Deploy Silvopasture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Eric Toensmeier

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

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

Table 1. Effectiveness at carbon sequestration.

Unit: t CO₂-eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

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

100-yr basis

Left Text Column Width

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

Cost

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

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

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

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

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂-eq

Median $43.25

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

Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

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

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

Permanence

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

Saturation

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

Current Adoption

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

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

Table 3. Current (2023) adoption level.

Unit: million ha

Mean 141.4
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

There is little quantifiable information reported about silvopasture adoption trends.

Adoption Ceiling

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

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

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

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

Table 4. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: ha converted

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

Unit: % of grazing land

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

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

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

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

Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mha

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

Unit: Mha

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

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

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

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

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

Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr

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

100-yr basis, New adoption only 

Left Text Column Width

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

Additional Benefits

Income and Work 

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

Food Security

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

Nature Protection

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

Animal Well-being

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

Land Resources

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

Water Quality

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

Risks

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

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

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

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

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

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

Silvopasture is a technique for restoring farmland.

Silvopasture is a form of savanna restoration.

Competing

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

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

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha converted from grazing land to silvopasture

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

Climate Impact

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

CO₂

Trade-offs

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

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

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

Maps Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Silvopasture
Classification
Highly Recommended

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in sequestering carbon: Mixed to High 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus regarding other climate impacts: Low

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

Consensus regarding adoption potential: Low

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

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Deploy Alternative Grazing

Sector
Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Remove Carbon
Cluster
Shift Agriculture Practices
Image
Person on horseback facing a herd of cattle
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Alternative grazing refers to approaches to managing ruminant livestock – including multiple fenced paddocks and frequent animal movement, short grazing periods, and enforced rest periods for forage – that aim to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) by allowing vegetation to recover. Robust evidence, including independent, commercial-scale before-and-after control studies that track SOC to at least 30 cm over 5–10+ years, is lacking. The best available research suggests that these practices do not consistently produce additional, durable SOC gains relative to continuous grazing, and that SOC outcomes strongly depend on climate and land-use contexts. 

Alternative grazing can deliver localized ecosystem benefits, particularly where previous continuous grazing has caused erosion near waterways or where more strategic movement of ruminant livestock could help. However, these practices require added labor, fencing, and water infrastructure, which can constrain adoption. The potential benefits of alternative grazing do not alter the fact that beef is the highest emitting type of food, and an emphasis on deploying alternative grazing can delay shifts to lower-emitting food options that also allow land restoration. As a result, alternative grazing is not currently supported as an effective climate solution, but remains an area to “Keep Watching.”

Description for Social and Search
Improve Livestock Grazing is a potential climate solution that we will Keep Watching.
Overview

What is our assessment?

Alternative grazing may reduce SOC loss that’s common in continuous overgrazing by allowing areas to rest, but evidence that it delivers additional carbon removal is inconsistent and limited to niche environmental conditions and geographies. Therefore, 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? No
Impact Is it big enough to matter? No
Risk Is it risky or harmful? No
Cost Is it cheap? No

What is it?

Alternative grazing, also called adaptive multi-paddock, rotational, holistic, regenerative, or mob grazing, is a suite of ruminant livestock movement strategies that differ from conventional continuous grazing. Conventional continuous grazing mostly allows unmanaged grazing of a large pasture with limited or no structured rest periods for vegetation recovery. Alternative grazing uses multiple fenced paddocks and frequent animal movement, short grazing periods to redistribute pressure, and enforced rest periods for forage. The proposed carbon removal mechanism is that improved grazing management could increase SOC storage by enhancing plant growth, especially below ground root growth. 

Does it work?

The biological mechanism by which recovering vegetation can increase SOC is well understood, but factors such as climate, soil type, prior land use, slope, and stocking rate often have greater influence on SOC than the type of grazing practice. Results from the few higher-quality studies suggest that alternative grazing does not produce consistent, additional, or durable SOC gains relative to continuous grazing. Most positive SOC findings come from wetter regions with higher rainfall, including lands converted from cropland, where gains may occur regardless of grazing style. Positive SOC findings rarely measure changes over time at the same site and often are based on shallow soil samples. A global meta-analysis found that strategic-rest grazing increased vegetation biomass only when stocking rates were reduced, and even then it did not guarantee SOC gains. 

Why are we excited?

Alternative grazing, in limited and context-specific cases, can deliver localized ecosystem benefits, particularly where grazing is already occurring and degradation is severe. Managing grazing away from waterways and heavily compacted areas can reduce overgrazing damage and in some regions may benefit grassland bird habitat, though evidence is limited.

Why are we concerned?

There are several reasons to be concerned about alternative grazing. 

Creating areas of rest away from cattle grazing accrues additional management costs related to labor, fencing (physical or virtual), and water infrastructure, which could reduce adoption and scalability. Education gaps limit the ability of livestock managers to adopt the best approach.

Alternative grazing practices can result in reduced animal weight gains and associated increases in enteric methane emissions per unit of beef protein produced, potentially offsetting or outweighing any small, temporary SOC gains relative to continuous grazing. Any claimed SOC gains from grazing management are difficult to measure and verify. Many studies lack baseline SOC measurements, adequate controls, sufficient duration, or adequate soil-depth sampling, making it difficult to attribute carbon gains to grazing practices. In particular, grazing-specific solutions need to be compared with no-grazing or protected native ecosystems nearby, where carbon storage is greater and use does not generate methane.

A last key concern is that alternative grazing is frequently framed as a way to fix the climate impacts of beef production, the highest-GHG-emitting food option, rather than reducing beef demand through improving diets. Like feed additives and genetic efficiency gains, this can overstate production-side fixes, obscure the need for demand-side shifts, and delay more effective carbon removal pathways. 

References

Abdalla, M., Hastings, A., Chadwick, D. R., Jones, D. L., Evans, C. D., Jones, M. B., Rees, R. M., & Smith, P. (2018). Critical review of the impacts of grazing intensity on soil organic carbon storage and other soil quality indicators in extensively managed grasslands. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 253, 62–81. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.10.023 

Cusack, D. F., Kazanski, C. E., Hedgpeth, A., Chow, K., Cordeiro, A. L., Karpman, J., & Ryals, R. (2021). Reducing climate impacts of beef production: A synthesis of life cycle assessments across management systems and global regions. Global Change Biology, 27(9), 1721-1736. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15509 

Garnett, T., Godde, C., Muller, A., Röös, E., Smith, P., de Boer, I. J. M., van Zanten, H., Herrero, M., Schader, C., van Middelaar, C., & Thornton, P. (2017). Grazed and confused? Ruminating on cattle, grazing systems, methane, nitrous oxide, the soil carbon sequestration question. Food Climate Research Network, University of Oxford. Link to source: https://www.tabledebates.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf

Godde, C. M., Boone, R. B., Ash, A. J., Waha, K., Sloat, L. L., Thornton, P. K., & Herrero, M. (2020). Global rangeland production systems and livelihoods at threat under climate change and variability. Environmental Research Letters, 15(4), 044021. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7395 

Hawkins, H. J., Venter, Z. S., & Cramer, M. D. (2022). A holistic view of Holistic Management: What do farm-scale, carbon, and social studies tell us? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 323, 107702. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107702 

Jorns, T. R., Scasta, J. D., Derner, J. D., Augustine, D. J., Porensky, L. M., Raynor, E. J., & CARM Stakeholder Group. (2024). Adaptive multi-paddock grazing management reduces diet quality of yearling cattle in shortgrass steppe. The Rangeland Journal, 45(4), 160–172. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ23047

Lajtha, K., & Silva, L. (2022). Grazing cattle, well-managed or not, is unlikely to increase soil carbon sequestration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(30), e2203408119. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2203408119

Ma, Z., Shrestha, B. M., Bork, E. W., Chang, S. X., Carlyle, C. N., Döbert, T. F., Silva Sobrinho, L., & Boyce, M. S. (2021). Soil greenhouse gas emissions and grazing management in northern temperate grasslands. Science of the Total Environment, 796, 148975. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148975 

Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216

Reinhart, K. O., Worogo, H. S. S., & Rinella, M. J. (2022). Ruminating on the science of carbon ranching. Journal of Applied Ecology, 59(3), 642–648. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14100

Sanderman, J., Partida, C., Xia, Y., Lavallee, J. M., & Bradford, M. A. (2025). Low quality evidence dominates discussion of carbon benefits of alternative grazing strategies. bioRxiv, 2025-12. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.64898/2025.12.09.693242

Schlesinger, W. H. (2022). Biogeochemical constraints on climate change mitigation through regenerative farming. Biogeochemistry, 161, 9–17. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-022-00942-8

Searchinger, T. D., Wirsenius, S., Beringer, T., & Dumas, P. (2018). Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature, 564(7735), 249–253. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0757-z

Wang, Y., de Boer, I. J. M., Persson, U. M., Ripoll-Bosch, R., Cederberg, C., Gerber, P. J., Smith, P., & van Middelaar, C. E. (2023). Risk to rely on soil carbon sequestration to offset global ruminant emissions. Nature Communications, 14(1), 7625. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-43452-3

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Nicholas Carter

Internal Reviewers

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
  • Emily Cassidy

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Alternative Grazing
Classification
Keep Watching
Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Deploy Agroforestry

Sector
Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Remove Carbon
Cluster
Shift Agriculture Practices
Image
Peatland
Coming Soon
On
Description for Social and Search
The Deploy Agroforestry solution is coming soon.

