access to clean fuel and piped water and children’s educational outcomes in rural India. World Development, 145, 105535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105535

Dagnachew, A. G., Lucas, P. L., van Vuuren, D. P., & Hof, A. F. (2018). Towards universal access to clean cooking solutions in sub-Saharan Africa. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. (2023). Building evidence to unlock impact finance : A field assessment of lean cooking co-benefits for climate, health, and gender. Retrieved 13 September 2024, from https://www.esmap.org/Building_Evidence_To_unloc_Impact_Finance_Benefits

Fullerton, D. G., Bruce, N., & Gordon, S. B. (2008). Indoor air pollution from biomass fuel smoke is a major health concern in the developing world. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 102(9), 843–851. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.05.028

Down to Earth (2022). Ujjwala: Over 9 million beneficiaries did not refill cylinder last year, Centre admits. Retrieved 20 June 2024, from https://www.downtoearth.org.in/energy/ujjwala-over-9-million-beneficiaries-did-not-refill-cylinder-last-year-centre-admits-84130

Garland, C., Delapena, S., Prasad, R., L'Orange, C., Alexander, D., & Johnson, M. (2017). Black carbon cookstove emissions: A field assessment of 19 stove/fuel combinations. Atmospheric Environment, 169, 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.08.040

International Energy Agency (2022). Africa energy outlook. https://www.iea.org/reports/africa-energy-outlook-2022/key-findings

International Energy Agency (2023a). A vision for clean cooking access for all. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/f63eebbc-a3df-4542-b2fb-364dd66a2199/AVisionforCleanCookingAccessforAll.pdf 

International Energy Agency (2023b). Electricity market report. https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-market-report-update-2023

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022). Climate change 2022: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of the Working Group III to the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/

Jameel, Y., Patrone, C. M., Patterson, K. P., & West, P. C. (2022). Climate-poverty connections: Opportunities for synergistic solutions at the intersection of planetary and human well-being. https://drawdown.org/publications/climate-poverty-connections-report

Jewitt, S., Atagher, P., & Clifford, M. (2020). “We cannot stop cooking”: Stove stacking, seasonality and the risky practices of household cookstove transitions in Nigeria. Energy Research & Social Science, 61, 101340. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629619304700?via%3Dihub

Johnson, E. (2009). Charcoal versus LPG grilling: a carbon-footprint comparison. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(6), 370-378. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195925509000420

Kapsalyamova, Z., Mishra, R., Kerimray, A., Karymshakov, K., & Azhgaliyeva, D. (2021). Why energy access is not enough for choosing clean cooking fuels? Evidence from the multinomial logit model. Journal of Environmental Management, 290, 112539. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479721006010

Khavari, B., Ramirez, C., Jeuland, M., & Fuso Nerini, F. (2023). A geospatial approach to understanding clean cooking challenges in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature Sustainability, 6(4), 447-457 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-01039-8

Lacey, F. G., Henze, D. K., Lee, C. J., van Donkelaar, A., & Martin, R. V. (2017). Transient climate and ambient health impacts due to national solid fuel cookstove emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(6), 1269-1274.https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1612430114

Lansche, J., & Müller, J. (2017). Life cycle assessment (LCA) of biogas versus dung combustion household cooking systems in developing countries–a case study in Ethiopia. Journal of cleaner production, 165, 828-835. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652617315597

Lee, M., Chang, J., Deng, Q., Hu, P., Bixby, H., Harper, S., ... & Liu, J. (2024). Effects of a coal to clean heating policy on acute myocardial infarction in Beijing: a difference-in-differences analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health, 8(11), e924-e932. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00243-2

Mazorra, J., Sánchez-Jacob, E., de la Sota, C., Fernández, L., & Lumbreras, J. (2020). A comprehensive analysis of cooking solutions co-benefits at household level: Healthy lives and well-being, gender and climate change. Science of The Total Environment, 707, 135968. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969719359637

