Use Feed Additives

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean (FALO)
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Agriculture Practices
Image
Cow at feeding station
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Feed additives can reduce enteric methane production in ruminant livestock, such as cattle, goats, and sheep. Most feed additive compounds are still being researched to determine their efficacy and safety; however, at least one product, 3-NOP (3-nitrooxypropanol), has been shown to be effective, has recently been approved for use in many countries, and has experienced some early adoption. However, because of cost and the need to be administered daily, the use of feed additives is currently limited to confined ruminants in high-income countries and is not feasible for the majority of global ruminant livestock. Based on these limitations and current levels of adoption, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.

Description for Social and Search
Feed additives can reduce enteric methane production in ruminant livestock, such as cattle, goats, and sheep. Most feed additive compounds are still being researched to determine their efficacy and safety.
Overview

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, feed additives are a promising technology that could yield globally meaningful reductions in methane emissions. A few, including 3-NOP, are just on the threshold of commercial adoption and may be widely used by confined ruminant producers in the coming years. The current use of feed additives is low, and the effectiveness of most feed additive compounds is not well-documented. Consequently, wide-scale adoption is largely confined to confined livestock in high-income countries. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.

Plausible Could it work? Yes
Ready Is it ready? No
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? Yes
Effective Does it consistently work? Yes
Impact Is it big enough to matter? Yes
Risk Is it risky or harmful? No
Cost Is it cheap? Yes

What is it?

Feed additives are a diverse group of natural and synthetic compounds that, when fed daily, can reduce enteric methane production in ruminant livestock, including cattle, sheep, and goats. Enteric methane from livestock is the source of 21% of humanity’s methane emissions, or 2.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Feed additives reduce enteric methane production by suppressing the activity of microbes in the digestive system. 3-NOP (3-nitrooxypropanol) is a synthetic that inhibits an enzyme involved in enteric methane production.

Does it work?

More than 170 different feed additives have been developed and tested so far, but only a few of them have been studied enough to offer predictable outcomes and proper doses. Methane reductions from these well-studied additives typically range from 10-30%. The feed additive 3-NOP, the first compound approved for commercial use, reduces enteric methane by an average of 32.5%. A second feed additive derived from active compounds found in Asparagopsis seaweed has shown promising results in some studies and has recently received regulatory approval in two countries. In addition, because different feed additives use different mechanisms to suppress enteric methane production, it’s possible that multiple additives can be used together to achieve greater methane reductions. The great majority of other additives are not yet ready for widespread adoption due to a lack of understanding of effectiveness, side effects on cattle and humans who consume milk from treated cattle, and other concerns.

Why are we excited?

Ruminants are a major source of methane emissions, yet ruminant meat and dairy products are in high demand. Therefore, any strategy that can reduce methane emissions per kilogram of meat or milk is potentially very valuable and, if broadly adopted, could yield globally meaningful reductions in methane emissions (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq per year). The feed additive 3-NOP, first approved for commercial use in two countries in 2021, is now legal in 55 countries. Research on other feed additives is active and generally well-supported with funding from philanthropic and investment sources. Although current use of feed additives is very low, successful research and pilot studies, increasing regulatory approvals, and strong positive interest from the livestock industry suggest that wider-scale adoption of this emissions reduction technology could occur quickly. In addition to potential emissions reduction benefits, some additives offer other benefits such as increased productivity and parasite control.

Why are we concerned?

Because they must be fed daily as a supplement to a concentrated feed, use of feed additives is limited to ruminants managed under confined conditions. Most of the billions of ruminant animals today are raised or managed in extensive grazing or pastoralist systems, often in small herds in remote areas. This makes use of feed additives infeasible, although some research is underway to develop methane-reducing compounds that could be added to water troughs instead of to feed. Feed additives are also costly. Though they may be cost-effective in terms of dollars per ton of CO₂‑eq reduced, the cost of additives themselves would likely be prohibitive for smallholders and pastoralists in low-income countries. These limitations mean that feed additives, as currently under development, are only suitable for a subset of total ruminant livestock – those that are raised in confinement systems in wealthy countries. The great majority of feed additives are not yet ready for widespread adoption due to a lack of understanding of effectiveness, side effects on cattle and humans who consume milk from treated cattle, and other concerns. There are also other challenges, including regulatory issues, public acceptance, and effects on livestock and human health. There is also concern that feed additives could be used to divert attention from the importance of reducing ruminant meat and milk products in the diets of wealthy countries and reducing food waste of ruminant products.

Solution in Action

Almeida, A. K., Hegarty, R. S., & Cowie, A. (2021). Meta-analysis quantifying the potential of dietary additives and rumen modifiers for methane mitigation in ruminant production systems. Animal Nutrition, 7(4), 1219-1230. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2021.09.005

Batley, R. J., Chaves, A. V., Johnson, J. B., Naiker, M., Quigley, S. P., Trotter, M. G., & Costa, D. F. (2024). Rapid screening of methane-reducing compounds for deployment in livestock drinking water using in vitro and FTIR-ATR analyses. Methane, 3(4), 533-560. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/methane3040030 

Canadell, J.G., P.M.S. Monteiro, M.H. Costa, L. Cotrim da Cunha, P.M. Cox, A.V. Eliseev, S. Henson, M. Ishii, S. Jaccard, C. Koven, A. Lohila, P.K. Patra, S. Piao, J. Rogelj, S. Syampungani, S. Zaehle, and K. Zickfeld, 2021: Global Carbon and other Biogeochemical Cycles and Feedbacks. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 673–816, doi: 10.1017/9781009157896.007

Foley, J. (2021) To stop climate change, time is as important as tech. February 20, 2021, Medium. Link to source: https://globalecoguy.org/to-stop-climate-change-time-is-as-important-as-tech-1be4beb7094a 

Hanson, M. (2024) What can we really expect from Elanco’s new Bovaer®?. Dairy Herd Management, June 24, 2024. Link to source: https://www.dairyherd.com/news/education/what-can-we-really-expect-elancos-new-bovaerr 

Herrmann, M. (2023) The rise of the ‘climate friendly’ cow. April 26, 2023, DeSmog. Link to source: https://www.desmog.com/2023/04/26/rise-of-the-climate-friendly-cow/ 

Hodge, I., Quille, P., & O’Connell, S. (2024). A review of potential feed additives intended for carbon footprint reduction through methane abatement in dairy cattle. Animals, 14(4), 568. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14040568

Krogsad, K. (2024) Dairy cow enteric carbon mitigation calculator. Link to source: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fdairy.osu.edu%2Fsites%2Fdairy%2Ffiles%2Fimce%2FVideos_and_Software%2FDairy%2520Carbon%2520Return%2520Calculator%25202.0.xlsx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK 

Morse, C. (2024a) Rumin8 achieves first regulatory approval in New Zealand. July 22, 2024 Rumin8.com. Link to source: https://rumin8.com/rumin8-achieves-first-regulatory-approval-in-new-zealand/ 

Morse, C. (2024b) Rumin8 achieves first regulatory approval in Brazil. October 8, 2024 Rumin8.com. 
Link to source: https://rumin8.com/rumin8-achieves-first-regulatory-approval-in-brazil/  

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

Paddision, L. (2023) Bill Gates backs start-up tackling cow burps and farts. CNN.com, January 24, 2023. Link to source: https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/world/cows-methane-emissions-seaweed-bill-gates-climate-intl/index.html 

Roques, S., Martinez-Fernandez, G., Ramayo-Caldas, Y., Popova, M., Denman, S., Meale, S. J., & Morgavi, D. P. (2024). Recent advances in enteric methane mitigation and the long road to sustainable ruminant production. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences, 12(1), 321-343. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-animal-021022-024931

Credits

Lead Fellow 

  • Eric Toensmeier

Internal Reviewer

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Speed of Action
left_text_column_width
Caveats
left_text_column_width
Additional Benefits
left_text_column_width
Risks
left_text_column_width
Consensus
left_text_column_width
Trade-offs
left_text_column_width
Action Word
Use
Solution Title
Feed Additives
Classification
Keep Watching
Updated Date

Deploy Micro Wind Turbines

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Production
Image
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Micro wind turbines harness natural wind to generate electricity. They can operate independently or be connected to a centralized electricity grid, and are useful for small-scale commercial, agricultural, and residential applications. Advantages include reducing reliance on fossil fuels for electricity generation, potential expansion of electrification to rural areas, and improvement in energy equity and independence worldwide. Disadvantages include unpredictable and unreliable electricity generation (especially in urban locations), high cost, and noise pollution. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.

