Deploy Agrivoltaics

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

Key Takeaways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diagram demonstrating Agrivoltaic configurations

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

Solution in Action

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Al-Amin Bugaje, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Amanda D. Smith, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

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

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

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

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions. 

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /MW/yr, 100-yr basis

Estimate 720
Left Text Column Width
Cost

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

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

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

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

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

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

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

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

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

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

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

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

Current Adoption

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

Table 2. Current adoption level (2023).

Unit: MW installed capacity

Estimate 140,000
Left Text Column Width

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

Adoption Trend

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

Table 3. Adoption trend (2010–2023).

Unit: MW installed capacity/yr

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

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

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

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

Enable Download
On

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

Adoption Ceiling

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

Table 4. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: MW installed capacity

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

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

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

Achievable Adoption

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

Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: MW installed capacity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Benefits

Heat Stress

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

Income and Work

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

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

Food Security

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

Energy Availability

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

Health

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

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

Nature Protection

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

Animal Well-being

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

Land Resources

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

Water Resources

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

Air Quality

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

Risks

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

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

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

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

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

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

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

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

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

Competing

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

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

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

Consensus
Dashboard

Solution Basics

MW installed capacity

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

Climate Impact

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

CO₂ , CH₄, N₂O

Trade-offs

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

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

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

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Agrivoltaics
Classification
Highly Recommended

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of overall effectiveness of agrivoltaics: High

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

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

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

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

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Improve Ruminant Breeding

Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean (FALO)
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Agriculture Practices
Image
Rancher holding a tablet device walks among grazing cattle
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Ruminant livestock, such as cattle, goats, and sheep, can be selectively bred for reduced enteric methane production. Some experimental breeding programs have reduced methane production by 4-45% over multiple generations of animals. An advantage of improved ruminant breeding is that it could reduce methane emissions from the majority of ruminants that are managed on pasture or rangelands. However, intentionally breeding ruminants for reduced methane production is in its early stages, and deploying this solution across multiple species and breeds will take decades. Furthermore, reducing enteric methane emissions per kilogram of milk or meat may not necessarily reduce total emissions if ruminant numbers increase, or if it diverts efforts to reduce consumption and waste of ruminant meat and milk products in wealthy countries. As a climate solution, improved ruminant breeding is not yet ready for large-scale deployment, and it will not yield quick results, but it is probably a wise mid- to long-term climate investment that we will “Keep Watching.”

Description for Social and Search
Ruminant livestock, such as cattle, goats, and sheep, can be selectively bred for reduced enteric methane production. Some experimental breeding programs have reduced methane production by 4-45% over multiple generations of animals.
Overview

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, improved ruminant breeding is one of the few promising solutions for reducing enteric methane production from the many millions of ruminants, including those managed on pasture and rangeland. However, it is not a climate solution that will yield quick results, nor is it ready for large-scale deployment at this time. Instead, it should be considered a wise mid- to long-term climate investment that we will “Keep Watching.”

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

What is it?

Selective breeding can produce ruminant livestock, such as cattle, goats, and sheep, that produce less enteric methane during digestion. Enteric methane represents 21% of humanity’s methane emissions, equivalent to 2.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Enteric methane is produced by microbes in the digestive system – primarily in the rumen, which is the first stomach compartment – and not by ruminants themselves, but its production is a symptom of inefficient digestion by the animal. Therefore, breeding for more efficient use of food by ruminants can reduce enteric methane emissions, while also potentially increasing meat and milk production. 

Does it work? 

Selective breeding of ruminants for reduced enteric methane production has been shown to be effective. One 10-year pilot breeding program resulted in a 12% methane reduction in animals born in the last generation. Other studies have reported emissions reductions ranging from 4 to 45 percent. The effect can be cumulative, with greater reductions in enteric methane production with every selected generation of ruminants. 

Why are we excited?

Despite their disproportionate climate impact, ruminant meat and dairy products are in high demand. Any strategy that can reduce methane emissions per kilogram of meat or milk could, if broadly adopted, yield globally meaningful reductions in methane emissions (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq per year). A major advantage of this selective breeding approach is that it is suitable for both confined and grazing ruminants. The vast majority of ruminant animals spend all or part of their lives on pasture or rangeland. In contrast, feed additives, which can also reduce enteric methane production, are only suitable for confined animals. In addition, there is some evidence that this solution could increase the meat and milk productivity of ruminants by capturing energy from feed and forages that would otherwise have been lost as enteric methane.