Po, J. Y. T., FitzGerald, J. M., & Carlsten, C. (2011). Respiratory disease associated with solid biomass fuel exposure in rural women and children: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax, 66(3), 232–239. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2010.147884

Rosenthal, J., Quinn, A., Grieshop, A. P., Pillarisetti, A., & Glass, R. I. (2018). Clean cooking and the SDGs: Integrated analytical approaches to guide energy interventions for health and environment goals. Energy for Sustainable Development, 42, 152-159. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082617309857

Shaik, S. R., Muthukumar, P., & Kalita, P. C. (2022). Life cycle assessment of LPG cook-stove with porous radiant burner and conventional burner–a comparative study. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 52, 102255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2022.102255

Shankar, A. V., Quinn, A. K., Dickinson, K. L., Williams, K. N., Masera, O., Charron, D., ... & Rosenthal, J. P. (2020). Everybody stacks: Lessons from household energy case studies to inform design principles for clean energy transitions. Energy Policy, 141, 111468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111468

Simkovich, S. M., Williams, K. N., Pollard, S., Dowdy, D., Sinharoy, S., Clasen, T. F., ... & Checkley, W. (2019). A systematic review to evaluate the association between clean cooking technologies and time use in low-and middle-income countries. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(13), 2277. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/13/2277

Singh, P., Gundimeda, H., & Stucki, M. (2014). Environmental footprint of cooking fuels: a life cycle assessment of ten fuel sources used in Indian households. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19, 1036-1048. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-014-0699-0

Smith, K. R. (2002). In praise of petroleum? Science, 298(5600), 1847-1847. DOI: 10.1126/science.298.5600.1847

Stoner, O., Lewis, J., Martínez, I. L., Gumy, S., Economou, T., & Adair-Rohani, H. (2021). Household cooking fuel estimates at global and country level for 1990 to 2030. Nature communications, 12(1), 5793.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26036-x

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2022). 2021-2022 residential induction cooking tops. Retrieved 19 August 2024, from https://www.energystar.gov/partner_resources/products_partner_resources/brand-owner/eta-consumers/res-induction-cooking-tops#:~:text=Residential%20induction%20cooking%20tops%20instead,energy%20with%20approximately%2085%25%20efficiency.

World Bank (2018). A recipe for protecting the Democratic Republic of Congo’s tropical forests. Retrieved 16 January 2025, from https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2018/01/24/a-recipe-for-protecting-the-democratic-republic-of-congos-tropical-forests

 World Bank (2020). Energy Sector Management Assistance Program. (2020). The state of access to modern energy cooking services. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/energy/publication/the-state-of-access-to-modern-energy-cooking-services

 World Bank (2023). Moving the needle on clean cooking for all. Retrieved 13 September 2024, from https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2023/01/19/moving-the-needle-on-clean-cooking-for-all

World Health Organization (2025). Proportion of population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technologies. Retrieved 1, May 2025, from https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/air-pollution/household-air-pollution 

World Health Organization (2023). Achieving universal access and net-zero emissions by 2050: a global roadmap for just and inclusive clean cooking transition. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/achieving-universal-access-by-2030-and-net-zero-emissions-by-2050-a-global-roadmap-for-just-and-inclusive-clean-cooking-transition

World Health Organization (2024a). WHO publishes new global data on the use of clean and polluting fuels for cooking by fuel type. Retrieved 17 June 2024, https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2022-who-publishes-new-global-data-on-the-use-of-clean-and-polluting-fuels-for-cooking-by-fuel-type#:~:text=As%20of%202021%2C%202.3%20billion,%2D%20and%20middle%2Dincome%20countries.

World Health Organization (2024b). Household air pollution. Retrieved 17 June 2024, https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-air-pollution-and-health

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

  • Amanda Smith, Ph.D.

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Amanda Smith, Ph.D.