Description for Social and Search
Micro wind turbines harness natural wind to generate electricity. They can operate independently or be connected to a centralized electricity grid, and are useful for small-scale commercial, agricultural, and residential applications.
Overview

What is our assessment? 

Based on our analysis, micro wind turbines (MWTs) are a promising technology for reducing emissions, but given the limited potential for global adoption and variable financial viability, they do not meet our threshold for global climate solutions (<0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ). Despite the low climate impact and high costs, Deploy Micro Wind Turbines is an important solution for achieving energy equity. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.

Plausible Could it work? Yes
Ready Is it ready? Yes
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? Yes
Effective Does it consistently work? Yes
Impact Is it big enough to matter? No
Risk Is it risky or harmful? No
Cost Is it cheap? No

What is it? 

MWTs are small-scale turbines that rely on natural wind to generate electricity, charge batteries, or power equipment. Specific definitions for MWTs vary from country to country. Our analysis assessed energy production and GHG emissions reduction potential for wind turbines rated to generate a maximum of 100 kW of electrical power. MWTs are actively used for a variety of applications, including telecommunications, lighting, and agriculture. The total installed capacity for MWTs globally as of 2023 is nearly 1.8 GW or 0.002% of utility-scale onshore wind capacity. MWTs are most commonly used in rural settings.

Does it work? 

When connected to a regional or national electricity grid, MWTs can reduce baseline electricity grid emissions by reducing reliance on fossil fuel energy sources. Off-grid MWTs, which accounted for more than 90% of commercial sales in 2019, help electrify industrial and agricultural processes that otherwise may have been powered by fossil fuels, such as diesel or natural gas. Energy production from MWTs is highly dependent on the availability of consistent wind speeds, with the majority of turbines requiring an average wind speed of around 5 m/s to generate electricity. As long as sufficient wind resources are available, MWTs are effective at producing electricity to meet local energy demand and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

Why are we excited? 

MWTs reduce reliance on fossil fuels for electricity generation, whether they are connected to an electric grid or isolated for local energy use. For grid-connected systems, more available renewable energy sources reduce the need for fossil fuel–based energy generation to meet demand. MWTs isolated from the electricity grid still reduce the local carbon footprint of a household, farm, or commercial building. Globally, the average household consumes approximately 17,000 kWh of electricity annually. Depending on the size of the turbine, local wind energy can produce 1,000–20,000 kWh/yr. Fluctuations in wind speed throughout the day and year can lead to unreliable power output, but this risk can be reduced by integrating batteries or hybrid electricity generation systems, such as combining wind and solar photovoltaics (PV). In addition to emissions reduction, MWTs are crucial tools for expanding electricity access worldwide. Since MWTs can operate independently of an electric grid, they can electrify rural areas where transmission lines are nonexistent or challenging to install. For example, many populations in Africa live in remote areas that could be well-served by installing MWTs to power telecommunications and other local electrification needs. Increasing interest in smart energy systems and Internet of Things technologies presents promising future applications for MWTs.

Why are we concerned? 

While MWTs show potential for expanding electrification, they have a number of limitations compared to other small-scale renewable energy technologies, like solar photovoltaics. First, real-world performance due to wind speed variability and turbulence at installation sites can be unpredictable and is often substantially lower than manufacturers’ power ratings. Second, life-cycle emissions from manufacturing and installation can be more than five times higher for small-scale wind than for large, multi-MW turbines. Energy payback times – the time period for the MWT to generate enough clean energy to offset the energy used during manufacturing and installation – can be long, sometimes exceeding the 20– to 25-year lifetime of the turbine. Third, MWTs are expensive, with up-front costs ranging from approximately US$3,000/kW to more than US$10,000/kW. Even after including financial incentives to partially offset high upfront costs, the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for residential MWTs in the United States was estimated at US$0.28/kWh. Not only was this higher than average U.S. residential electricity rates (US$0.1–0.24/kWh), but it was also more than double the LCOE for residential solar PV (US$0.12/kWh). Finally, noise pollution and vibration are environmental concerns for the wide-scale adoption of MWTs in urban areas. In addition, MWT performance can be poor in urban and suburban areas because buildings and other obstacles disrupt airflow. There is a general consensus in the scientific community and commercial market that MWTs are worthwhile electricity sources for many agricultural and industrial applications where cost is less prohibitive, but they remain a niche technology due to uncertain global economic viability and lack of reliable power generation in suburban and urban areas.

Solution in Action

Bianchini, A., Bangga, G., Baring-Gould, I., Croce, A., Cruz, J. I., Damiani, R., Erfort, G., Simao Ferreira, C., Infield, D., Nayeri, C. N., Pechlivanoglou, G., Runacres, M., Schepers, G., Summerville, B., Wood, D., & Orrell, A. (2022). Current status and grand challenges for small wind turbine technology. Wind Energy Science, 7(5), 2003–2037. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-7-2003-2022

Global Wind Energy Council. (2024). Global Wind Report 2024. Link to source: https://www.gwec.net/reports/globalwindreport

Ismail, K. A. R., Lino, F. A. M., Baracat, P. A. A., De Almeida, O., Teggar, M., & Laouer, A. (2025). Wind Turbines for Decarbonization and Energy Transition of Buildings and Urban Areas: A Review. Advances in Environmental and Engineering Research, 06(01), 1–59. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.21926/aeer.2501013

Jurasz, J., Bochenek, B., Wieczorek, J., Jaczewski, A., Kies, A., & Figurski, M. (2025). Energy potential and economic viability of small-scale wind turbines. Energy, 322, 135608. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2025.135608

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. (2024). Distributed wind market report: 2024 edition (PNNL-36057). Wind Energy Technologies Office, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of the U.S. Department of Energy. Link to source: https://www.pnnl.gov/distributed-wind/market-report 

Pitsilka E. & Kasiteropoulou D., (2024). Wind turbines farms applications. A mini review. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Science (IJRES), 12(2), 36-41. Link to source: https://www.ijres.org/papers/Volume-12/Issue-2/12023641.pdf 

Rosato, A., Perrotta, A., & Maffei, L. (2024). Commercial small-scale horizontal and vertical wind turbines: A comprehensive review of geometry, materials, costs and performance. Energies, 17(13), 3125. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en17133125

Small-Scale Wind Turbines. (2017). In P. A. B. James & A. S. Bahaj, Wind Energy Engineering (pp. 389–418). Elsevier. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-809451-8.00019-9

Taylor, J., Eastwick, C., Lawrence, C., & Wilson, R. (2013). Noise levels and noise perception from small and micro wind turbines. Renewable Energy, 55, 120–127. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.11.031

Tummala, A., Velamati, R. K., Sinha, D. K., Indraja, V., & Krishna, V. H. (2016). A review on small scale wind turbines. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 56, 1351–1371. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.027

Wang, H., Xiong, B., Zhang, Z., Zhang, H., & Azam, A. (2023). Small wind turbines and their potential for internet of things applications. iScience, 26(9), 107674. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.107674

World Wind Energy Association. (2025). WWEA Annual Report 2024. World Wind Wind Energy Association. Link to source: https://wwindea.org/AnnualReport2024 