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Dashboard
Action Word
Deploy
Solution Title
Agroforestry
Classification
Highly Recommended
Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Restore Salt Marsh Ecosystems

Sector
Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Remove Carbon
Cluster
Restore & Manage Ecosystems
Image
Salt marsh ecosystem
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Summary 

Restore Salt Marsh Ecosystems involves actively reestablishing salt marshes in areas where they were previously lost to conversion or other disturbance, allowing vegetation to regrow and carbon to accumulate in biomass and sediments. Advantages include salt marshes’ ability to durably store substantial quantities of carbon over long time periods and their numerous co-benefits for the environment and humans. Disadvantages include variable but potentially low effectiveness due to site-to-site differences in carbon removal rates and potential emissions of other GHGs, such as methane and nitrous oxide, as well as costs that might exceed US$500/t CO₂‑eq in some areas. Salt marsh restoration is not expected to have a globally meaningful climate impact (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ), primarily because the adoption ceiling is constrained by the limited area available for restoration, but there are no major environmental risks associated with the solution. Therefore, Restore Salt Marsh Ecosystems is “Worthwhile.”

Description for Social and Search
The Restore Coastal Wetlands solution is coming soon.
Overview

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, restoring salt marsh ecosystems is a “Worthwhile” carbon removal technique that is ready for large-scale deployment. While the capacity for adoption is limited, limiting climate impact, this solution has no major risks and provides widespread added benefits for people and the environment.

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?

Restore Salt Marsh Ecosystems removes carbon from the air by reestablishing salt marshes in areas where they were previously drained, filled, or otherwise degraded and lost. As plants take up CO₂ through photosynthesis and vegetation traps sediments, some of this carbon is stored long term in waterlogged soils with slow decomposition rates. Restoration typically reconnects land to tidal exchange and rebuilds marsh elevation and vegetation, which promotes plant growth and sediment accumulation. Active restoration can include breaching levees or removing barriers to restore tidal flow, regrading or adding sediment to raise elevations, planting native marsh vegetation, and controlling invasive species. In many cases, restoration can also reduce GHG emissions by replacing land uses, such as drained agriculture, that emit CO₂.

Does it work?

The fundamental idea of restoring salt marsh ecosystems is scientifically sound, and, on average globally, restored salt marshes have been shown to remove carbon over long timescales through vegetation recovery and sustained carbon burial in waterlogged soils, even after accounting for methane and nitrous oxide emissions. This solution has been in practice worldwide for many decades, and global assessments suggest it could expand to roughly 2 million hectares because ~67% of salt marshes have been destroyed since the early 1900s. Restoration success rates are high relative to those of many other marine habitats. However, its potential adoption ceiling is still low relative to other nature-based solutions (e.g., Restore Forests) because restoration is limited to suitable coastal areas, which are constrained by coastal development and other human stressors. As a result, its climate impact is likely well below 0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq /year. 

Why are we excited?

Restoration of salt marsh ecosystems is a well-established, scalable practice with many benefits for the environment. Restored salt marshes can reduce shoreline erosion and costal flooding, improve water quality by retaining nutrients and sediments, and provide habitat for fish and birds. While global impact is limited, this intervention can be an important multi-benefit tool for building climate resilience and removing carbon in some countries and coastal regions. Restoration is already widely implemented. In some restorations, such as those that reestablish tidal exchange in previously impounded ecosystems, increases in salinity can reduce methane and nitrous oxide production relative to pre-restoration conditions.

Why are we concerned?

The climate impact of salt marsh restoration is constrained by its limited adoption ceiling, variable but potentially high costs, vulnerability to future loss, and potentially low effectiveness. Adoption is limited by where marshes can actually be restored, such as on low-elevation coastal lands that are not heavily developed, and where they can be maintained into the future with climate change stressors, such as sea-level rise. If salt marshes are not restored with consideration of projected sea level rise, loss or conversion to mud flats or open water habitats in the future is possible, which would result in the loss of carbon benefits. Restored salt marshes can also emit potent GHGs such as methane and nitrous oxide as low oxygen conditions and ecosystem function are reestablished, which can offset some of the climate benefits of restoration. As a result, costs vary widely by site, and can exceed US$500/t CO₂‑eq (~US$1,000–7,000/ha), depending on site-specific effectiveness rates. Additionally, few data are available for understanding long-term, multi-decadal changes in carbon accumulation rates in restored sites, and some regions remain underrepresented globally.

References

Burden, A., Garbutt, A., & Evans, C. D. (2019). Effect of restoration on saltmarsh carbon accumulation in Eastern England. Biology Letters, 15(1). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0773

Convention on Wetlands. (2025). Global Wetland Outlook 2025: Valuing, conserving, restoring and financing wetlands (Scientific and Technical Review Panel report). Secretariat of the Convention on Wetlands. Link to source: https://www.ramsar.org/launch-global-wetland-outlook-2025

Danovaro, R., Aronson, J., Bianchelli, S., Boström, C., Chen, W., Cimino, R., Corinaldesi, C., Cortina-Segarra, J., D’Ambrosio, P., Gambi, C. and Garrabou, J. (2025). Assessing the success of marine ecosystem restoration using meta-analysis. Nature Communications, 16(1), 3062. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-57254-2

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

Mason, V. G., Burden, A., Epstein, G., Jupe, L. L., Wood, K. A., & Skov, M. W. (2024). Navigating research challenges to estimate blue carbon benefits from saltmarsh restoration. Global Change Biology, 30(10), 1–3. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17526

Pétillon, J., McKinley, E., Alexander, M., Adams, J.B., Angelini, C., Balke, T., Griffin, J.N., Bouma, T., Hacker, S., He, Q. and Hensel, M.J. (2023). Top ten priorities for global saltmarsh restoration, conservation and ecosystem service research. Science of the Total Environment, 898, 165544. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165544

Reilly, A. V., Merrill, N. H., Mulvaney, K. K., Colarusso, P., & Burman, E. (2024). Fantastic wetlands and why to monitor them: Demonstrating the social and financial benefit potential of methane abatement through salt marsh restoration. PLOS Climate, 3(7), e0000317. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000317

Rolando, J., Hodges, M., Garcia, K., Krueger, G., Williams, N., Carr Jr, J., Robinson, J., George, A., Morris, J. and Kostka, J., (2023). Restoration and resilience to sea level rise of a salt marsh affected by dieback events. Ecosphere, 14(4), e4467. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4467

Rowland, P. I., Wartman, M., Bursic, J., & Carnell, P. (2024). Restored and created tidal marshes recover ecosystem services over time. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 24, Article 100539. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2024.100539

Taillardat, P., Thompson, B. S., Garneau, M., Trottier, K., & Friess, D. A. (2020). Climate change mitigation potential of wetlands and the cost-effectiveness of their restoration. Interface focus, 10(5). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2019.0129

Williamson, P., Schlegel, R. W., Gattuso, J. P., Andrews, J. E., & Jickells, T. D. (2024). Climate benefits of saltmarsh restoration greatly overstated by Mason et al. (2023). Global Change Biology, 30(10). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.17525

WWF UK. (2025, June 11). Vanishing saltmarshes threaten climate progress – but recovery is within reach, says new global report [Press release]. WWF UK. Link to source: https://www.wwf.org.uk/our-reports/state-worlds-saltmarshes

Credits

Lead Fellow

Christina Richardson, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewers

Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Paul West, Ph.D.

Action Word
Restore
Solution Title
Salt Marsh Ecosystems
Classification
Worthwhile
Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Restore Peatlands

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

Key Takeaways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Busch, J., Bukoski, J. J., Cook-Patton, S. C., Griscom, B., Kaczan, D., Potts, M. D., Yi, Y., & Vincent, J. R. (2024). Cost-effectiveness of natural forest regeneration and plantations for climate mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 14(9), 996–1002. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02068-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Olson, D. M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E. D., Burgess, N. D., Powell, G. V. N., Underwood, E. C., D’amico, J. A., Itoua, I., Strand, H. E., Morrison, J. C., Loucks, C. J., Allnutt, T. F., Ricketts, T. H., Kura, Y., Lamoreux, J. F., Wettengel, W. W., Hedao, P., & Kassem, K. R. (2001). Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on Earth: A new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. BioScience, 51(11), 933–938. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0.CO;2

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

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

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

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

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

Robinson, N., Drever, C. R., Gibbs, D. A., Lister, K., Esquivel-Muelbert, A., Heinrich, V., Ciais, P., Silva-Junior, C. H. L., Liu, Z., Pugh, T. A. M., Saatchi, S., Xu, Y., & Cook-Patton, S. C. (2025). Protect young secondary forests for optimum carbon removal. Nature Climate Change, 15, 793–800. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02355-5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Avery W. Driscoll, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Christina Richardson, Ph.D.

  • Christina Swanson, Ph.D. 