  • Tina Swanson, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

The climate impact of cleaner cooking depends on which fuel and technology is being replaced and what is replacing it. The WHO (2024) categorizes cooking fuels as clean, transitional, or polluting based primarily on health impacts. Clean fuels include solar, electric, biogas, LPG, and alcohols, while kerosene and unprocessed coal are polluting fuels. Biomass cooking technologies may be classified as clean, transitional, or polluting depending on the levels of fine particulate matter and carbon monoxide produced. Switching from traditional cookstoves (polluting) to improved cookstoves (transitional) can reduce emissions 20–40%, while switching to an LPG or electric cookstove can reduce emissions more than 60% (Johnson, 2009). Not including the embodied carbon, switching completely to solar-powered electric cookstoves can reduce emissions 100%.

We estimated the effectiveness of cleaner cooking by calculating the reduction in GHG emissions per household switching to cleaner cooking solutions per year (Table 1). Our analysis of national, regional, and global studies suggested that switching to cleaner fuels and technologies can reduce emissions by 0.83–3.4 t CO₂‑eq /household/yr (100-yr basis), including CO₂, methane, black carbon, and sometimes other GHGs. The large range is due to varying assumptions. For example, the IEA arrived at 3.2 t CO₂‑eq /household/yr (100-yr basis) by assuming that >50% of the households switched to electricity or LPG. In comparison, Bailis et al. (2015) assumed a switch from unclean cookstoves to improved biomass cookstoves, resulting in an emissions reduction of only 0.98 t CO₂‑eq /household/yr (100-yr basis).

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing GHG emissions of switching from unclean cooking fuels and technologies to cleaner versions.

Unit: t CO₂-eq/household switching to cleaner cooking solutions/yr, 100-yr basis

25th percentile 1.5
mean 2.2
median (50th percentile) 2.3
75th percentile 3.1
Left Text Column Width

While we estimated a median reduction of 2.3 t CO₂‑eq /household switching to cleaner cooking solutions/yr (100-yr basis), the actual reduction per household might be lower because households often stack cleaner cooking fuel with unclean fuel. This could result from multiple socioeconomic factors. For instance, a household may primarily rely on LPG as its main cooking fuel but occasionally turn to firewood or kerosene for specific dishes, price fluctuation, or fuel shortages (Khavari et al., 2023). In rural areas, cleaner fuels and traditional biomass (e.g., wood or dung) are used together to cut costs or due to personal preferences.

left_text_column_width
Cost

People can obtain traditional unclean fuels and traditional woodstoves for little or no cost (Bensch et al., 2021; Kapsalyamova, 2021). Our analysis estimated the cost of woodstoves at US$1.50/household and the monetary cost of biomass fuel at US$0.00/household/yr. Over the two-yr lifespan of a woodstove, the net annualized cost is US$0.75/household/yr. While collecting this fuel might be free, it contributes to poverty because households can spend one to three hours daily collecting fuelwood. This can contribute to children, especially girls, missing school (Jameel et al., 2023). 

We estimated the median upfront cost of transitioning from primarily unclean cooking fuels and technology to cleaner cooking to be approximately US$54/household, with stoves lasting 3–10 years. However, the range of annual costs is large because several cleaner cooking technologies have significant variations in price, and cleaner fuel cost is even more variable. Our analysis showed a median annual fuel cost of US$56/household/yr with costs ranging from savings of US$9/household/yr when buying less biomass for more efficient biomass stoves to costs of US$187/household/yr for LPG. Over a five-yr lifespan, cleaner cooking solutions have a net cost of US$64/household/yr (Table 2). 

Our analysis may overestimate operational costs due to a lack of data on biomass and charcoal costs. The IEA (2023a) estimates that an annual investment of US$8 billion is needed to supply cleaner cookstoves, equipment, and infrastructure to support a transition to cleaner cooking. This translates to US$17/household/yr. 