Zajicek, L., Drapalik, M., Kral, I., & Liebert, W. (2023). Energy efficiency and environmental impacts of horizontal small wind turbines in Austria. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 59, 103411. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103411 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewer

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Speed of Action
left_text_column_width
Caveats
left_text_column_width
Additional Benefits
left_text_column_width
Risks
left_text_column_width
Consensus
left_text_column_width
Trade-offs
left_text_column_width
Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Micro Wind Turbines
Classification
Keep Watching
Updated Date

Boost Appliance & Equipment Efficiency

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Buildings & Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Enhance Efficiency
Image
Washing machines on conveyer belts in a factory
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Boosting the efficiency of appliances and equipment cuts GHG emissions by reducing the amount of electricity used to operate these devices. Efficiency improvements also lead to reduced peak demand, less strain on the electric grid, and potential utility savings for homeowners due to reduced electricity use. Despite this potential, the increase in the total number of households and average ownership of appliances, especially in low- and middle-income countries, has offset the impact of efficiency gains and resulted in increased electricity consumption from devices globally. We conclude that Boost Appliance & Equipment Efficiency is “Worthwhile” because it functionally reduces the energy consumed by these devices, but significant leaps in efficiency and shifts in user behavior are needed to realize its full potential as a climate solution.

Description for Social and Search
Boosting the efficiency of appliances and equipment cuts GHG emissions by reducing the amount of electricity used to operate these devices.
Overview

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, boosting appliance and equipment efficiency is a promising strategy for reducing GHG emissions, but significant leaps in efficiency and shifts in user behavior are needed to counteract the rebound effect and realize its impact. This potential climate solution is “Worthwhile.”

Plausible Could it work? Yes
Ready Is it ready? Yes
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? Yes
Effective Does it consistently work? Yes
Impact Is it big enough to matter? No
Risk Is it risky or harmful? No
Cost Is it cheap? Yes

What is it?

Appliance and equipment efficiency typically refers to larger devices in residential buildings that run on electricity, such as refrigerators, freezers, washing machines, dishwashers, dryers, and televisions. Energy-efficient appliances or equipment consume less electricity when operated than do inefficient devices. Therefore, boosting appliance efficiency reduces the CO₂, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions from electricity generation. As of 2022, the energy consumed by household appliances globally was more than twice the total energy used to cool both residential and nonresidential buildings, and about half the energy used for heating. To drive higher efficiency for these devices, various countries have established regional energy efficiency standards, rating systems, and labeling programs. Currently, homeowners can readily access a variety of options on the appliance market, and less efficient devices can easily be replaced. However, income levels, especially in low- and middle-income countries, may affect people’s actual ability to purchase certain appliances, although these devices are increasingly becoming cheaper.

Does it work?

Improving the efficiency of appliances and equipment functionally reduces the energy required to run these devices. Various field studies have demonstrated the effect of efficiency gains on lowering electricity consumption. However, the rise in appliance ownership per household and the growing total number of households have offset the collective climate impact expected from efficiency improvements. Globally, the number of households grew from about 1.5 billion in 2000 to 2.2 billion in 2021. Considering the concurrent increase in the global average units owned per household, the number of appliances in use has essentially doubled over the same period. For example, we estimate that over two decades, the number of televisions owned grew from about 1.4 to 2.8 billion units, refrigerators grew from 0.9 to 1.7 billion units, and washing machines grew from about 0.6 to 1.1 billion units. This growth resulted in rising electricity consumption by appliances annually, from 2,880 TWh in 2000 to 5,734 TWh in 2022, which translates to a 99% global increase, largely driven by the Asia-Pacific region.

Why are we excited?

Boosting appliance and equipment efficiency allows homeowners to realize operational cost savings as a result of lower electricity consumption and utility bills. Compared with less efficient devices, using appliances with higher efficiency ratings functionally reduces peak electricity demand, alleviating strain on the electric grid. The advent of smart devices and the Internet of Things (IoT) also helps to automate the operation of these appliances, optimizing their runtime while minimizing the energy consumed. Initial purchasing costs are also declining, making efficient appliances more accessible and affordable. 

Access to high-efficiency appliances also yields additional benefits. For example, access to energy-efficient refrigerators and freezers means that food waste can be minimized with less energy, leading to better food security. Similarly, multimedia equipment, such as television sets, offers access to critical information. Further cuts in GHG emissions are also possible as the electric grid transitions to renewable energy sources.

Why are we concerned?

Despite the potential benefits, the efficiency improvements in household appliances and equipment have not effectively translated into a positive climate impact. This is largely due to the significant rebound effect, or the increase in appliances owned by households as these devices become cheaper and more efficient. Considering the role of appliances in providing a greater quality of life, limiting the increase in appliance purchases is dismissible. The markets for appliances and equipment in many countries also still consist of pre-owned devices, which are less efficient. Some countries, such as Ghana, have established legislation to prevent the importation of pre-owned devices. This approach ensures that the appliances bought by homeowners will run on the newest, most efficient technologies. Recent findings from regions with stringent energy rating systems also suggest that regulations and programs can lead to a 50% cut in the electricity consumed by appliances. Global initiatives, such as the United for Efficiency (U4E) partnership, which seeks to shift appliance markets in low- and middle-income countries into high-efficiency devices, are increasingly needed for the potential energy savings to be realized as a climate solution.

Solution in Action

CLASP. (2023). Net zero heroes: Scaling efficient appliances for climate change mitigation, adaptation & resilience. CLASP. Link to source: https://www.clasp.ngo/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/CLASP-COP28-FullReport-V8-012424.pdf

Darshan, A., Girdhar, N., Bhojwani, R., Rastogi, K., Angalaeswari, S., Natrayan, L., & Paramasivam, P. (2022). Energy audit of a residential building to reduce energy cost and carbon footprint for sustainable development with renewable energy sources. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2022(1), 4400874. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4400874

de Ayala, A., Foudi, S., Solà, M. d. M., López-Bernabé, E., & Galarraga, I. (2020). Consumers’ preferences regarding energy efficiency: A qualitative analysis based on the household and services sectors in Spain. Energy Efficiency, 14(1), 3. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-020-09921-0

de Ayala, A., & Solà, M. d. M. (2022). Assessing the EU energy efficiency label for appliances: Issues, potential improvements and challenges. Energies, 15(12), 4272. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15124272

IEA. (2022, 22 September 2022). Worldwide average household ownership of appliances and number of households in the net zero scenario, 2000–2030. Retrieved April 20, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/worldwide-average-household-ownership-of-appliances-and-number-of-households-in-the-net-zero-scenario-2000-2030

IEA. (2023). Space cooling: Net zero emissions guide. IEA. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/space-cooling-2

IEA/4E TCP. (2021). Achievements of energy efficiency appliance and equipment standards and labeling programmes. IEA. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/reports/achievements-of-energy-efficiency-appliance-and-equipment-standards-and-labelling-programmes

Lane, K., & Camarasa, C. (2023, 11 July 2023). Appliances and equipment. IEA. Retrieved May 13, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings/appliances-and-equipment

Stasiuk, K., & Maison, D. (2022). The influence of new and old energy labels on consumer judgements and decisions about household appliances. Energies, 15(4), 1260. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/en15041260

United for Efficiency (U4E). (2025). About the partnership. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). Retrieved May 15, 2025, from Link to source: https://united4efficiency.org/about-the-partnership/ 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Henry Igugu, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D.
  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewer

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Speed of Action
left_text_column_width
Caveats
left_text_column_width
Additional Benefits
left_text_column_width
Risks
left_text_column_width
Consensus
left_text_column_width
Trade-offs
left_text_column_width
Action Word
Boost
Solution Title
Appliance & Equipment Efficiency
Classification
Worthwhile
Updated Date

Use Low-Flow Fixtures

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Buildings & Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Enhance Efficiency
Image
Water streaming from shower head
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Low-flow fixtures reduce GHG emissions by reducing the volume of hot water used and therefore reducing the emissions from the energy used to heat that water. Reduced water usage also leads to fewer emissions from treating and pumping water for domestic use. Low-flow fixtures are low-cost and simple to install. They generate utility bill savings for households and support sustainable water resource management. Modern quality low-flow fixtures have resolved many of the performance issues of earlier versions. Even with significant adoption, however, the total emissions reduction potential for low-flow fixtures is relatively small. We conclude that, despite its modest emissions impact, Use Low Flow Fixtures is “Worthwhile” due to its relative ease, low cost, and additional benefits.