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

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

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

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

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

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-yr basis

Estimate 19.0

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-yr basis

Estimate 29.7

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-yr basis

Estimate 47.8

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-yr basis

Estimate 56.0
Left Text Column Width
Cost

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

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

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

Median 55
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

We define a learning curve as falling costs with increased adoption. There is no evidence that the costs of peatland rewetting and revegetation will fall with increasing adoption. Therefore, there is no learning curve for this solution.

Speed of Action

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

At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed. Restore Peatlands is a GRADUAL climate solution, because the primary mode of action is a reduction in emissions that would otherwise occur on an annual basis over a long time. It has a steady, linear impact on the atmosphere. 

Caveats

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

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

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

Current Adoption

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

Adoption Trend

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

Adoption Ceiling

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

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

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

Table 3. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 26,300,000

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 9,930,000

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 2,140,000

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 18,500,000

Unit: ha available for restoration

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

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

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

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

Table 4. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: ha

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

Unit: ha

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

Unit: ha

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

Unit: ha

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

Unit: ha

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

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

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

Table 5. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

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

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

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

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

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

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

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

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

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

Extreme Weather Events

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

Income and Work

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

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

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

Health

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

Nature Protection

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

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

Water Resources

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

Water Quality

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

Risks

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

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

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Peatland restoration can improve the health and function of adjacent ecosystems that are being protected or restored.

Competing

These solutions are all suitable to implement on degraded peatland, and thus are in competition with restoration.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

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

Climate Impact

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

CO₂ , N₂O

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

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

Climate Impact

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

CO₂ , N₂O

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

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

Climate Impact

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

CO₂ , N₂O

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

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

Climate Impact

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

CO₂ , N₂O

Trade-offs

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

Action Word
Restore
Solution Title
Peatlands
Classification
Highly Recommended

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing emissions from disturbed peatlands: High 

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

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

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

 The results presented in this document summarize findings from 19 reviews, meta-analyses, and global databases reflecting current evidence for peatland restoration. The majority of the non-global literature is focused on Indonesia, the United Kingdom, and Northern Europe. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Restore Grasslands & Savannas

Sector
Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Remove Carbon
Cluster
Restore & Manage Ecosystems
Image
Grassland restoration area sign
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Grassland and savanna restoration removes CO₂ from the atmosphere through photosynthesis as the ecosystem regrows, storing carbon in soils and vegetation. Grassland and savanna restoration faces relatively low barriers to implementation, provides substantial benefits for biodiversity, and may be deployable on large land areas. However, we currently lack sufficient information to assess whether the climate impact of grassland and savanna restoration falls above or below our threshold of globally meaningful carbon removal (>0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ), given limited data on the magnitude of its effectiveness and adoption potential. Therefore, we conclude that Restoring Grasslands and Savannas is “Worthwhile,” and will reassess the climate impact of this solution as further research is done. 

Description for Social and Search
Restore Grasslands & Savannas is a Worthwhile climate solution. It is relatively easy to implement, but data on the climate impact are limited.
Overview

What is our assessment?

Based on our analysis, grassland and savanna restoration is a promising climate solution, but there is insufficient evidence to ascertain how much carbon it could remove at the global scale. Restoring Grasslands and Savannas is therefore “Worthwhile.” 

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

What is it?

Restoring grasslands and savannas removes carbon from the atmosphere via photosynthesis and stores it in soils and vegetation. Grassland and savanna restoration includes a spectrum of practices, such as returning ecologically appropriate grazing and fire regimes, reseeding with native species, and controlling invasive and woody plants. 

Because grasslands and savannas are diverse, widespread ecosystems spanning a large climatic range, appropriate restoration and management strategies vary depending on the type of degradation and the natural history of the area. For this solution, we considered only degraded areas that were historically grassland and savanna and are not currently used as croplands or grazing lands. Other Project Drawdown solutions, including Deploy Silvopasture, Reduce Grazing Intensity, and Deploy Alternative Grazing, address increasing carbon removal in grasslands managed for grazing. Protect Grasslands & Savannas addresses protecting existing carbon stocks by reducing ongoing ecosystem degradation.

Does it work?

Grassland and savanna restoration will generally remove carbon when implemented with ecologically appropriate strategies on grasslands and savannas with depleted carbon stocks. Restoration efforts covering millions of hectares have already been initiated in some regions, though data tracking restoration progress are sparse. Although grassland and savanna restoration will remove carbon in principle, very little information is available to quantitatively assess the amount of carbon removed by restoration of degraded, ungrazed grasslands and savannas. One study in the United States found that planting diverse species on degraded grasslands increased total carbon uptake by up to 178% of that associated with natural succession over 22 years; however, the generalizability of this finding is unclear. Other studies that focused on activities outside of the scope of this solution, such as changing grazing practices, restoring croplands to grasslands, planting legumes, and adding fertilizers, found an average increase in carbon uptake rates of ~1.7 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr with a range of 0.1–3.2 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr. These estimates may serve as a rough benchmark of the maximum per-hectare carbon removal that grassland restoration could achieve.

Why are we excited?

Grassland and savanna restoration may be an effective, low-risk strategy for sequestering carbon on hundreds of millions of hectares while also providing substantial benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services. Grasslands and savannas are the largest ecosystem on Earth, covering more than 2.8 billion hectares (see Protect Grasslands & Savannas) from the tropics to the tundra. Some studies estimate that roughly half of grasslands are degraded, suggesting that the opportunity for grassland and savanna restoration is in the range of hundreds of millions of hectares even after excluding grazed areas. Grasslands and savannas also play a critical role in the global carbon cycle, containing roughly 30% of the world’s soil carbon stock. Therefore, even small relative increases in grassland and savanna carbon stocks could translate into large absolute climate benefits. Because most grassland and savanna carbon is stored in below-ground biomass and soils, these carbon stocks can be more resilient to disturbance, such as fire, than carbon stored in above-ground biomass. 

In addition to the potential climate benefits, healthy grasslands and savannas support diverse biological communities, regulate hydrology, improve water quality, reduce erosion, and provide pollination, cultural, and provisioning services to local communities. 

Why are we concerned?

While grassland and savanna restoration can consistently remove carbon, large uncertainties remain in the magnitude of the effectiveness and adoption potential of this solution. 

First, most research on the carbon removal potential of grasslands and savannas focuses on improving grazing management or conversion of croplands back to grasslands, which are outside the scope of this solution. Effectiveness at removing carbon also depends on post-restoration management because many grasslands and savannas depend on establishment of ongoing, ecologically appropriate fire and grazing regimes. Additionally, climate change is reducing grassland and savanna productivity in many regions and may prohibit successful restoration in some places. 

Second, the area of degraded, ungrazed grasslands and savannas that are restorable remains largely unknown. The definition of land degradation varies across studies, and maps of degraded lands are inconsistent with one another. While maps of grazing extent have improved, they are still uncertain. Thus, it is difficult to assess the adoption potential of this solution. Without sufficient data on effectiveness and adoption potential, we are ultimately unable to assess whether the climate impact of this solution falls above or below our threshold of 0.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. We encourage additional research to alleviate data limitations related to grassland and savanna restoration.

References

Assis, G. B., Pilon, N. A. L., Siqueira, M. F., & Durigan, G. (2021). Effectiveness and costs of invasive species control using different techniques to restore cerrado grasslands. Restoration Ecology, 29(S1), e13219.  https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13219

Bai, Y., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2022). Grassland soil carbon sequestration: Current understanding, challenges, and solutions. Science, 377(6606), 603–608. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo2380

Bardgett, R. D., Bullock, J. M., Lavorel, S., Manning, P., Schaffner, U., Ostle, N., Chomel, M., Durigan, G., L. Fry, E., Johnson, D., Lavallee, J. M., Le Provost, G., Luo, S., Png, K., Sankaran, M., Hou, X., Zhou, H., Ma, L., Ren, W., … Shi, H. (2021). Combatting global grassland degradation. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2(10), 720–735. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00207-2

Bengtsson, J., Bullock, J. M., Egoh, B., Everson, C., Everson, T., O’Connor, T., O’Farrell, P. J., Smith, H. G., & Lindborg, R. (2019). Grasslands—More important for ecosystem services than you might think. Ecosphere, 10(2), Article e02582. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2582

Buisson, E., Archibald, S., Fidelis, A., & Suding, K. N. (2022). Ancient grasslands guide ambitious goals in grassland restoration. Science, 377(6606), 594–598. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo4605

Buisson, E., Fidelis, A., Overbeck, G. E., Schmidt, I. B., Durigan, G., Young, T. P., Alvarado, S. T., Arruda, A. J., Boisson, S., Bond, W., Coutinho, A., Kirkman, K., Oliveira, R. S., Schmitt, M. H., Siebert, F., Siebert, S. J., Thompson, D. I., & Silveira, F. A. O. (2021). A research agenda for the restoration of tropical and subtropical grasslands and savannas. Restoration Ecology, 29(S1), Article e13292. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13292

Chazdon, R. L., Falk, D. A., Banin, L. F., Wagner, M., J. Wilson, S., Grabowski, R. C., & Suding, K. N. (2024). The intervention continuum in restoration ecology: Rethinking the active–passive dichotomy. Restoration Ecology, 32(8), Article e13535. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13535