The IEA (2023) assumes improved biomass and charcoal cookstoves are predominantly adopted in rural areas while LPG and electric stoves are adopted in urban regions because, in LMICs, economic and infrastructure challenges can limit access to LPG and electricity in rural areas. If every household were to switch exclusively to modern cooking (e.g., LPG and electricity), the cost would be much higher. The World Bank estimates the cost of implementing these solutions to be US$1.5 trillion between 2020 and 2030 or ~US$150 billion/yr over the next 10 years. This translates into an average cost of US$214/household/yr (World Bank, 2020). 

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost of cleaner cooking solutions.

Unit: 2023 US$/household switching to cleaner cooking solution

Median cookstove cost 1.50
Median annual fuel cost 0.00
Net annual cost 0.74

Unit: 2023 US$/household switching to cleaner cooking solution

Median cookstove cost 54
Median annual fuel cost 56
Net annual cost 64
Left Text Column Width

The median cost per unit of climate impact was US$27/t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis, Table 3), obtained by taking the difference between median cost of cooking with polluting sources and the cost of adopting cleaner fuel, then dividing by the median reduction per household (Table 1). Beyond climate benefits, cleaner cooking offers significant other benefits (discussed under Additional Benefits below). While the median cost presented here is a reasonable first-order estimate, the actual cost of GHG reduction will depend upon several factors, including the type of stove adopted, stove usage, fuel consumption, and scale of adoption. 

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis

median (50th percentile) 27
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Deploying cleaner cooking is a mature technology, and prices are unlikely to decrease in high-income countries where cleaner cooking fuels and technologies have been completely adopted. Nonetheless, the high cost of cleaner cooking technologies and the fluctuating prices of cleaner cooking fuel have been among the main impediments in the transition of households experiencing poverty away from unclean fuels and technologies. For example, recent price surges in Africa rendered LPG unaffordable for 30 million people (IEA, 2022). Electricity prices have also fluctuated regionally. In Europe and India, prices were higher in 2023 than in 2019 (IEA, 2023b). In contrast, U.S. electricity prices have remained stable over the past five years, while China experienced an 8% decrease.

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

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

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

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

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Households may continue using unclean cooking fuel and technologies alongside cleaner fuels and technologies (referred to as stacking). The data on cleaner cooking are typically measured as the number of households primarily relying on cleaner cooking fuel. This fails to capture the secondary fuel source used in the household. A review from LMICs revealed that stacking can range from low (28%) to as high as 100%, which would mean that every household is simultaneously using cleaner and unclean fuel (Shankar et al., 2020). This can happen due to factors like an increase in the cost of cleaner cooking fuel, cooking preference, unavailability of cleaner fuel, and unfamiliarity with cleaner cooking technologies. Stacking is challenging to avoid, and there is a growing realization from cleaner cooking practitioners of the need for cleaner approaches, even when multiple stoves are used. For example, electric stoves can be supplemented with LPG or ethanol stoves.

Permanence

There are significant permanence challenges associated with cleaner cooking. Households switch back from cleaner cooking fuels and technologies to unclean fuels and technologies (Jewitt et al., 2020). 

Finance

Finance is vital to supercharge adoption of cleaner cooking. Investment in the cleaner cooking sector remains significantly below the scale of the global challenge, with current funding at approximately US$130 million. This is many times lower than the amount needed each year to expand adoption of cleaner cooking solutions for the 2.4 billion people who still rely on polluting fuels and technologies (CCA 2023). At the current business-as-usual adoption rate, limited by severe underfunding, more than 80% of the population in sub-Saharan Africa will continue to rely on unclean fuels and technologies in 2030 (Stoner et al., 2021)

Climate funding, developmental finance, and subsidies have made some progress in increasing adoption of cleaner cooking. For instance, the World Bank invested more than US$562 million between 2015 and 2020, enabling 43 million people across 30 countries to adopt cleaner cooking solutions (World Bank, 2023; ESMAP, 2023). However, the emissions reductions these programs achieve can be overestimated. A recent analysis (Gill-Wiehl et al., 2024) found that 7.8 million clean cooking offset credits in reality only amounted to about 1.1 million credits. This discrepancy underscores the urgent need for updated methodologies and standards to accurately estimate emissions reductions and the cost of reduction per t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis). 