Description for Social and Search
Low-flow fixtures reduce GHG emissions by reducing the volume of hot water that is used and therefore reducing the emissions from the energy used to heat that water.
Overview

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, using low-flow fixtures is a cost-effective strategy for reducing water consumption, but has only a modest impact on GHG emissions. Therefore, this climate solution is “Worthwhile.”

Plausible Could it work? Yes
Ready Is it ready? Yes
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? Yes
Effective Does it consistently work? Yes
Impact Is it big enough to matter? No
Risk Is it risky or harmful? No
Cost Is it cheap? Yes

What is it?

Low-flow fixtures lessen the total consumption of water by reducing flow rates through a household faucet or shower. Less hot water use means fewer emissions from the energy source used to heat the water, and it also means fewer emissions from pumping and treating tap water. Heating water for showers, sinks, and other domestic appliances is often the second largest source of emissions from buildings after space heating. Modern low-flow showerheads can produce comparable pressure and coverage to traditional showerheads through aeration and/or laminar flow. Aerators for faucets and low-flow showerheads are relatively low-cost investments that users can install themselves.

Does it work?

Low-flow fixtures reduce emissions from heating, delivering, and treating water by reducing hot water consumption. There is ample evidence for water savings with low-flow fixtures, as well as for the linkage between quantity and source of energy used for water heating and GHG emissions. Additionally, there is substantial research on the emissions from treating and pumping water, which can be reduced through water conservation. Low-flow fixtures are readily available, and performance labels are available to help consumers select quality products.

Why are we excited?

Low-flow fixtures conserve water, which reduces emissions, reduces energy demand, saves consumers money, and helps with sustainable water resource management. Households that adopt low-flow fixtures can enjoy significant utility bill savings because these fixtures reduce both water consumption and the energy used to heat water in the home. Faucet aerators also produce a smoother water stream with less splashing, and along with low-flow showerheads, are low-cost and simple to install. Household water conservation practices, such as low-flow fixtures, can help with regional sustainable water resource management and defer infrastructure expansion projects. This is particularly important in areas where water resources are increasingly strained due to climate change, growing populations, and other factors. In some regions, community water conservation efforts have had measurable impacts on water treatment costs, resulting in lower water rates for consumers.  

Why are we concerned?

Even with widespread adoption, low-flow fixtures would have a relatively small impact on GHG emissions. Moreover, the low cost and ease of replacement mean that low-flow fixtures can be easily reverted to less efficient fixtures, eliminating the emissions impact and other benefits. Lastly, although modern quality low-flow showerheads are comparable to traditional fixtures, the poor quality of early low-flow showerheads may have contributed to decreasing levels of adoption in some areas.

Solution in Action

Alliance for water efficiency. (2017). Conservation keeps rates low in Tucson, Arizona. Link to source: https://allianceforwaterefficiency.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/AWE_Tucson_ConsRates_FactSheet_final.pdf

Dieu-Hang, T., Grafton, R. Q., Martínez-Espiñeira, R., & Garcia-Valiñas, M. (2017). Household adoption of energy and water-efficient appliances: An analysis of attitudes, labelling and complementary green behaviours in selected OECD countries. Journal of Environmental Management, 197, 140–150. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.070

Environmental protection agency. (2022). WaterSense performance overview: Showerheads. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/ws-products-perfomance-showerheads.pdf

Kenway, S. J., Pamminger, F., Yan, G., Hall, R., Lam, K. L., Skinner, R., Olsson, G., Satur, P., & Allan, J. (2023). Opportunities and challenges of tackling Scope 3 “Indirect” emissions from residential hot water. Water Research X, 21, 100192. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wroa.2023.100192

Maas, A., Puri, R., & Goemans, C. (2024). A review of residential water conservation policies and attempts to measure their effectiveness. PLOS Water, 3(8), e0000278. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000278

Paraschiv, S., Paraschiv, L. S., & Serban, A. (2023). An overview of energy intensity of drinking water production and wastewater treatment. Energy Reports, 9, 118–123. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.08.074

Pomianowski, M. Z., Johra, H., Marszal-Pomianowska, A., & Zhang, C. (2020). Sustainable and energy-efficient domestic hot water systems: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 128, 109900. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109900

Tomberg, L. (2024). Resource conservation through improved efficiency, behavioral change, or both: Willingness to pay for (smart) efficient shower heads. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 203, 107387. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107387

Yateh, M., Li, F., Tang, Y., Li, C., & Xu, B. (2024). Energy consumption and carbon emissions management in drinking water treatment plants: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 437, 140688. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140688

Zhou, Y., Essayeh, C., Darby, S., & Morstyn, T. (2024). Evaluating the social benefits and network costs of heat pumps as an energy crisis intervention. iScience, 27(2), Article 2. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2024.108854 

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewer

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Speed of Action
left_text_column_width
Caveats
left_text_column_width
Additional Benefits
left_text_column_width
Risks
left_text_column_width
Consensus
left_text_column_width
Trade-offs
left_text_column_width
Action Word
Use
Solution Title
Low-Flow Fixtures
Classification
Worthwhile
Updated Date

Deploy Seaweed Farming for Food

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
FALO & Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Curb Growing Demands
Image
An image of chopsticks picking up seaweed from a small bowl
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Deploy Seaweed Farming for Food involves cultivating seaweed (often called macroalgae) in the ocean for human consumption as a partial replacement for low-protein foods grown on land (e.g., grains, vegetables). This solution considers the emissions avoided by substituting one kilogram of low-protein food with one kilogram of seaweed. Current evidence suggests that farming seaweed for food could result in lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to some terrestrial crops. Advantages include the potential to reduce land-based agricultural impacts, improve water quality, and achieve globally meaningful climate impacts at a smaller spatial scale than growing seaweed for carbon removal by sinking (see Deploy Ocean Biomass Sinking). Disadvantages include potential adverse effects on marine ecosystems, uncertain climate benefits due to limited data on effectiveness, and opportunity costs if seaweed used for food could have delivered a greater climate impact in other emerging uses. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.

Description for Social and Search
The Deploy Seaweed Farming solution is coming soon.
Overview

What is our assessment?

The overall effectiveness of seaweed cultivation for food as a climate solution remains uncertain. It could deliver climate benefits at modest cultivation scales while providing a useful end product. Expansion could also benefit land and food systems by reducing agricultural pressures, but it may introduce environmental trade-offs in the ocean that are not yet well understood. We will “Keep Watching” this solution.

Plausible Could it work? Yes
Ready Is it ready? Yes
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? Limited
Effective Does it consistently work? ?
Impact Is it big enough to matter? ?
Risk Is it risky or harmful? ?
Cost Is it cheap? ?

What is it?

This solution involves expanding the cultivation of marine seaweed for human consumption as an alternative to higher-emission, lower-protein foods. These can include grains (e.g., wheat, rye, maize, oats, and rice) and, to a lesser extent, vegetables (e.g., potatoes, cassava, broccoli, and cabbage). By switching part of food production from land to ocean systems, seaweed farming helps avoid some sources of terrestrial agricultural emissions, such as those from fertilizer, irrigation, and soil disturbance. Seaweed cultivation, at modest scales and in suitable locations, does not require additional nutrients or irrigation, which can result in lower emissions. Emissions from physical cultivation activities also differ, with tractor use in land-based agriculture being replaced by emissions from boat operations in seaweed farming. Currently, roughly 80% of cultivated seaweed is consumed by humans in food products. 