Conant, R. T., Cerri, C. E. P., Osborne, B. B., & Paustian, K. (2017). Grassland management impacts on soil carbon stocks: A new synthesis. Ecological Applications, 27(2), 662–668. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1473

Ding, J., & Eldridge, D. J. (2024). Woody encroachment: Social–ecological impacts and sustainable management. Biological Reviews, 99(6), 1909–1926. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13104

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

Farley, K. A., Anderson, W. G., Bremer, L. L., & Harden, C. P. (2011). Compensation for ecosystem services: An evaluation of efforts to achieve conservation and development in Ecuadorian páramo grasslands. Environmental Conservation, 38(4), 393–405. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291100049X

Gibbs, H. K., & Salmon, J. M. (2015). Mapping the world’s degraded lands. Applied Geography, 57, 12–21. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.024

Hao, L., Sun, G., Liu, Y., Gao, Z., He, J., Shi, T., & Wu, B. (2014). Effects of precipitation on grassland ecosystem restoration under grazing exclusion in Inner Mongolia, China. Landscape Ecology, 29(10), 1657–1673. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0092-1

Jackson, R. B., Banner, J. L., Jobbágy, E. G., Pockman, W. T., & Wall, D. H. (2002). Ecosystem carbon loss with woody plant invasion of grasslands. Nature, 418(6898), 623–626. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature00910

Kim, J. H., Jobbágy, E. G., & Jackson, R. B. (2016). Trade-offs in water and carbon ecosystem services with land-use changes in grasslands. Ecological Applications, 26(6), 1633–1644. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0863.1

Kiss, R., Deák, B., Tóthmérész, B., Miglécz, T., Tóth, K., Török, P., Lukács, K., Godó, L., Körmöczi, Z., Radócz, S., Kelemen, A., Sonkoly, J., Kirmer, A., Tischew, S., Švamberková, E., & Valkó, O. (2021). Establishment gaps in species-poor grasslands: Artificial biodiversity hotspots to support the colonization of target species. Restoration Ecology, 29(S1), Article e13135. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13135

Li, C., Kotz, M., Pradhan, P., Wu, X., Hu, Y., Li, Z., & Chen, G. (2026). Climate change drives a decline in global grazing systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 123(7), e2534015123. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2534015123

Li, J., Huang, L., Cao, W., Wang, J., Fan, J., Xu, X., & Tian, H. (2023). Benefits, potential and risks of China’s grassland ecosystem conservation and restoration. Science of The Total Environment, 905, 167413. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167413

Liu, D., Chen, Y., Cai, W., Dong, W., Xiao, J., Chen, J., Zhang, H., Xia, J., & Yuan, W. (2014). The contribution of China’s Grain to Green Program to carbon sequestration. Landscape Ecology, 29(10), 1675–1688. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-014-0081-4

Lu, F., Hu, H., Sun, W., Zhu, J., Liu, G., Zhou, W., Zhang, Q., Shi, P., Liu, X., Wu, X., Zhang, L., Wei, X., Dai, L., Zhang, K., Sun, Y., Xue, S., Zhang, W., Xiong, D., Deng, L., … Yu, G. (2018). Effects of national ecological restoration projects on carbon sequestration in China from 2001 to 2010. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(16), 4039–4044. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700294115

Lyons, K. G., Török, P., Hermann, J.-M., Kiehl, K., Kirmer, A., Kollmann, J., Overbeck, G. E., Tischew, S., Allen, E. B., Bakker, J. D., Brigham, C., Buisson, E., Crawford, K., Dunwiddie, P., Firn, J., Grobert, D., Hickman, K., Stradic, S. L., & Temperton, V. M. (2023). Challenges and opportunities for grassland restoration: A global perspective of best practices in the era of climate change. Global Ecology and Conservation, 46, Article e02612. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02612

Matamala, R., Jastrow, J. D., Miller, R. M., & Garten, C. T. (2008). Temporal Changes in C and N Stocks of Restored Prairie: Implications for C Sequestration Strategies. Ecological Applications, 18(6), 1470–1488. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1609.1

Meng, C., Xiao, X., Pan, L., Pan, B., Scott, R. L., Wagle, P., Zhang, C., Yao, Y., & Qin, Y. (2025). Interannual variability and trends of gross primary production and transpiration in savannas and grasslands from 2000 to 2021. Frontiers of Earth Science, 19(2), 246–260. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-024-1136-8

Parente, L., Sloat, L., Mesquita, V., Consoli, D., Stanimirova, R., Hengl, T., Bonannella, C., Teles, N., Wheeler, I., Hunter, M., Ehrmann, S., Ferreira, L., Mattos, A. P., Oliveira, B., Meyer, C., Şahin, M., Witjes, M., Fritz, S., Malek, Z., & Stolle, F. (2024). Annual 30-m maps of global grassland class and extent (2000–2022) based on spatiotemporal Machine Learning. Scientific Data, 11(1), 1303. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-04139-6

Poeplau, C. (2021). Grassland soil organic carbon stocks along management intensity and warming gradients. Grass and Forage Science, 76(2), 186–195. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12537

Price, J. N., Schultz, N. L., Hodges, J. A., Cleland, M. A., & Morgan, J. W. (2021). Land-use legacies limit the effectiveness of switches in disturbance type to restore endangered grasslands. Restoration Ecology, 29(S1), Article e13271. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13271

Ratajczak, Z., Nippert, J. B., & Collins, S. L. (2012). Woody encroachment decreases diversity across North American grasslands and savannas. Ecology, 93(4), 697–703. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1199.1

Smith, M. D., Wilkins, K. D., Holdrege, M. C., Wilfahrt, P., Collins, S. L., Knapp, A. K., Sala, O. E., Dukes, J. S., Phillips, R. P., Yahdjian, L., Gherardi, L. A., Ohlert, T., Beier, C., Fraser, L. H., Jentsch, A., Loik, M. E., Maestre, F. T., Power, S. A., Yu, Q., … Zuo, X. (2024). Extreme drought impacts have been underestimated in grasslands and shrublands globally. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(4), Article e2309881120. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2309881120

Török, P., Brudvig, L. A., Kollmann, J., N. Price, J., & Tóthmérész, B. (2021). The present and future of grassland restoration. Restoration Ecology, 29(S1), Article e13378. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13378

Veldman, J. W., Overbeck, G. E., Negreiros, D., Mahy, G., Le Stradic, S., Fernandes, G. W., Durigan, G., Buisson, E., Putz, F. E., & Bond, W. J. (2015). Where tree planting and forest expansion are bad for biodiversity and ecosystem services. BioScience, 65(10), 1011–1018. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv118

Zhao, Y., Liu, Z., & Wu, J. (2020). Grassland ecosystem services: A systematic review of research advances and future directions. Landscape Ecology, 35(4), 793–814. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-00980-3

Zhu, K., Chiariello, N. R., Tobeck, T., Fukami, T., & Field, C. B. (2016). Nonlinear, interacting responses to climate limit grassland production under global change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(38), 10589–10594. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606734113

Credits

Lead Fellow

Avery Driscoll, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewers

Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Action Word
Restore
Solution Title
Grasslands & Savannas
Classification
Worthwhile
Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Restore Forests

Sector
Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Remove Carbon
Cluster
Restore & Manage Ecosystems
Image
person planting trees
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

Forest restoration is the process of returning previously forested land to a forested state. As forests regrow, they remove carbon from the atmosphere and sequester it in biomass.

Heat stress,Wildfires,Floods,Droughts
Income & work,Food security,Health,Equality
Nature protection,Water quality
Description for Social and Search
Restore Forests is a Highly Recommended climate solution. Diverse, healthy forests sequester carbon as biomass.
Overview

We define forest restoration as planting new trees or allowing trees to naturally regrow on previously forested land that has been cleared. Through photosynthesis, forests take carbon from the atmosphere and store it in biomass. On net, forests currently take up an estimated 11.4–14.7 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr  (Friedlingstein et al., 2023; Gibbs et al., 2025; Pan et al., 2024), equal to approximately 19–25% of total global anthropogenic GHG emissions (Dhakal et al., 2022). Restoring forests increases the size of the forest carbon sink, sequestering additional CO₂.  

As commonly defined, restoration ranges from improving management of existing ecosystems, to re-establishing cleared ecosystems, to maintaining the health of functional ecosystems. Forest restoration includes activities such as exclusion of non-native grazing animals from a regenerating site, weed management, assisted seed dispersal, controlled burning, stand thinning, direct seeding, soil amendment, tree planting, and modification of topography or hydrology and other activities (Chazdon et al., 2024; Gann et al., 2022; Kübler & Günter 2024). While acknowledging that all restoration occurs along a spectrum of intervention intensity, we report effectiveness, cost, and adoption data for “low intensity” and “high intensity” restoration separately, with “low intensity” restoration including all interventions up to, but not including, tree planting, and “high intensity” restoration referring to direct seeding or seedling planting. To account for variability in carbon sequestration rates and area available for forest restoration, this analysis also evaluates forest restoration in boreal, temperate, subtropical, and tropical regions separately where possible.