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

The WHO (2025) estimated that 74% of the global population in 2022 used cleaner cooking fuels and technologies. This translates to 1.2 billion households using cleaner cooking (Table 4) and 420 million households that have yet to switch to clean cooking solutions (Table 4). The adoption of cleaner cooking is not evenly spread across the world. On the higher end of the spectrum are the Americas and Europe, where, on average, more than 93% of people primarily rely on cleaner cooking fuels and technologies (WHO, 2025). On the lower end of the spectrum are sub-Saharan countries such as Madagascar, Mali and Uganda, where primary reliance on cleaner cooking fuel and technologies is <5%. 

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Current adoption level (2022).

Unit: households using cleaner cooking solutions

mean 1,200,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Global adoption of cleaner cooking fuel and technologies as the primary source of cooking increased from 61% of the population in 2013 to 74% in 2023 (WHO, 2025). This translates to roughly 21 million households adopting cleaner cooking technologies/yr (Table 5). This uptake, however, is not evenly distributed (see Maps section above).

Large-scale adoption across China, India, and Indonesia has driven the recent increase. Between 2011 and 2021, use of cleaner fuels and technologies as the primary means of cooking rose from 61% to 83% of the population in China. In India, adoption expanded from 38% to 71%, and in Indonesia, it increased from 47% to 87% (WHO, 2024a). In contrast, primary reliance on cleaner cooking in sub-Saharan Africa only increased from 12% in 2010 to 16% in 2020 (Stoner et al., 2021). 

Based on the existing policies, population growth, and investments, more than 75% of the sub-Saharan African population will use unclean cooking fuels and technologies in 2030 (Stoner et al., 2021). In Central and Southern Asia, about 25% of the population will use unclean cooking fuels and technologies by 2030 (Stoner et al., 2021).

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption trend (2013–2023).

Unit: households switching to cleaner cooking solutions/yr

mean 21,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

The World Bank (2020) estimated that universal adoption of modern energy cooking services by 2030 is possible with an annual investment of US$148–156 billion, with 26% of the investment coming from governments and development partners, 7% from private investment, and 67% from households. Universal adoption and use of cleaner fuels and technologies is possible with an investment of US$8–10 billion/yr (IEA, 2023a; World Bank, 2020). We therefore set the adoption ceiling at 100% of households adopting and using cleaner cooking solutions, which entails 420 million households switching from unclean solutions (Table 6).

left_text_column_width

Table 6.Cleaner cooking adoption ceiling: upper limit for new adoption of cleaner cooking solutions.

Unit: households switching to cleaner cooking solutions

mean 420,000,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

Universal adoption and use of cleaner cooking solutions is achievable before 2050 (Table 7). This is because if the current adoption trend continues, all households that currently use unclean cooking fuels and technologies will have switched to using cleaner versions by 2043. 

China, India, and Indonesia have shown that it is possible to rapidly expand adoption with the right set of policies and investments. In Indonesia, for example, use of cleaner cooking solutions increased from 9% of the population to 89% between 2002 and 2012 (WHO, 2025). 

left_text_column_width

Table 7. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: households switching to cleaner cooking solutions

Current Adoption 0
Achievable – Low 420,000,000
Achievable – High 420,000,000
Adoption Ceiling 420,000,000
Left Text Column Width

Cooking from all fuel types is responsible for approximately 1.7 Gt CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis) emissions every year (WHO 2023), on par with global emissions from the aviation industry (Bergero et al., 2023). Unclean cooking fuels and technologies are also the largest source of black carbon (Climate & Clean Air Coalition, 2024), a short-lived climate pollutant with a GWP several hundred times higher than CO₂ that contributes to millions of premature deaths yearly (Garland et al., 2017). 