Why are we concerned?

Breeding ruminants to reduce enteric methane production is not a climate solution that will show quick results. It will require prolonged testing using expensive measurement equipment on thousands of animals and selective breeding for each breed of each ruminant livestock species over many generations. Some researchers say that decade-long breeding programs will be required. Other than a few research projects, however, the current adoption of selective breeding for methane reduction is very low. Furthermore, selective breeding focused only on methane reduction could result in the loss of other desirable traits, such as productivity or adaptation to local conditions and farming systems. It is also possible that reducing enteric methane emissions per kilogram of milk or meat may not necessarily reduce total emissions if, for example, farmers or ranchers increase their herd sizes. Finally, there is the concern that improved ruminant breeding could be used as a smokescreen to divert attention from the importance of reducing consumption of ruminant meat and milk products in the diets of wealthy countries and reducing food waste of ruminant products.

Solution in Action

References

Arndt, C., Hristov, A. N., Price, W. J., McClelland, S. C., Pelaez, A. M., Cueva, S. F., ... & Yu, Z. (2022). Full adoption of the most effective strategies to mitigate methane emissions by ruminants can help meet the 1.5 C target by 2030 but not 2050. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(20), e2111294119.

Beauchemin, K. A., Ungerfeld, E. M., Abdalla, A. L., Alvarez, C., Arndt, C., Becquet, P., ... & Kebreab, E. (2022). Invited review: Current enteric methane mitigation options. Journal of Dairy Science, 105(12), 9297-9326.

Black, J. L., Davison, T. M., & Box, I. (2021). Methane emissions from ruminants in Australia: Mitigation potential and applicability of mitigation strategies. Animals, 11(4), 951.

de Souza Congio, G. F., Bannink, A., Mogollón, O. L. M., Jaurena, G., Gonda, H., Gere, J. I., ... & Hristov, A. N. (2021). Enteric methane mitigation strategies for ruminant livestock systems in the Latin America and Caribbean region: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 312, 127693.

FAO (2023) Pathways towards lower emissions: A global assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options from livestock agrifood systems. FAO, Rome, 2023.

Kelliher, M., Bogueva, D., & Marinova, D. (2024). Meta-Analysis and Ranking of the Most Effective Methane Reduction Strategies for Australia’s Beef and Dairy Sector. Climate, 12(4), 50.

Króliczewska, B., Pecka-Kiełb, E., & Bujok, J. (2023). Strategies used to reduce methane emissions from ruminants: Controversies and issues. Agriculture, 13(3), 602.

Lassen, J., & Difford, G. F. (2020). Review: Genetic and genomic selection as a methane mitigation strategy in dairy cattle. Animal 14: s473–s483.

Manzanilla-Pech, C. I. V., Stephansen, R. B., Difford, G. F., Løvendahl, P., & Lassen, J. (2022). Selecting for feed efficient cows will help to reduce methane gas emissions. Frontiers in Genetics, 13, 885932.

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

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.

Van Eenennaam, A. L. (2024). Addressing the 2050 demand for terrestrial animal source food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(50), e2319001121.

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Eric Toensmeier

Internal Reviewer

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Speed of Action
Caveats
Additional Benefits
Risks
Consensus
Trade-offs
Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Ruminant Breeding
Classification
Keep Watching
Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Use Feed Additives

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

References

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. Link to source: https://doi.org/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. Link to source: https://doi.org/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
Caveats
Additional Benefits
Risks
Consensus
Trade-offs
Action Word
Use
Solution Title
Feed Additives
Classification
Keep Watching
Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Deploy Micro Wind Turbines

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

References

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
Caveats
Additional Benefits
Risks
Consensus
Trade-offs
Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Micro Wind Turbines
Classification
Keep Watching
Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Boost Appliance & Equipment Efficiency

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

References

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
Caveats
Additional Benefits
Risks
Consensus
Trade-offs
Action Word
Boost
Solution Title
Appliance & Equipment Efficiency
Classification
Worthwhile
Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Use Low-Flow Fixtures

Sector
Buildings & Electricity
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Enhance Efficiency
Image
Water streaming from shower head
Coming Soon
Off