Our definition of forest restoration is more limited than that used by many other sources. First, we only include reforestation of previously forested land with an element of direct human intervention, and therefore exclude entirely passive tree regrowth on abandoned land (i.e., unassisted natural regeneration) and afforestation of native grasslands and savannas. We also exclude areas currently used for crop production. To avoid double counting, we also do not include activities covered in other Project Drawdown solutions, including increasing carbon stocks in existing forests and establishing timber plantations, agroforestry, or silvopasture (see Improve Forest Management, Deploy Biomass Crops on Degraded Land, Deploy Agroforestry, and Deploy Silvopasture, respectively). Restoration of mangroves and forests on peat soils is also excluded, as this is covered in the Restore Coastal Wetlands and Restore Peatlands solutions. Because the scope of this solution is narrower than that of many other studies, the estimated impacts are correspondingly lower as well. 

Intact and regenerating forests take up carbon, but human clearing of forests for logging, agriculture, and other activities emits carbon. Humans clear an estimated 15.5 Mha of forests annually, emitting ~7.4 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (2001–2024; Harris et al., 2021; Gibbs et al., 2025; Sims et al., 2025). Protecting existing forests reduces emissions from deforestation (see Protect Forests) and is an essential complement to forest restoration. 

References

Adams, C., Rodrigues, S. T., Calmon, M., & Kumar, C. (2016). Impacts of large-scale forest restoration on socioeconomic status and local livelihoods: What we know and do not know. Biotropica, 48(6), 731–744. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12385

Ager, A. A., Vogler, K. C., Day, M. A., & Bailey, J. D. (2017). Economic opportunities and trade-offs in collaborative forest landscape restoration. Ecological Economics, 136, 226–239. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.001

Andres, S. E., Standish, R. J., Lieurance, P. E., Mills, C. H., Harper, R. J., Butler, D. W., Adams, V. M., Lehmann, C., Tetu, S. G., Cuneo, P., Offord, C. A., & Gallagher, R. V. (2023). Defining biodiverse reforestation: Why it matters for climate change mitigation and biodiversity. Plants, People, Planet, 5(1), 27–38. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10329

Austin, K. G., Baker, J. S., Sohngen, B. L., Wade, C. M., Daigneault, A., Ohrel, S. B., Ragnauth, S., & Bean, A. (2020). The economic costs of planting, preserving, and managing the world’s forests to mitigate climate change. Nature Communications, 11(1), Article 5946. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19578-z

Bastin, J.-F., Finegold, Y., Garcia, C., Mollicone, D., Rezende, M., Routh, D., Zohner, C. M., & Crowther, T. W. (2019). The global tree restoration potential. Science, 365(6448), 76–79. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0848

Begliomini, F. N., & Brancalion, P. H. S. (2024). Are state-of-the-art LULC maps able to track ecological restoration efforts in Brazilian Atlantic forest? IGARSS 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 4748–4752. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS53475.2024.10641177

Beltrão, M. G., Gonçalves, C. F., Brancalion, P. H. S., Carmignotto, A. P., Silveira, L. F., Galetti, P. M., & Galetti, M. (2024). Priority areas and implementation of ecological corridor through forest restoration to safeguard biodiversity. Scientific Reports, 14(1), Article 30837. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-81483-y

Bernal, B., Murray, L. T., & Pearson, T. R. H. (2018). Global carbon dioxide removal rates from forest landscape restoration activities. Carbon Balance and Management, 13(1), Article 22. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-018-0110-8

Betts, R. A. (2000). Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo. Nature, 408(6809), 187–190. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/35041545

Bialic-Murphy, L., McElderry, R. M., Esquivel-Muelbert, A., van den Hoogen, J., Zuidema, P. A., Phillips, O. L., de Oliveira, E. A., Loayza, P. A., Alvarez-Davila, E., Alves, L. F., Maia, V. A., Vieira, S. A., Arantes da Silva, L. C., Araujo-Murakami, A., Arets, E., Astigarraga, J., Baccaro, F., Baker, T., Banki, O., … Crowther, T. W. (2024). The pace of life for forest trees. Science, 386(6717), 92–98. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adk9616

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

Brancalion, P. H. S., de Siqueira, L. P., Amazonas, N. T., Rizek, M. B., Mendes, A. F., Santiami, E. L., Rodrigues, R. R., Calmon, M., Benini, R., Tymus, J. R. C., Holl, K. D., & Chaves, R. B. (2022). Ecosystem restoration job creation potential in Brazil. People and Nature, 4(6), 1426–1434. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10370

Brancalion, P. H. S., Hua, F., Joyce, F. H., Antonelli, A., & Holl, K. D. (2025). Moving biodiversity from an afterthought to a key outcome of forest restoration. Nature Reviews Biodiversity, 1(4), 248–261.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-025-00032-1

Brumberg, H., Margaret Hegwood, Eichhorst, W., LoPresti, A., Erbaugh, J. T., & Kroeger, T. (2025). Global analysis of constraints to natural climate solution implementation. PNAS Nexus, 4(6), Article pgaf173. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf173

Bukoski, J. J., Cook-Patton, S. C., Melikov, C., Ban, H., Chen, J. L., Goldman, E. D., Harris, N. L., & Potts, M. D. (2022). Rates and drivers of aboveground carbon accumulation in global monoculture plantation forests. Nature Communications, 13(1), Article 4206. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31380-7

Busch, J., Bukoski, J. J., Cook-Patton, S. C., Griscom, B., Kaczan, D., Potts, M. D., Yi, Y., & Vincent, J. R. (2024). Cost-effectiveness of natural forest regeneration and plantations for climate mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 14(9), 996–1002. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02068-1

Chaplin-Kramer, R., Ramler, I., Sharp, R., Haddad, N. M., Gerber, J. S., West, P. C., Mandle, L., Engstrom, P., Baccini, A., Sim, S., Mueller, C., & King, H. (2015). Degradation in carbon stocks near tropical forest edges. Nature Communications, 6(1), Article 10158. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10158

Chazdon, R. L., Falk, D. A., Banin, L. F., Wagner, M., J. Wilson, S., Grabowski, R. C., & Suding, K. N. (2024). The intervention continuum in restoration ecology: Rethinking the active–passive dichotomy. Restoration Ecology, 32(8), Article e13535. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13535

Chazdon, R. L., & Guariguata, M. R. (2016). Natural regeneration as a tool for large-scale forest restoration in the tropics: Prospects and challenges. Biotropica, 48(6), 716–730. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12381

Chazdon, R. L., Wilson, S. J., Brondizio, E., Guariguata, M. R., & Herbohn, J. (2021). Key challenges for governing forest and landscape restoration across different contexts. Land Use Policy, 104, Article 104854. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104854

Cook-Patton, S. C., Leavitt, S. M., Gibbs, D., Harris, N. L., Lister, K., Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Briggs, R. D., Chazdon, R. L., Crowther, T. W., Ellis, P. W., Griscom, H. P., Herrmann, V., Holl, K. D., Houghton, R. A., Larrosa, C., Lomax, G., Lucas, R., Madsen, P., Malhi, Y., … Griscom, B. W. (2020). Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth. Nature, 585(7826), 545–550. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x

Crouzeilles, R., Barros, F. S. M., Molin, P. G., Ferreira, M. S., Junqueira, A. B., Chazdon, R. L., Lindenmayer, D. B., Tymus, J. R. C., Strassburg, B. B. N., & Brancalion, P. H. S. (2019). A new approach to map landscape variation in forest restoration success in tropical and temperate forest biomes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 56(12), 2675–2686. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13501

Crouzeilles, R., Curran, M., Ferreira, M. S., Lindenmayer, D. B., Grelle, C. E. V., & Rey Benayas, J. M. (2016). A global meta-analysis on the ecological drivers of forest restoration success. Nature Communications, 7(1), Article 11666. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11666

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

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

De Groot, R. S., Blignaut, J., Van Der Ploeg, S., Aronson, J., Elmqvist, T., & Farley, J. (2013). Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conservation Biology, 27(6), 1286–1293. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12158

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

Di Sacco, A., Hardwick, K. A., Blakesley, D., Brancalion, P. H. S., Breman, E., Cecilio Rebola, L., Chomba, S., Dixon, K., Elliott, S., Ruyonga, G., Shaw, K., Smith, P., Smith, R. J., & Antonelli, A. (2021). Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits. Global Change Biology, 27(7), 1328–1348. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15498

Dib, V., Brancalion, P. H. S., Chan Chou, S., Cooper, M., Ellison, D., Farjalla, V. F., Filoso, S., Meli, P., Pires, A. P. F., Rodriguez, D. A., Iribarrem, A., Latawiec, A. E., Scarano, F. R., Vogl, A. L., de Viveiros Grelle, C. E., & Strassburg, B. (2023). Shedding light on the complex relationship between forest restoration and water services. Restoration Ecology, 31(5), Article e13890. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13890

dos Reis Oliveira, P. C., Gualda, G. A. F., Rossi, G. F., Camargo, A. F. M., Filoso, S., Brancalion, P. H., & Ferraz, S. F. de B. (2025). Forest restoration improves habitat and water quality in tropical streams: A multiscale landscape assessment. Science of The Total Environment, 963, Article 178256. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.178256