The actual reduction in climate impact will depend upon the mix of cleaner fuel and technologies that replace unclean fuel. The IEA (2023a) estimates that if the cleanest cooking fuels and technologies (e.g., electric and LPG) are adopted, emissions could be reduced by 1.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) by 2030. In contrast, a greater reliance on improved cookstoves as cleaner cooking solutions will result in lower emissions reductions. The WHO (2023) estimates that much of the shift by 2030 will involve using improved biomass and charcoal cookstoves, especially in rural areas, reducing emissions 0.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) by 2030 and ~1.6 CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) by 2050, closely matching the IEA estimate.

According to our analysis, deploying cleaner cooking can reduce emissions by 0.98 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) between now and 2050 (Table 8). Our emissions reduction estimates are lower than those of the IEA because we do not assume that the shift to cleaner cooking will be dominated by LPG and renewables.

left_text_column_width

Table 8. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂-eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.00
Achievable – Low 0.98
Achievable – High 0.98
Adoption Ceiling 0.98
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Air Quality and Health

Unclean cooking fuels and technologies produce household air pollution (HAP), with smoke and fine particulates sometimes reaching levels up to 100 times acceptable limits, particularly in poorly ventilated spaces (WHO, 2024b). HAP is linked to numerous health issues, such as stroke, ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, and poor birth outcomes (Jameel et al., 2022). It accounts for more than 3.2 million early deaths annually (WHO 2024b). In 2019, it accounted for over 4% of all the deaths globally (Bennitt et al., 2021). The World Bank (2020) estimated that the negative health impact of unclean cooking fuels and technologies is valued at US$1.4 trillion/yr. Globally, switching to cleaner fuels and technologies could prevent 21 million premature deaths 2000–2100 (Lacey et al., 2017). A recent study offered empirical evidence of potential cardiovascular benefits stemming from household cleaner energy policies (Lee et al., 2024).

Equality

Unclean cooking disproportionately impacts women and children who are traditionally responsible for collecting fuelwood or biomass. Typically, they spend an hour every day collecting solid fuel; however, in some countries (e.g., Senegal, Niger, and Cameroon), daily average collection time can exceed three hours (Jameel et al., 2022). Time-saving cooking fuels are associated with more education in women and children (Biswas & Das, 2022; Choudhuri & Desai, 2021) and can additionally promote gender equity through economic empowerment by allowing women to pursue additional employment opportunities (CCA, 2023). In conflict zones, adoption of cleaner fuels and technologies has been shown to reduce gender-based violence (Jameel et al., 2022). Finally, cleaner cooking fuels can improve health equity as women are disproportionately exposed to indoor air pollution generated from cooking (Fullerton et al., 2008; Po et al., 2011). 

Nature protection

The unsustainable harvest of wood for cooking fuel has led to deforestation and biodiversity loss in regions such as South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (CCA, 2022). East African nations, including Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda, are particularly affected by the rapid depletion of sustainable wood fuel resources. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 84% of harvested wood is charcoal or firewood (World Bank, 2018). Switching to cleaner cooking fuels and technologies can reduce deforestation and protect biodiversity (Anenberg et al., 2013; Dagnachew et al., 2018; CCA, 2022).

Income and Work

Simkovich et al. (2019) found that time gained by switching to cleaner fuel can increase daily income 3.8–4.7%. Their analysis excludes the expenses related to fuel, as well as the costs associated with delivery or transportation for refilling cleaner fuel. Mazorra et al. (2020) reported that if 50% of the time saved from not gathering firewood were redirected to income-generating activities, it could lead to an estimated annual income increase of approximately US$125 (2023 dollars) in the Gambia, US$113 in Guinea-Bissau, and US$200 in Senegal. 

left_text_column_width
Risks

The expensive nature of cleaner cooking presents a significant barrier to adoption. Households that have recently transitioned to cleaner cooking face a high risk of defaulting back to unclean fuels and technologies. For example, among the households that received free LPG connection as a part of the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana in India, low-income households reverted to unclean fuels and technologies during extensive periods of refill gaps (Cabiyo et al., 2020). In total, 9 million recipients could not refill their LPG cylinders even once in 2021–22 due to high LPG costs and other factors (Down to Earth 2022).