Does it work?

The climate impact of cultivating seaweed is understudied, but existing estimates suggest that growing a ton of seaweed generates less than a quarter of the emissions from growing a ton of vegetables, such as broccoli and cabbage. The actual climate impact will depend on which types of foods are displaced in diets. Replacing higher-emission, low-protein foods, such as some grain-based staples (e.g., bread or rice), with seaweed could provide even greater climate benefits. More data are needed to assess full cradle-to-grave emissions for seaweed that include transport, processing, and storage prior to consumption. Actual benefits may be lower once full life cycle emissions are considered, or higher if seaweed replaces more emissions-intensive foods. 

Why are we excited?

Unlike terrestrial crops, seaweed cultivation does not require fresh water for irrigation or pesticides for pest management. It is the fastest-growing sector of global aquaculture, and can produce higher biomass yields per area than some land-based crops. Because it grows in the ocean, seaweed farming reduces land demand, which can therefore support terrestrial biodiversity and conservation efforts. If deployed in the right place, seaweed cultivation can also help reduce nutrient pollution in coastal areas. 

Compared to other seaweed-based climate solutions, farming seaweed for food could achieve a meaningful global climate impact using far less ocean area (1–2 Mha versus 6–7 Mha estimated for solutions like Deploy Ocean Biomass Sinking), though estimates remain highly uncertain. Cultivation might also provide additional carbon removal benefits by selecting for high-productivity cultivars and strategically placing farms in areas where carbon fixation and burial are naturally high. 

Finally, global diets are currently overreliant on starch-rich grain crops, highlighting a potential opportunity for seaweed, which is a nutritious source of protein, essential fatty acids, and minerals, to replace these foods and diversify diets in many regions. Across commonly consumed species, seaweeds are generally low in fat and calories and can be rich in fiber and micronutrients, including iron, iodine, calcium, and magnesium. 

Why are we concerned?

There are several environmental and feasibility concerns associated with seaweed cultivation, especially if it is expanded to use large areas of ocean habitat. Global estimates of ocean area suitable for seaweed cultivation range substantially, from 10 to 4,800 Mha, but often lack consideration for real-world nutrient limitations or ecological impacts. A more recent analysis that considers nitrogen, phosphorus, and iron limitations suggests that the viable ocean seaweed farming area is closer to 400 Mha. If regions are prioritized based on where cultivation is not nutrient-limited, where it can achieve high carbon removal efficiency, and where there are lower risks of adverse ecological impacts, potential seaweed farming areas could be limited to the western North Pacific and North Atlantic. The costs of such an expansion are also poorly understood, with some cost estimates per ton of CO₂ fairly high.

Similarly, it’s unclear how viable seaweed is as a large-scale substitute for low-protein foods in real-world diets. Using vegetables as an example, achieving a climate impact of at least 0.1 GtCO₂‑eq/yr could require replacing over 25% of global vegetable production. Assuming productivity typical of subtidal seaweed (6.6 tC/ha/yr), this would translate to an additional ~2.6 Mha of ocean cultivation. An area of 2.6 Mha would equate to a 100-meter-wide continuous belt of seaweed cultivation along 22% of the global coastline. For comparison, seaweed cultivation currently covers less than 400,000 ha. 

At large scales, seaweed cultivation could alter food webs by competing with phytoplankton for nutrients and/or requiring external nutrient inputs, raising serious concerns similar to Deploy Ocean Biomass Sinking. Cultivation can have a range of other negative impacts on coastal ecosystems, too. Seaweed farms established in or near seagrass beds, for instance, can displace existing habitats and species. More research is needed to assess these trade-offs, including the spatial scale required for a globally meaningful climate impact and how seaweed cultivation relates to potential land-use benefits. Further work is also needed to evaluate whether seaweed cultivation could deliver greater climate benefits through other emerging products, rather than as a direct food replacement.

Berger, M., Kwiatkowski, L., Bopp, L., & Ho, D. T. (2025). Efficacy of seaweed-based carbon dioxide removal reduced by iron limitation and nutrient competition with phytoplankton. CDRXIV. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.70212/cdrxiv.2025385.v1

Bhuyan, M. S. (2023). Ecological risks associated with seaweed cultivation and identifying risk minimization approaches. Algal Research, 69, 102967. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2022.102967

DeAngelo, J., Saenz, B. T., Arzeno-Soltero, I. B., Frieder, C. A., Long, M. C., Hamman, J., Davis, K. A., & Davis, S. J. (2023). Economic and biophysical limits to seaweed farming for climate change mitigation. Nature Plants, 9(1), 45-57. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-022-01305-9

EAT-Lancet Commission. (2025). Healthy diets from sustainable food systems: Summary report of the EAT-Lancet Commission. EAT. Link to source: https://eatforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/EAT-Lancet_Commission_Summary_Report.pdf

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2021). Global seaweeds and microalgae production, 1950–2019: WAPI factsheet. Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/97409d09-2f8e-4712-b11e-60105d89959b/content

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2023). Agricultural production statistics 2000–2022. Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/fba4ef43-422c-4d73-886e-3016ff47df52/content

Froehlich, H. E., Afflerbach, J. C., Frazier, M., & Halpern, B. S. (2019). Blue growth potential to mitigate climate change through seaweed offsetting. Current Biology, 29(18), 3087-3093. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.07.041

Hasselström, L., & Thomas, J. B. E. (2022). A critical review of the life cycle climate impact in seaweed value chains to support carbon accounting and blue carbon financing. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 6, 100093. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2022.100093

Jones, B. L. H., Eklöf, J. S., Unsworth, R. K. F., Coals, L., Christianen, M. J. A., Clifton, J., Cullen-Unsworth, L. C., de la Torre-Castro, M., Esteban, N., Huxham, M., Jiddawi, N. S., McKenzie, L. J., Nakaoka, M., Nordlund, L. M., Ooi, J. L. S., & Prathep, A. (2025). Risks of habitat loss from seaweed cultivation within seagrass. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(8), Article e2426971122. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2426971122

Lomartire, S., Marques, J. C., & Gonçalves, A. M. (2021). An overview to the health benefits of seaweeds consumption. Marine Drugs, 19(6), 341. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/md19060341

Lozano Muñoz, I., & Díaz, N. F. (2020). Minerals in edible seaweed: Health benefits and food safety issues. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 62(6), 1592-1607. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1844637

Peñalver, R., Lorenzo, J. M., Ros, G., Amarowicz, R., Pateiro, M., & Nieto, G. (2020). Seaweeds as a functional ingredient for a healthy diet. Marine Drugs, 18(6), 301. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/md18060301

Pessarrodona, A., Assis, J., Filbee-Dexter, K., Burrows, M. T., Gattuso, J. P., Duarte, C. M., Krause-Jensen, D., Moore, P. J., Smale, D. A., & Wernberg, T. (2022). Global seaweed productivity. Science Advances, 8(37), eabn2465. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn2465

Pessarrodona, A., Howard, J., Pidgeon, E., Wernberg, T., & Filbee-Dexter, K. (2024). Carbon removal and climate change mitigation by seaweed farming: A state of knowledge review. Science of the Total Environment, 918, 170525. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.170525

Rajapakse, N., & Kim, S. K. (2011). Nutritional and digestive health benefits of seaweed. Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, 64, 17-28. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387669-0.00002-8

Ross, F., Tarbuck, P., & Macreadie, P. I. (2022). Seaweed afforestation at large-scales exclusively for carbon sequestration: Critical assessment of risks, viability and the state of knowledge. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, 1015612. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.1015612

Spillias, S., Valin, H., Batka, M., Sperling, F., Havlík, P., Leclère, D., Cottrell, R. S., O’Brien, K. R., & McDonald-Madden, E. (2023). Reducing global land-use pressures with seaweed farming. Nature Sustainability, 6(4), 380–390. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-01043-y

Zhang, L., Liao, W., Huang, Y., Wen, Y., Chu, Y., & Zhao, C. (2022). Global seaweed farming and processing in the past 20 years. Food Production, Processing and Nutrition, 4(1), 23. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43014-022-00103-2

Credits

Lead Fellow 

  • Christina Richardson, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewer

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Seaweed Farming for Food
Classification
Keep Watching
Updated Date

Improve Annual Cropping

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

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

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

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

Minimal Soil Disturbance

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

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

Permanent Soil Cover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellows

  • Avery Driscoll

  • Erika Luna

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Eric Toensmeier

  • Aishwarya Venkat, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Emily Cassidy, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

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

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

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

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

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions and removing carbon.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

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

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

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

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

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis

median 47.80
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

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

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

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

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

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

left_text_column_width
Caveats

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

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

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

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current (2025) adoption level.