Fargione, J., Haase, D. L., Burney, O. T., Kildisheva, O. A., Edge, G., Cook-Patton, S. C., Chapman, T., Rempel, A., Hurteau, M. D., Davis, K. T., Dobrowski, S., Enebak, S., De La Torre, R., Bhuta, A. A. R., Cubbage, F., Kittler, B., Zhang, D., & Guldin, R. W. (2021). Challenges to the reforestation pipeline in the United States. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 4, Article 629198. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.629198

Fesenmyer, K. A., Poor, E. E., Terasaki Hart, D. E., Veldman, J. W., Fleischman, F., Choksi, P., Archibald, S., Armani, M., Fagan, M. E., Fricke, E. C., Terrer, C., Hasler, N., Williams, C. A., Ellis, P. W., & Cook-Patton, S. C. (2025). Addressing critiques refines global estimates of reforestation potential for climate change mitigation. Nature Communications, 16(1), Article 4572. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59799-8

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

Friedlingstein, P., O’Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., Landschützer, P., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Anthoni, P., … Zheng, B. (2023). Global carbon budget 2023. Earth System Science Data, 15(12), 5301–5369. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023

Gann, G. D., Walder, B., Gladstone, J., Manirajah, S. M., & Roe, S. (2022). Restoration project information sharing framework. Climate Focus and The Society for Ecological Restoration. Link to source: https://globalrestorationobservatory.com/restoration-project-information-sharing-framework/

Gardon, F. R., Toledo, R. M. de, Brentan, B. M., & Santos, R. F. dos. (2020). Rainfall interception and plant community in young forest restorations. Ecological Indicators, 109, Article 105779. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105779

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

Gibbs, D. A., Rose, M., Grassi, G., Melo, J., Rossi, S., Heinrich, V., & Harris, N. L. (2024). Revised and updated geospatial monitoring of twenty-first century forest carbon fluxes. Earth System Science Data Discussions, 17(3), 1217-1243. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-397

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

Hansen, M. C., Potapov, P. V., Moore, R., Hancher, M., Turubanova, S. A., Tyukavina, A., Thau, D., Stehman, S. V., Goetz, S. J., Loveland, T. R., Kommareddy, A., Egorov, A., Chini, L., Justice, C. O., & Townshend, J. R. G. (2013). High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science, 342(6160), 850–853. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693

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

Hasler, N., Williams, C. A., Denney, V. C., Ellis, P. W., Shrestha, S., Terasaki Hart, D. E., Wolff, N. H., Yeo, S., Crowther, T. W., Werden, L. K., & Cook-Patton, S. C. (2024). Accounting for albedo change to identify climate-positive tree cover restoration. Nature Communications, 15(1), Article 2275. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46577-1

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

Hua, F., Bruijnzeel, L. A., Meli, P., Martin, P. A., Zhang, J., Nakagawa, S., Miao, X., Wang, W., McEvoy, C., Peña-Arancibia, J. L., Brancalion, P. H. S., Smith, P., Edwards, D. P., & Balmford, A. (2022). The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches. Science, 376(6595), 839–844. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl4649

Kabeja, C., Li, R., Guo, J., Rwatangabo, D. E. R., Manyifika, M., Gao, Z., Wang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2020). The impact of reforestation induced land cover change (1990–2017) on flood peak discharge using HEC-HMS hydrological model and satellite observations: A study in two mountain basins, China. Water, 12(5), Article 1347. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051347

Keesing, F., & Ostfeld, R. S. (2021). Impacts of biodiversity and biodiversity loss on zoonotic diseases. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(17), Article e2023540118. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023540118

Kroeger, T., Erbaugh, J., Luo, Z., Brumberg, H., Eichhorst, W., Hegwood, M., LoPresti, A., Shyamsundar, P., Ellis, P., Oakes, L., Martin, D., Brancalion, P., Bourne, M., Jagadish, A., Austin, K., Kinzer, A., Sanjuán, M., McCullough, L., & Echavarria, M. (2025). Implementation constraints on natural climate solutions: A global literature review and survey. Research Square. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6890465/v1

Kübler, D., & Günter, S. (2024). Forest restoration for climate change mitigation and adaptation. In P. Katila, C. J. Pierce Colfer, W. de Jong, G. Galloway, P. Pacheco, & G. Winkel (Eds.), Restoring Forests and Trees for Sustainable Development: Policies, Practices, Impacts, and Ways Forward (p. 135-159). Oxford University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/9780197683958.003.0006

Kumar, C., Calmon, M., & Saint-Laurent, C. (Eds.) (with Begeladze, S.). (2015). Enhancing food security through forest landscape restoration: Lessons from Burkina Faso, Brazil, Guatemala, Viet Nam, Ghana, Ethiopia and Philippines. IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2015.FR.2.en

Lawrence, D., Coe, M., Walker, W., Verchot, L., & Vandecar, K. (2022). The unseen effects of deforestation: Biophysical effects on climate. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5, Article 756115. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2022.756115

Löfqvist, S., Kleinschroth, F., Bey, A., de Bremond, A., DeFries, R., Dong, J., Fleischman, F., Lele, S., Martin, D. A., Messerli, P., Meyfroidt, P., Pfeifer, M., Rakotonarivo, S. O., Ramankutty, N., Ramprasad, V., Rana, P., Rhemtulla, J. M., Ryan, C. M., Vieira, I. C. G., … Garrett, R. D. (2023). How social considerations improve the equity and effectiveness of ecosystem restoration. BioScience, 73(2), 134–148. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac099

Mariappan, M., & Zumbado, A. R. (2024). Global Restoration Commitments and Pledges: 2024 Report. International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

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

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

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

North, M. P., Stevens, J. T., Greene, D. F., Coppoletta, M., Knapp, E. E., Latimer, A. M., Restaino, C. M., Tompkins, R. E., Welch, K. R., York, R. A., Young, D. J. N., Axelson, J. N., Buckley, T. N., Estes, B. L., Hager, R. N., Long, J. W., Meyer, M. D., Ostoja, S. M., Safford, H. D., … Wyrsch, P. (2019). Tamm review: Reforestation for resilience in dry western U.S. forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 432, 209–224. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.09.007

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

Piffer, P. R., Rosa, M. R., Tambosi, L. R., Metzger, J. P., & Uriarte, M. (2022). Turnover rates of regenerated forests challenge restoration efforts in the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Environmental Research Letters, 17(4), Article 045009. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac5ae1

Poorter, L., van der Sande, M. T., Thompson, J., Arets, E. J. M. M., Alarcón, A., Álvarez-Sánchez, J., Ascarrunz, N., Balvanera, P., Barajas-Guzmán, G., Boit, A., Bongers, F., Carvalho, F. A., Casanoves, F., Cornejo-Tenorio, G., Costa, F. R. C., de Castilho, C. V., Duivenvoorden, J. F., Dutrieux, L. P., Enquist, B. J., … Peña-Claros, M. (2015). Diversity enhances carbon storage in tropical forests. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 24(11), 1314–1328. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12364

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

Reddington, C. L., Smith, C., Butt, E. W., Baker, J. C. A., Oliveira, B. F. A., Yamba, E. I., & Spracklen, D. V. (2025). Tropical deforestation is associated with considerable heat-related mortality. Nature Climate Change, 15(9), 992–999. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02411-0

Reytar, K., Ferreira-Ferreira, J., Alves, L., Oliveira Cordeiro, C. L. de, & Calmon, M. (2024, December 19). What can tree cover gain data tell us about restoration? Brazil case studies. Global Forest Watch. Link to source: https://www.globalforestwatch.org/blog/forest-insights/tree-cover-gain-restoration-brazil

Robinson, N., Drever, C. R., Gibbs, D. A., Lister, K., Esquivel-Muelbert, A., Heinrich, V., Ciais, P., Silva-Junior, C. H. L., Liu, Z., Pugh, T. A. M., Saatchi, S., Xu, Y., & Cook-Patton, S. C. (2025). Protect young secondary forests for optimum carbon removal. Nature Climate Change, 15, 793–800. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02355-5

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

Sankey, T., Belmonte, A., Massey, R., & Leonard, J. (2021). Regional-scale forest restoration effects on ecosystem resiliency to drought: A synthesis of vegetation and moisture trends on Google Earth Engine. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, 7(2), 259–274. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.186

Schimetka, L. R., Ruggiero, P. G. C., Carvalho, R. L., Behagel, J., Metzger, J. P., Nascimento, N., Chaves, R. B., Brancalion, P. H. S., Rodrigues, R. R., & Krainovic, P. M. (2024). Costs and benefits of restoration are still poorly quantified: Evidence from a systematic literature review on the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Restoration Ecology, 32(5), Article e14161. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14161

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

Sims, M. J., Stanimirova, R., Raichuk, A., Neumann, M., Richter, J., Follett, F., MacCarthy, J., Lister, K., Randle, C., Sloat, L., Esipova, E., Jupiter, J., Stanton, C., Morris, D., Melhart Slay, C., Purves, D., & Harris, N. (2025). Global drivers of forest loss at 1 km resolution. Environmental Research Letters, 20(7), Article 074027. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/add606