Beyond the cost, there is an adjustment period  for the households adopting the cleaner cooking solution, which includes familiarizing themselves with the technology and fostering cultural and behavioral changes, including overcoming biases and adopting new habits.

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Shifting to cleaner cooking reduces the need to burn biomass and so contributes positively to protecting and restoring forests, grasslands, and savannas. 

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

1 household switching to cleaner cooking

tCO2-eq/unit/yr
2.3
units
Current 04.2×10⁸4.2×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

GtCO2-eq/yr
Current 0 0.980.98
US$ per tCO2-eq
27
Emergency Brake

CO₂, CH₄, BC

Trade-offs

Switching to electric cooking will meaningfully reduce GHG emissions only if the grid is powered by clean energy. A life-cycle assessment of cooking fuels in India and China (Cashman et al., 2016) showed that unclean cooking fuels such as crop residue and cow dung had a lower carbon footprint than electricity because in these countries >80% of the electricity was produced by coal and natural gas. 

LPG has been the leading cleaner fuel source replacing unclean cooking fuel globally (IEA, 2023a). The IEA (2023a) estimated that 33% of households transitioning to cleaner cooking fuels and technologies will do so using LPG to transition. Because LPG is a fossil fuel, increased reliance can hinder or slow the transition from fossil fuels. 

left_text_column_width
% population
0–15
15–30
30–45
45–60
60–75
75–100
No data

Percentage of country population relying primarily on clean cooking technologies, 2023

Access to clean cooking technology – and the benefits it confers – varies widely around the world.

World Health Organization (2025). Proportion of population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technologies for cooking (%) [Data set]. The Global Health Observatory Indicators. Retrieved May 8, 2025 from https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/gho-phe-primary-reliance-on-clean-fuels-and-technologies-proportion

% population
0–15
15–30
30–45
45–60
60–75
75–100
No data

Percentage of country population relying primarily on clean cooking technologies, 2023

Access to clean cooking technology – and the benefits it confers – varies widely around the world.

World Health Organization (2025). Proportion of population with primary reliance on clean fuels and technologies for cooking (%) [Data set]. The Global Health Observatory Indicators. Retrieved May 8, 2025 from https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/gho-phe-primary-reliance-on-clean-fuels-and-technologies-proportion

Geographic Guidance Introduction

The Deploy Clean Cooking solution applies to geographies where low-cost, inefficient, and polluting cooking methods are common. Sub-Saharan Africa is the overwhelming target, with only 23% of the population relying on clean cooking technologies (WHO, 2025). 

There are significant correlations between the lack of clean cooking solutions and levels of extreme poverty (World Bank, 2024), and the financial cost of clean fuel and cookstoves is a significant barrier to adoption (WHO, 2023).  

Some of the key benefits of deploying clean cooking will vary based on geography and landscape. For instance, freeing up time spent collecting firewood will be more notable in areas with less dense forests, since people in such locations would have to travel further to harvest the wood (Khavari et al., 2023).

Barriers to the adoption of clean cooking can also vary with geography. Examples noted by Khavari et al. (2023) include robustness of supply chains, which can be influenced by population density and road networks.

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Clean Cooking
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Prioritize the issue at the national level to coordinate policy, coordinate resources, and ensure a robust effort.
  • Create a dedicated coordinating body across relevant ministries, agencies, and sectors.
  • Create subsidies and fuel price caps, and ban unclean cooking fuels and technologies.
  • Remove taxes and levies on clean-cooking stoves.
  • Create dedicated teams to deliver cleaner cooking equipment.
  • Run public education campaigns appropriate for the context. 