Key Takeaways

  • Low-flow showerheads and faucet aerators reduce the volume of hot water used. This reduces GHG emissions from heating, treating and pumping water. 
  •  Aerators for faucets and low-flow showerheads are readily available and relatively low-cost investments that users can install themselves. 
  • Adopting low-flow fixtures reduces utility bills, improves water resource management, and can defer infrastructure expansion projects.
  • Even with widespread adoption, low-flow fixtures would have a relatively small impact on GHG emissions and permanence may be a concern due to the ease with which they can be replaced.
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 (Kenway et al., 2023). Reduced water usage also leads to fewer emissions from treating and pumping water for domestic use (Yateh et al., 2024). Low-flow fixtures are low-cost and simple to install. They generate utility bill savings for households and support sustainable water resource management (Maas et al., 2024). Modern quality low-flow fixtures have resolved many of the performance issues of earlier versions (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2022). 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 (EPA, 2022). 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 (Kenway et al., 2023; Paraschiv et al., 2023; Yateh et al., 2024). Heating water for showers, sinks, and other domestic appliances is one of the largest sources of energy use in residential buildings after space heating, especially in advanced economies (International Energy Agency [IEA], 2025). Modern low-flow showerheads can produce comparable pressure and coverage to traditional showerheads through aeration and/or laminar flow (EPA, 2022). 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 (EPA, 2022; Kenway et al., 2023; Pomianowski et al., 2020). Additionally, there is substantial research on the emissions from treating and pumping water, which can be reduced through water conservation (Paraschiv et al., 2023; Yateh et al., 2024). Low-flow fixtures are readily available, and performance labels are available to help consumers select quality products (Dieu-Hang et al., 2017; EPA, 2022).

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 (Kenway et al., 2023; Maas et al., 2024). 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 (Maas et al., 2024). 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 (Alliance for Water Efficiency, 2017).  

Why are we concerned?

Even with widespread adoption, low-flow fixtures would have a relatively small impact on GHG emissions (Kenway et al., 2023). 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 (EPA, 2022), the poor quality of early low-flow showerheads may have contributed to decreasing levels of adoption in some areas (Tomberg, 2024).

Solution in Action

References

Alliance for water efficiency. (2017). Conservation keeps rates low in Tucson, Arizona [report]. 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

International Energy Agency. (2025). Total energy demand in the residential sector, by end-use, advanced economies and emerging economies. 2023. Link to source: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/total-energy-demand-in-the-residential-sector-by-end-use-advanced-economies-and-emerging-economies-2023  

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, Article 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), Article 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. Article 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, Article 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, Article 140688. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140688

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewer

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

Deploy Seaweed Farming for Food

Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean (FALO)
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 with 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 currently overrely 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 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr could require replacing over 25% of global vegetable production. Assuming productivity typical of subtidal seaweed (6.6 t C/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 through competition 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.

References

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
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Improve Annual Cropping

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

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

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

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

Minimal Soil Disturbance

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

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

Permanent Soil Cover

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellows

  • Avery Driscoll

  • Erika Luna

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Eric Toensmeier

  • Aishwarya Venkat, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Emily Cassidy

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

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

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

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

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

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions and removing carbon.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

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

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

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

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

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis

Median 47.80
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

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

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

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

Current Adoption

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

Table 3. Current (2025) adoption level.

Unit: Mha of improved annual cropping

Estimate 267.4
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

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

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

Unit: Mha adopted/yr

Mean 9.99
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

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

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mha

Adoption ceiling 1,067
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

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

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

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mha

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

Unit: Mha installed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 8. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

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

(from nitrous oxide)

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

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

(from SOC)

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

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

Extreme Weather Events

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

Droughts

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

Income and Work

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

Food Security

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

Nature Protection

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

Land Resources

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

Water Quality

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

Risks

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

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

Interactions with Other Solutions

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

COMPETING

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

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

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

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

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha cropland

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

Climate Impact

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

CO₂ , N₂O

Trade-offs

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

t CO2-eq/ha
0≥ 400

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

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

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

t CO2-eq/ha
0≥ 400

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

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

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

Maps Introduction

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

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

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

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Annual Cropping
Classification
Highly Recommended

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness of cover cropping for sequestering carbon: 

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

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

Consensus of effectiveness of reduced tillage for sequestering carbon: Mixed

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

Nitrous oxide reduction: Mixed

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

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

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Reduce Overfishing

Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean (FALO)
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Protect & 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.

References

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
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Improve Manure Management

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. 

References

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
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon
Subscribe to Cut Emissions
back to top