Stanturf, J. A., Kleine, M., Mansourian, S., Parrotta, J., Madsen, P., Kant, P., Burns, J., & Bolte, A. (2019). Implementing forest landscape restoration under the Bonn Challenge: A systematic approach. Annals of Forest Science, 76(2), 1–21. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-019-0833-z

Teo, H. C., Raghavan, S. V., He, X., Zeng, Z., Cheng, Y., Luo, X., Lechner, A. M., Ashfold, M. J., Lamba, A., Sreekar, R., Zheng, Q., Chen, A., & Koh, L. P. (2022). Large-scale reforestation can increase water yield and reduce drought risk for water-insecure regions in the Asia-Pacific. Global Change Biology, 28(21), 6385–6403. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16404

van der Sande, M. T., Poorter, L., Kooistra, L., Balvanera, P., Thonicke, K., Thompson, J., Arets, E. J. M. M., Garcia Alaniz, N., Jones, L., Mora, F., Mwampamba, T. H., Parr, T., & Peña-Claros, M. (2017). Biodiversity in species, traits, and structure determines carbon stocks and uptake in tropical forests. Biotropica, 49(5), 593–603. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12453

Veldman, J. W., Overbeck, G. E., Negreiros, D., Mahy, G., Le Stradic, S., Fernandes, G. W., Durigan, G., Buisson, E., Putz, F. E., & Bond, W. J. (2015a). Tyranny of trees in grassy biomes. Science, 347(6221), 484–485. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.347.6221.484-c

Veldman, J. W., Overbeck, G. E., Negreiros, D., Mahy, G., Le Stradic, S., Fernandes, G. W., Durigan, G., Buisson, E., Putz, F. E., & Bond, W. J. (2015b). Where Tree Planting and Forest Expansion are Bad for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. BioScience, 65(10), 1011–1018. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv118

Verhoeven, D., Berkhout, E., Sewell, A., & van der Esch, S. (2024). The global cost of international commitments on land restoration. Land Degradation & Development, 35(16), 4864–4874. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.5263

Walker, W. S., Gorelik, S. R., Cook-Patton, S. C., Baccini, A., Farina, M. K., Solvik, K. K., Ellis, P. W., Sanderman, J., Houghton, R. A., Leavitt, S. M., Schwalm, C. R., & Griscom, B. W. (2022). The global potential for increased storage of carbon on land. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(23), Article e2111312119. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2111312119

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

Wang, Y., Zhu, Y., Cook-Patton, S. C., Sun, W., Zhang, W., Ciais, P., Li, T., Smith, P., Yuan, W., Zhu, X., Canadell, J. G., Deng, X., Xu, Y., Xu, H., Yue, C., & Qin, Z. (2025). Land availability and policy commitments limit global climate mitigation from forestation. Science, 389(6763), 931–934. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adj6841

Williams, B. A., Beyer, H. L., Fagan, M. E., Chazdon, R. L., Schmoeller, M., Sprenkle-Hyppolite, S., Griscom, B. W., Watson, J. E. M., Tedesco, A. M., Gonzalez-Roglich, M., Daldegan, G. A., Bodin, B., Celentano, D., Wilson, S. J., Rhodes, J. R., Alexandre, N. S., Kim, D.-H., Bastos, D., & Crouzeilles, R. (2024). Global potential for natural regeneration in deforested tropical regions. Nature, 636(8041), 131–137. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08106-4

Zhang, Q., Barnes, M., Benson, M., Burakowski, E., Oishi, A. C., Ouimette, A., Sanders-DeMott, R., Stoy, P. C., Wenzel, M., Xiong, L., Yi, K., & Novick, K. A. (2020). Reforestation and surface cooling in temperate zones: Mechanisms and implications. Global Change Biology, 26(6), 3384–3401. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15069

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Avery Driscoll, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

We estimated that forest restoration can sequester 5.86–18.19 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr (Table 1), depending on the climate zone and type of intervention, as growing trees take up carbon through photosynthesis and store it in above- and below-ground biomass. Sequestration rates are highly variable globally; much of this variability is driven by climate, soil properties, forest type, and the type of restoration. 

For this solution, we used modeled carbon sequestration rates from natural regeneration to represent low-intensity restoration (Robinson et al., 2025) and modeled carbon sequestration rates from plantation forests to represent high-intensity carbon restoration, which we define as initiatives that include tree planting (Bukoski et al., 2022; Busch et al., 2024). We calculated carbon sequestration rates at the climate zone level (boreal, temperate, subtropical, and tropical) across the potential extent for each reforestation type.

Generally, high-intensity restoration has higher sequestration rates (median values 12.02–18.19 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr) than low-intensity restoration (median values 5.86–17.06 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr). Median effectiveness is also higher in tropical areas, where forest growth often continues year-round, than it is in other climate zones. These estimates reflect average sequestration rates over the first 30 years of forest growth. Carbon sequestration rates are also influenced by non-climatic factors. For example, higher tree species diversity is often associated with higher forest carbon storage and uptake (Bialic-Murphy et al., 2024; Poorter et al., 2015; van der Sande et al., 2017).

Table 1. Effectiveness of forest restoration at sequestering carbon.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-yr basis

Boreal 5.86
Temperate 11.49
Subtropical 11.53
Tropical 17.06

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr, 100-yr basis

Boreal 14.57
Temperate 12.74
Subtropical 12.02
Tropical 18.19
Left Text Column Width
Cost

We estimated the median cost of low-intensity forest restoration at US$23/t CO₂‑eq (2023 US$) and the median cost of high-intensity forest restoration at US$83/t CO₂‑eq (Table 2). The value given in the dashboard above is the average of the low- and high-intensity cost estimates (US$53/t CO₂‑eq). 

On a per-hectare basis, the estimated cost of low-intensity restoration ranges from US$213/ha (25th percentile) to US$739/ha (75th percentile), with a median cost of US$304/ha. The estimated cost of high-intensity restoration ranges from US$811/ha (25th percentile) to US$1,914/ha (75th percentile), with a median of US$1,348/ha. We derived these estimates from compilations of global restoration project cost data by Verhoeven et al. (2024) and Busch et al. (2024), supplemented with estimates from five additional publications, representing a total of 50 unique projects.

Estimates of restoration costs remain very uncertain, as data are scarce, costs and revenues are highly variable across geographies and projects, and costs are nonlinear, tending to increase under higher adoption scenarios (Austin et al., 2020; Schimetka et al., 2024). Moreover, the success of a project at establishing new forests drives the cost per metric ton of CO₂‑eq , but such success rates are rarely reported alongside costs. Because of data limitations, we did not separate cost estimates into climate zones. 

Our estimates do not account for any new revenues associated with forest restoration, such as carbon credits or provisioning of timber and non-timber forest products (Adams et al. 2016; Ager et al., 2017; Busch et al., 2024). They also do not account for the economic value of ecosystem services, such as increased biodiversity, improved water quality, local cooling, and reduced soil erosion, which have been estimated to outweigh the costs of forest restoration (De Groot et al., 2013).

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact.

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

Median 23

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

Median 83
Left Text Column Width

Methods and Supporting Data

Methods and Supporting Data

Learning Curve

We define a learning curve as falling costs with increased adoption. Reforestation has been practiced for many decades, and there is no evidence of a decrease in costs associated with increasing adoption. Therefore, there is no learning curve for this solution.

Speed of Action

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

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

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

Caveats

Barriers to effective forest restoration include challenges around governance, financing, technical capacity (including seed and seedling supply), labor availability, and site-specific knowledge for initial restoration and long-term management (Brumberg et al., 2024; Chazdon et al., 2016; Chazdon et al., 2021; Fargione et al., 2021; Kroeger et al., 2025). Additional research and monitoring are needed to identify locally relevant restoration strategies, reduce barriers, and evaluate the success of restoration projects (Crouzeilles et al., 2019).

Forest restoration also faces challenges around permanence and additionality. Carbon stored in vegetation and soils through forest restoration can be lost to climatic and environmental stressors like wildfire, drought, heat waves, pests, or disease. Young, regenerating forests can be particularly susceptible to these types of stressors. Restored forests are also at risk of clearing (e.g., Piffer et al., 2022), so forest restoration must be coupled with long-term, effective protections against clearing. Additionality refers to the degree to which carbon uptake associated with forest restoration would have occurred in the absence of a project, policy, or incentive. Evaluating additionality is challenging in the context of natural forest regeneration, some of which simply arises from land abandonment without any intervention.

Current Adoption

Data on current adoption of forest restoration are very limited. While there are extensive compilations of restoration pledges, estimates of the actual area being restored are noncentralized, typically rely on self-reporting without validation, do not have global coverage, use inconsistent definitions, often include establishment of plantations and agroforestry, and rarely separate estimates by ecosystem. Satellite-based data on tree cover gain are occasionally used as a proxy for restoration, but these do not differentiate among restoration, establishment of timber plantations, regeneration in the absence of human intervention, and plantation regrowth after timber harvest (Reytar et al., 2024). Moreover, they can fail to capture actual restoration areas (Begliomini & Brancalion, 2024).