Unit: Mha of improved annual cropping

Estimate 267.4
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

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

left_text_column_width

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

Unit: Mha adopted/yr

mean 9.99
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

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

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mha

Adoption ceiling 1,067
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

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

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

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mha

Current Adoption 267.4
Achievable – Low 331.7
Achievable – High 700.0
Adoption Ceiling 1,067

Unit: Mha installed

Current Adoption 0.00
Achievable – Low 64.2
Achievable – High 432.6
Adoption Ceiling 868.6
Left Text Column Width

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

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

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

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

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

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

left_text_column_width

Table 8. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.14
Achievable – Low 0.17
Achievable – High 0.36
Adoption Ceiling 0.58

(from nitrous oxide)

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.17
Achievable – Low 0.25
Achievable – High 0.73
Adoption Ceiling 1.29

(from SOC)

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current Adoption 0.31
Achievable – Low 0.43
Achievable – High 1.09
Adoption Ceiling 1.87
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Extreme Weather Events

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

Droughts

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

Income and Work

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

Food Security

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

Nature Protection

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

Land Resources

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

Water Quality

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

left_text_column_width
Risks

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

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

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

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

left_text_column_width

COMPETING

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

left_text_column_width

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

left_text_column_width

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

left_text_column_width

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

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha cropland

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
00.881.8
units
Current 2.674×10⁸ 03.317×10⁸7×10⁸
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

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

CO₂, N₂O

Trade-offs

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

left_text_column_width
t CO2-eq/ha
0≥ 400

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

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

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

t CO2-eq/ha
0≥ 400

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

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

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

Maps Introduction

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

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

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

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness of cover cropping for sequestering carbon: 

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

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

Consensus of effectiveness of reduced tillage for sequestering carbon: Mixed

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

Nitrous oxide reduction: Mixed

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

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

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Reduce Overfishing

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean (FALO)
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Restore & Manage Ecosystems
Image
An image of a fishing boat at sea
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Reduce Overfishing refers to the use of management actions that decrease fishing effort and therefore cut CO₂ emissions from fishing vessel fuel use on overfished stocks. Advantages include the potential to replenish depleted fish stocks, support ecosystem health, and enhance long-term food and job security. Disadvantages include the short-term reductions in fishing effort needed to allow systems to recover, which could impact local livelihoods and economies. While these interventions are not expected to reach globally meaningful levels of emissions reductions (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ), we conclude that Reduce Overfishing is “Worthwhile” with important ecosystem and social benefits.

Description for Social and Search
Our analysis concludes that, despite its limited global impact for reducing emissions, Reduce Overfishing is a “Worthwhile” climate solution that has other important benefits for ecosystem health and long-term food security.
Overview

What is our assessment?

Our analysis concludes that, despite its limited global impact for reducing emissions, Reduce Overfishing is a “Worthwhile” climate solution that has other important benefits for ecosystem health and long-term food security.

Plausible Could it work? Yes
Ready Is it ready? Yes
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? Yes
Effective Does it consistently work? Yes
Impact Is it big enough to matter? No
Risk Is it risky or harmful? No
Cost Is it cheap? ?

What is it?

Reducing overfishing lowers fuel use and CO₂ emissions from wild capture fishing vessels by reducing fishing effort on overfished stocks. This is typically achieved through management actions, such as seasonal closures, gear restrictions, and catch limits. Fishing effort, whether measured as the hours spent fishing or distance traveled, is generally proportional to fuel use. In addition to immediate reductions in emissions, reducing overfishing can allow overfished stocks to recover, which can lead to reduced future emissions since fuel use is lowered when fish are easier to catch and harvested sustainably.

Does it work?

Reducing fishing effort in locations with depleted and overfished wild fish stocks is expected to reduce emissions from fishing vessels. When stocks are overfished, fishers must exert additional effort, traveling further and/or searching longer to make the same catch, which increases fuel use and CO₂ emissions. Reducing overfishing through management actions, such as harvest control rules, gear restrictions, seasonal closures, stronger enforcement of existing regulations, and establishment of marine protected areas, can help fish stocks recover. Other policy tools, such as reducing harmful fuel subsidies that currently enable many otherwise unprofitable fishing fleets, are also likely to result in lower fuel use and CO₂ emissions. Healthy fish stocks can be caught with lower fishing effort, translating to future fuel savings and reduced CO₂ emissions. Global estimates suggest that reductions in overfishing could avoid up to 0.08 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, representing almost half of the entire capture fisheries sector's annual emissions (0.18 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ).

Why are we excited?

Currently, overfishing affects more than 35% of global wild marine fish stocks, increasing by 1%, on average, every year. Reducing overfishing not only lowers fuel use and emissions but also allows overfished stocks to recover. Healthy fish stocks strengthen marine food webs and contribute to ecosystem resilience and biodiversity. Overfishing has widespread consequences for diverse marine ecosystems, such as kelp forests, where declines in fish have led to overgrazing of the kelp by sea urchins. Over time, management interventions will also likely improve the sustainability and long-term reliability of coastal livelihoods and food security by supporting sustainable fisheries.

Why are we concerned?

Policy and management tools for reducing overfishing and, by extension, fishing-related emissions come with some challenges. For instance, management measures or legal protections may not be fully effective if implementation or enforcement is weak. Management and enforcement can be particularly challenging on the high seas, where jurisdiction is limited or shared across many nations, and where illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing can be widespread. Even when effective, fish stock recovery can take years to decades, and the costs and trade-offs are unlikely to be evenly distributed across fishing fleets. In the short term, efforts to reduce overfishing could create economic challenges for small-scale fishers who may have fewer resources and less capacity to adapt to management restrictions.