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Serve as a clean cooking ambassador to raise awareness within your industry and community.
  • Participate in training programs.
  • Develop feedback channels with manufacturers to enhance design and overcome local challenges.
  • Restaurant owners and cooks can adopt clean cooking in their kitchens to reduce emissions, lower costs, and improve worker health and safety. 

Further information:

Business Leaders

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Ensure operations use clean cooking methods.
  • Educate the public on the benefits of clean cooking, available options, and applicable incentive programs.
  • Advocate to policymakers on issues such as targeted subsidies and providing government support.
  • Educate investors and the business community on local needs and market trends. 

Further information:

Investors

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Distribute cleaner cooking equipment and fuel.
  • Work with local policymakers to ensure that recipient communities can maintain fuel costs over the long term (possibly through fuel subsidies).
  • Provide grants to businesses in this sector.
  • Fund education campaigns appropriate for the context.
  • Advance political action through public-private partnerships such as the CCA. 

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Educate the public on the health, gender, climate, and environmental impacts of unclean cooking and the benefits of cleaner cooking.
  • Hone your message to fit the context and share through appropriate messengers and platforms.
  • Use mechanisms to promote trust, such as working with local health-care workers or other respected professionals. 

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Develop regional-specific technology that uses local sources of energy, such as biogas or high-efficiency charcoal.
  • Create technology that works with the local environment and economy and has reliable supply chains.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Learn about the benefits and harms associated with unclean fuels and technologies.
  • Identify the right technology to purchase by considering the availability and affordability of fuels; practicality of the equipment in producing the quantity, quality, and type of preferred food, and ease of use. 

Further information:

Sources

Clean cooking: An “emergency brake” climate solution. Alexander et al. (2023)

Cooking industry catalyst. CCA (n.d.)

Clean cooking industry snapshot – third edition. CCA (2022)

Why investment in clean cooking is falling short. Coldrey et al. (2023)

Modern energy cooking: review of the funding landscape. Energy 4 Impact (2022)

The clean cooking planning tool: a new resource to explore the costs and benefits of transitioning to clean cooking. Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (2022)

A vision for clean cooking access for all – analysis. IEA (2023)

Tracking SDG7: the energy progress report 2023. International Renewable Energy Agency. (2023)

Behavior change approaches for clean cooking. U.S. Agency for International Development (2015)

Evidence Base

There is a strong consensus on the effectiveness of cleaner cooking as a climate solution. Research over the past two decades (e.g., Anenberg et al., 2013; Mazorra et al., 2020; Rosenthal et al., 2017) has supported the contention that replacing solid fuel cooking with cleaner fuel reduces GHG emissions. 

There is high agreement and robust evidence that switching cooking from unclean fuels and technologies to cleaner alternatives such as burning LPG or electric stoves offers health, air quality, and climate change benefits (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2022).

The IPCC (2022) identified unclean fuels such as biomass as a major source of short-lived climate pollutants (e.g., black carbon, organic carbon, carbon monoxide, and methane) and switching to cleaner fuels and technologies can reduce the emission of short-lived climate pollutants.

Regional and country-level analyses provide additional evidence of the efficacy of cleaner cooking solutions. Khavari et al. (2023) reported that in sub-Saharan Africa, replacing unclean solid fuels with cleaner cooking could reduce GHG emissions by 0.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis). Life cycle assessments comparing different cooking fuels and technologies (Afrane et al., 2011; Afrane et al., 2012; Lansche et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2014) also have shown that cleaner cooking fuels and technologies emit less GHG per unit of energy delivered than unclean fuels.

The IEA estimated that switching completely to clean cooking fuels and technologies by 2030 would result in a net reduction of 1.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) by 2030 (IEA, 2023a). 

The results presented in this document summarize findings from five reviews and meta-analyses and 23 original studies and reports reflecting current evidence from 13 countries, primarily in sub-Saharan Africa. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date
Subscribe to Equality
Back to top