Andersen, N. F., Cavan, E. L., Cheung, W. W., Martin, A. H., Saba, G. K., & Sumaila, U. R. (2024). Good fisheries management is good carbon management. npj Ocean Sustainability, 3(1), 17. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44183-024-00053-x

Bastardie, F., Hornborg, S., Ziegler, F., Gislason, H., & Eigaard, O. R. (2022). Reducing the fuel use intensity of fisheries: through efficient fishing techniques and recovered fish stocks. Frontiers in Marine Science, 9, 817335. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.817335

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2018). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/i9540en

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2024). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2024 – Blue Transformation in action. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cd0683en

Gaines, S. D., Costello, C., Owashi, B., Mangin, T., Bone, J., Molinos, J. G., ... & Ovando, D. (2018). Improved fisheries management could offset many negative effects of climate change. Science Advances, 4(8), eaao1378. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao1378

Gephart, J. A., Henriksson, P. J., Parker, R. W., Shepon, A., Gorospe, K. D., Bergman, K., ... & Troell, M. (2021). Environmental performance of blue foods. Nature, 597(7876), 360-365. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03889-2

Gulbrandsen, O. (2012). Fuel savings for small fishing vessels. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/4/i2461e/i2461e.pdf

Hilborn, R., Amoroso, R., Collie, J., Hiddink, J. G., Kaiser, M. J., Mazor, T., ... & Suuronen, P. (2023). Evaluating the sustainability and environmental impacts of trawling compared to other food production systems. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 80(6), 1567–1579. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsad115

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Caldeira, K., Chopin, T., Gaines, S., Haugan, P., Hemer, M., ... & Tyedmers, P. (2023). The ocean as a solution to climate change: five opportunities for action. In The blue compendium: From knowledge to action for a sustainable ocean economy (pp. 619–680). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Link to source: https://oceanpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Full-Report_Ocean-Climate-Solutions-Update-1.pdf

Johnson, T. (2009). Fuel-Saving Measures for Fishing Industry Vessels. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program. Link to source: https://alaskaseagrant.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/ASG-57PDF-Fuel-Saving-Measures-for.pdf

Ling, S. D., Johnson, C. R., Frusher, S. D., & Ridgway, K. (2009). Overfishing reduces resilience of kelp beds to climate-driven catastrophic phase shift. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(52), 22341–22345. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0907529106

Machado, F. L. V., Halmenschlager, V., Abdallah, P. R., da Silva Teixeira, G., & Sumaila, U. R. (2021). The relation between fishing subsidies and CO2 emissions in the fisheries sector. Ecological Economics, 185, 107057. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107057

Parker, R. W., Blanchard, J. L., Gardner, C., Green, B. S., Hartmann, K., Tyedmers, P. H., & Watson, R. A. (2018). Fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions of world fisheries. Nature Climate Change, 8(4), 333–337. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0117-x

Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., & Torres Jr, F. (1998). Fishing down marine food webs. Science, 279(5352), 860–863. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5352.860

Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2021). Fish and overfishing. Our World in Data. Link to source: https://ourworldindata.org/fish-and-overfishing

Sharma, R., Barange, M., Agostini, V., Barros, P., Gutierrez, N.L., Vasconcellos, M., Fernandez Reguera, D., Tiffay, C., & Levontin, P., (Eds.). (2025). Review of the state of world marine fishery resources – 2025. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 721. Rome. FAO. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4060/cd5538en

Sumaila, U. R., Ebrahim, N., Schuhbauer, A., Skerritt, D., Li, Y., Kim, H. S., ... & Pauly, D. (2019). Updated estimates and analysis of global fisheries subsidies. Marine Policy, 109, 103695. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103695

Sumaila, U. R., & Tai, T. C. (2020). End overfishing and increase the resilience of the ocean to climate change. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 523. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00523

United Nations Global Compact & World Wildlife Fund. (2022). Setting science-based targets in the seafood sector: Best practices to date. Link to source: https://unglobalcompact.org/library/6050

World Bank. (2017). The sunken billions revisited: Progress and challenges in global marine fisheries. World Bank Publications. Link to source: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/24056

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Christina Richardson, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewer

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Action Word
Reduce
Solution Title
Overfishing
Classification
Worthwhile
Updated Date

Improve Manure Management

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean (FALO)
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Agriculture Practices
Image
An image of a manure pit in an agricultural field
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Improved manure management refers to the use of impermeable covers and physical or chemical treatments applied during the storage and processing of wet manure. These techniques can reduce methane emissions under anaerobic storage conditions and nitrous oxide emissions under aerobic conditions. They offer multiple environmental benefits, including reduced air pollution, reduced nutrient leaching and eutrophication of downstream aquatic systems, and reduced demand for energy-intensive synthetic fertilizers. Disadvantages include a relatively small climate impact and, except for covers, high costs. Even at an optimistic level of adoption, the climate impact is unlikely to be globally meaningful (<0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ). Despite this modest climate impact, we conclude that Improve Manure Management is a “Worthwhile” solution.

Description for Social and Search
Improved manure management refers to the use of impermeable covers and physical or chemical treatments applied during the storage and processing of wet manure.
Overview

What is our assessment? 

Based on our analysis, improved manure management using impermeable covers and physical or chemical treatments will reduce emissions, although not by a globally meaningful amount. However, because these manure management techniques are broadly available, we conclude this climate solution is “Worthwhile.”

Plausible Could it work? Yes
Ready Is it ready? Yes
Evidence Are there data to evaluate it? Yes
Effective Does it consistently work? Yes
Impact Is it big enough to matter? No
Risk Is it risky or harmful? No
Cost Is it cheap? ?

What is it? 

Manure generated from industrial livestock production contains significant quantities of organic carbon and nitrogen. Under low-oxygen conditions, bacteria convert organic material in manure to methane through anaerobic decomposition. Liquid manure, particularly from pigs and cows, produces significant quantities of methane. In oxygen-rich conditions, organic nitrogen in manure undergoes chemical reactions to produce nitrous oxide. Once produced, these GHGs diffuse towards the surface of the manure storage tank, where they are emitted into the atmosphere.

Improved manure management interrupts the production or release of methane and nitrous oxide through a structural barrier, or physical or chemical treatment processes. Manure storage covers made from impermeable synthetic materials effectively prevent the release of GHGs, and can be utilized in conjunction with biogas systems for energy generation. Chemical treatments, such as acidification and the addition of additives, suppress microbial activity, thereby inhibiting methane and nitrous oxide production. Physical processes, such as aeration and temperature reduction, similarly limit optimal conditions for microbial growth. Separating the solids and liquids from manure can also reduce the potential for methane production, enabling more effective solutions such as composting and anaerobic digestion.

Does it work? 

Available technologies for manure management are mature and market-ready. However, empirical evidence of their effectiveness for reducing methane emissions is limited. Pilot studies indicate high effectiveness of manure acidification, moderate effectiveness of impermeable synthetic covers, and low effectiveness of manure additives. Except for the use of natural and synthetic impermeable covers, the overall adoption of these techniques is low. 

Why are we excited? 

Improved manure management can provide environmental benefits by reducing air pollution, preventing nutrient leaching from organic solids that settle into sludge, mitigating eutrophication in downstream aquatic ecosystems, and preventing soil acidification. In the food system, manure management allows for better alignment between crop needs and natural fertilizer characteristics. Since hauling liquid manure is expensive, manure storage and treatment methods promote efficient nutrient cycling and reduce the need for energy-intensive synthetic fertilizers. Abated methane in manure also limits ground-level ozone production upon application, thereby improving crop yields.

At the farm scale, the wide range of treatment options allows for a high level of customization in the manure management process to achieve joint goals of nutrient management, revenue generation, and emission reductions. Covers also directly mitigate risks to farmworker health and safety from manure handling, and manure treatment can further limit exposure to irritants and noxious gases, improving the health of surrounding communities.

Why are we concerned?

Compared to no treatment and other manure-related solutions, such as composting and anaerobic digesters, evidence for the effectiveness of impermeable covers and manure treatment technologies is limited. At realistic levels of adoption, improving manure management is unlikely to have a globally meaningful climate impact (<0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ). High costs are also a key barrier to wider adoption, ranging from US$110–145/t CO₂‑eq for synthetic covers to US$500–3,000/t CO₂‑eq for other treatments. 

Ambikapathi, R., Periyasamy, D., Ramesh, P., Avudainayagam, S., Makoto, W., & Evgenios, A. (2023). Effect of ozone stress on crop productivity: A threat to food security. Environmental Research, 236, 116816. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.116816

Ambrose, H. W., Dalby, F. R., Feilberg, A., & Kofoed, M. V. W. (2023). Additives and methods for the mitigation of methane emission from stored liquid manure. Biosystems Engineering, 229, 209–245. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2023.03.015

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

Fangueiro, D., Hjorth, M., & Gioelli, F. (2015). Acidification of animal slurry--a review. J Environ Manage, 149, 46–56. Link to source: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.10.001

FAO. (2023a). Methane emissions in livestock and rice systems – Sources, quantification, mitigation and metrics. Rome. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7607en

FAO. (2023b). Pathways towards lower emissions – A global assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options from livestock agrifood systems. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc9029en

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

Harrison, M. T., Cullen, B. R., Mayberry, D. E., Cowie, A. L., Bilotto, F., Badgery, W. B., Liu, K., Davison, T., Christie, K. M., Muleke, A., & Eckard, R. J. (2021). Carbon myopia: The urgent need for integrated social, economic and environmental action in the livestock sector. Glob Chang Biol, 27(22), 5726–5761.  Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15816

Hegde, S., Searchinger, T., & Díaz, M. J. (2025). Opportunities for Methane Mitigation in Agriculture: Technological, Economic and Regulatory Considerations. World Resources Institute: Washington DC. Link to source: https://www.wri.org/research/opportunities-methane-mitigation-agriculture-technological-economic-regulatory

Hou, Y., Velthof, G. L., & Oenema, O. (2015). Mitigation of ammonia, nitrous oxide and methane emissions from manure management chains: a meta-analysis and integrated assessment. Glob Chang Biol, 21(3), 1293–1312. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12767

Kanter, D. R., & Brownlie, W. J. (2019). Joint nitrogen and phosphorus management for sustainable development and climate goals. Environmental Science & Policy, 92, 1–8. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.10.020

Kupper, T., Häni, C., Neftel, A., Kincaid, C., Bühler, M., Amon, B., & VanderZaag, A. (2020). Ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from slurry storage - A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 300(106963). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106963

Mohankumar Sajeev, E. P., Winiwarter, W., & Amon, B. (2018). Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions from Different Stages of Liquid Manure Management Chains: Abatement Options and Emission Interactions. J Environ Qual, 47(1), 30–41. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2017.05.0199

Montes, F., Meinen, R., Dell, C., Rotz, A., Hristov, A. N., Oh, J., . . . Dijkstra, J. (2013). SPECIAL TOPICS—Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from animal operations: II. A review of manure management mitigation options. J. Anim. Sci, 91, 5070–5094. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2013-6584

Mukherji, A., Arndt, C., Arango, J., Flintan, F., Derera, J., Francesconi, W., Jones, S. Loboguerrero, A. M., Merrey, D., Mockshell, J., Quintero, M., Mulat, D. G., Ringler, C., Ronchi, L., Sanchez, M. E. N., Sapkota, T., & Thilsted, S. (2023). Achieving agricultural breakthrough: A deep dive into seven technological areas. Montpellier, France. Retrieved from: Link to source: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/131852.

Niles, M. T., Wiltshire, S., Lombard, J., Branan, M., Vuolo, M., Chintala, R., & Tricarico, J. (2022). Manure management strategies are interconnected with complexity across U.S. dairy farms. PLoS One, 17(6), e0267731. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267731

Nour, M. M., Field, W. E., Ni, J.-Q., & Cheng, Y.-H. (2021). Farm-Related Injuries and Fatalities Involving Children, Youth, and Young Workers during Manure Storage, Handling, and Transport. Journal of Agromedicine, 26(3), 323–333. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2020.1795034

Overmeyer, V., Trimborn, M., Clemens, J., Holscher, R., & Buscher, W. (2023). Acidification of slurry to reduce ammonia and methane emissions: Deployment of a retrofittable system in fattening pig barns. J Environ Manage, 331, 117263. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117263

Park, J., Kang, T., Heo, Y., Lee, K., Kim, K., Lee, K., & Yoon, C. (2020). Evaluation of Short-Term Exposure Levels on Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide During Manure-Handling Processes at Livestock Farms. Saf Health Work, 11(1), 109–117. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2019.12.007

Sokolov, V., VanderZaag, A., Habtewold, J., Dunfield, K., Wagner-Riddle, C., Venkiteswaran, J. J., & Gordon, R. (2019). Greenhouse Gas Mitigation through Dairy Manure Acidification. J Environ Qual, 48(5), 1435–1443. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2018.10.0355

VanderZaag, A., Amon, B., Bittman, S., & Kuczyński, T. (2015). Ammonia Abatement with Manure Storage and Processing Techniques. In Costs of Ammonia Abatement and the Climate Co-Benefits (pp. 75–112). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9722-1

Wang, Y., Dong, H., Zhu, Z., Gerber, P. J., Xin, H., Smith, P., Opio, C., Steinfeld, H., & Chadwick, D. (2017). Mitigating Greenhouse Gas and Ammonia Emissions from Swine Manure Management: A System Analysis. Environ Sci Technol, 51(8), 4503–4511. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b06430

Wyer, K. E., Kelleghan, D. B., Blanes-Vidal, V., Schauberger, G., & Curran, T. P. (2022). Ammonia emissions from agriculture and their contribution to fine particulate matter: A review of implications for human health. J Environ Manage, 323, 116285. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116285

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Aishwarya Venkat, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewer

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Manure Management
Classification
Worthwhile
Updated Date

Improve Rice Production

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

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

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

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

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

Methane Reduction

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

Nitrous Oxide Reduction

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

Other Promising Practices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Eric Toensmeier

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Methane Reduction

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

Nitrous Oxide Reduction

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

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

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

Combined Reduction

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

left_text_column_width

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha rice paddies/yr

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

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha rice paddies/yr

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha rice paddies/yr

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha rice paddies/yr

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

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

left_text_column_width

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

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies

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

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

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

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

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

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

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

Combined Net Profit per Hectare

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

Net Net Cost Compared to Conventional Paddy Rice

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

left_text_column_width

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

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies

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

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

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

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

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

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

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

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Unit: US$/t CO₂‑eq  

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

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Left Text Column Width

Cost per unit climate impact

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

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Weighted average cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: US$/t CO₂‑eq

Weighted average -175.0
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Learning curve data are not available for improved rice cultivation.

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

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

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

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

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

left_text_column_width
Caveats

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

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Noncontinuous Flooding

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

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

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Current adoption level (2025).

Unit: Mha

mean 48.65

Noncontinuous flooding, ha installed.

Left Text Column Width

Nutrient Management

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

left_text_column_width
Adoption Trend

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

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

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Adoption trend.

Unit: %

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

Percent annual growth rate.

Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

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

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

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

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

left_text_column_width

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

Unit: Mha

median 77.53

Mha of improved rice production installed.

Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

Table 8. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mha

Current Adoption 48.65
Achievable – Low 49.56
Achievable – High 77.53
Adoption Ceiling 77.53

Mha of improved rice production installed.

Left Text Column Width

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

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

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

left_text_column_width

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

left_text_column_width

Table 9. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr

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

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr

Current Adoption 0.29
Achievable – Low 0.29
Achievable – High 0.46
Adoption Ceiling 0.46
Left Text Column Width

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

left_text_column_width
Additional Benefits

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

Health

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

Land Resources

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

Water Resources

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

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

Water Quality

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

left_text_column_width
Risks

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

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

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

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

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

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha rice paddies

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

Climate Impact

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

CH₄ , N₂O

Trade-offs

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

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

left_text_column_width
% of area
0100

Paddy rice area, 2020

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

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

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

% of area
0100

Paddy rice area, 2020

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

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

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

Maps Introduction

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

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

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

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

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

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

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

left_text_column_width
Appendix

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

Emissions Factors

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

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

Current, Target, and Avoidable Nitrogen Inputs and Emissions

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

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

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

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

left_text_column_width
Updated Date
Subscribe to Cut Emissions

Support Climate Action

Drawdown Delivered

Join the 85,000+ subscribers discovering how to drive meaningful climate action around the world! Every other week, you'll get expert insights, cutting-edge research, and inspiring stories.

Receive biweekly email newsletter updates from Project Drawdown. Unsubscribe at any time.
back to top