Due to these limitations, we do not provide an estimate of the global area currently under forest restoration. However, we did compile current restoration estimates from three databases: The Mongabay Reforestation Catalog, The Restoration Initiative, and The Restoration Barometer. These databases are subject to the limitations discussed above. Assuming that there is no overlap in projects reported across these databases, including projects with an agroforestry component, and including projects across all ecosystems, we found 40.6 Mha currently being restored. Under more conservative assumptions, including removing projects with an agroforestry component, removing projects from countries that are reported across multiple databases, and discounting estimates to account for restoration in other ecosystems, we estimated that 9.2 Mha are currently being restored. These estimates provide context, but should not be interpreted as representative of the global area under forest restoration.

Adoption Trend

Despite extensive data on restoration pledges, comprehensive data on the actual implementation of restoration efforts are very limited and not often temporally resolved. The available data are insufficient to calculate an adoption trend for this solution.

Adoption Ceiling

We estimated that there are 96.8 Mha available for forest restoration, with 19.4 Mha in boreal regions, 19.0 Mha in temperate regions, 3.5 Mha in the subtropics, and 54.8 Mha in the tropics (Table 3a–e). In this solution, we only included cleared areas that were previously forests in the calculation of the adoption ceiling. To calculate the adoption ceiling, we started with a recent, conservative map of potential forest restoration areas (Fesenmeyer et al., 2025), which we masked to exclude areas classified as other ecosystems in other solutions (peatlands, grasslands and savannahs, and coastal wetlands). We then used a map of the cost-effectiveness of natural regeneration versus plantation establishment (Busch et al., 2024) to remove areas more suitable for plantation establishment from this solution, and assigned them instead to the Deploy Biomass Crops on Degraded Land solution.

Estimates of the area available for forest restoration vary widely due to differing definitions, ranging from 195 Mha (Fesenmeyer et al., 2025) to 900 Mha (Bastin et al., 2019), for example. Using base maps of forest restoration potential from Griscom et al. (2017) and Walker et al. (2022) gave an estimated global adoption ceiling of 426–434 Mha, after applying the same data processing approach to exclude other ecosystems and plantations. 

Because of the constrained scope of this solution, we find a smaller adoption ceiling relative to other studies, which often include plantation establishment, agroforestry, densification of existing forests, afforestation on grasslands, restoration of forests on peat soils, reforestation of croplands, and other activities sometimes classified as forest restoration. We leveraged the map from Fesenmeyer et al. (2025) for the estimates reported in Table 3 because its scope aligns most closely with our relatively narrow definition of forest restoration, is one of the most recent studies, includes a review of 89 other forest restoration maps, and incorporates safeguards against conflicts between restoration and biodiversity loss, water scarcity, albedo effects, and land use. However, we note that this estimate is lower than other published estimates of potential forest restoration area and that differences across studies are driven by subjective judgments on land suitability for restoration.

Table 3. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 19,400,000

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 19,000,000

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 3,500,000

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 54,800,000

Unit: ha available for restoration

Estimate 96,800,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We assumed an achievable range of 50–75% of the adoption ceiling, equal to 48.4–72.6 Mha of forest restoration (Table 4a–e). Much of the adoption potential is located in the tropics, which we estimated to contain 27.4 Mha under the Achievable – Low Scenario and 41.1 Mha under the Achievable – High Scenario. We estimated similar achievable ranges of forest restoration area in boreal and temperate regions (9.7–14.6 Mha and 9.5–14.3 Mha, respectively), and an additional 1.7–2.6 Mha in subtropical regions.

Additional research is needed to determine more realistic estimates of the achievable adoption range, particularly differentiated across different restoration activities. National commitments to restoration, as with studies on the potential restoration area, include many activities that are beyond the scope of this solution, such as plantation establishment, agroforestry, and densification. Because of the inconsistency in definitions, we were unable to rely on restoration commitments to quantify the adoption achievable range. For context, the Global Restoration Commitments database (Mariappan & Zumbado, 2024) reports that, under the Rio Conventions, countries have committed to increasing forestland by 122 Mha, with an additional 154 Mha of commitments to restoring or improving forestland. Similarly, 210.1 Mha of land have been pledged for restoration across all ecosystems under the Bonn Challenge (Mariappan & Zumbado, 2024).

Table 4. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: ha

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 9,700,000
Achievable – high 14,600,000
Adoption ceiling 19,400,000

Unit: ha

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 9,500,000
Achievable – high 14,300,000
Adoption ceiling 19,000,000

Unit: ha

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 1,700,000
Achievable – high 2,600,000
Adoption ceiling 3,500,000

Unit: ha

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 27,400,000
Achievable – high 41,100,000
Adoption ceiling 54,800,000

Unit: ha

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 48,400,000
Achievable – high 72,600,000
Adoption ceiling 96,800,000
Left Text Column Width

We estimated that forest restoration could sequester 0.718 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the low-achievable adoption scenario, 1.077 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the high-achievable adoption scenario, and 1.437 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the adoption ceiling (Table 5a–e). Nearly 70% of the total climate impacts under these scenarios occur in tropical regions, where much of the current investment in restoration is focused.

Our climate impact estimates are lower than existing literature estimates due to our more constrained definition of this solution. Existing estimates also vary widely. For example, Cook-Patton et al. (2020) estimated that fully implemented national forest restoration commitments as of 2020 would take up 5.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, while the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported an economically feasible mitigation potential of 1.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Nabuurs et al., 2022), and Griscom et al. (2017) reported a technical mitigation potential of 10.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Recently, Wang et al. (2025) estimated an upper-end mitigation potential of 5.85 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (including afforestation and plantation establishment), with current commitments across all of these activities projected to take up 1.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Discrepancies between estimates are driven by the area considered suitable for restoration, types of restoration activities considered and their associated carbon uptake rates, and inclusion of cost constraints. Each of these individual estimates is also associated with substantial uncertainty, and further work is needed to standardize definitions of forest restoration and constrain the range of impact estimates.

Table 5. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 0.099
Achievable – high 0.149
Adoption ceiling 0.198

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 0.115
Achievable – high 0.173
Adoption ceiling 0.230

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 0.020
Achievable – high 0.031
Adoption ceiling 0.041

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 0.483
Achievable – high 0.725
Adoption ceiling 0.966

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-year basis

Current adoption NA
Achievable – low 0.718
Achievable – high 1.077
Adoption ceiling 1.437
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Heat Stress

Forests help regulate local climate by reducing temperature extremes (Lawrence et al., 2022; Walton et al., 2016). Zhang et al. (2020) found the land surfaces of restored forests were 1–2 °C cooler than grasslands.

Extreme Weather Events

Forest restoration can improve biodiversity and health of the ecosystem, leading to more ecological resilience (DeGroot et al., 2013; Hua et al., 2022). Restored forests can intercept rainfall and attenuate flood risk during extreme rainfall events (Kabeja et al., 2020; Gardon et al., 2020). In some climates, certain reforestation methods could increase ecosystem resilience to wildfires (North et al., 2019).

Floods

For a description of the flood benefits, please refer to the “Extreme Weather Events” subsection. 

Droughts

Forest restoration may increase or decrease the ecosystem’s resilience to drought, depending on changes in factors such as evapotranspiration, precipitation, and water storage in vegetation (Andres et al., 2022; Sankey et al., 2020; Teo et al., 2022). For example, Teo et al. (2022) found that reforestation of degraded lands reduced the probability of experiencing extremely dry conditions in water-insecure regions of East Asia.

Income and Work

Forest restoration creates both temporary and permanent job opportunities, especially in rural areas (DeGroot et al., 2013). A study in Brazil found that restoration can generate about 0.42 jobs per hectare of forest undergoing restoration (Brancalion et al., 2022). Restoration of forests may also improve livelihoods and income opportunities based on the ecosystem services the forest provides. While these benefits vary substantially with household and community characteristics, in general, they include income diversification and the availability of food and fiber from forests (Adams et al., 2016). For example, in Burkina Faso, smallholders who restored lands through assisted regeneration diversified their income by harvesting resources such as fodder for livestock and small wildlife (Kumar et al., 2015). 

Food Security

Forests provide income and livelihoods for subsistence households and individuals (de Souza et al., 2016; Herrera et al., 2017; Naidoo et al., 2019). Forest restoration may improve food security for some households by improving incomes and livelihoods.

Health

Reforestation may promote the health of nearby communities. Herrera et al. (2017) found that in rural areas of low- and middle-income countries, household members living downstream of higher tree cover had a lower probability of diarrheal disease. Biodiverse forests are linked to a reduced risk of animal-to-human infections because zoonotic hosts tend to be less abundant in less disturbed ecosystems (Keesing & Ostfeld, 2021; Reddington et al., 2015).

Equality

Indigenous peoples have a long history of caring for and shaping landscapes that are rich with biodiversity (Fletcher et al., 2021), and restoring the health and function of forests is essential for protecting indigenous cultural values and practices. Indigenous communities provide vital ecological functions for preserving landscape health, such as seed dispersal and predation (Bliege Bird & Nimmo, 2018). Indigenous peoples also have spiritual and cultural ties to their lands (Garnett et al., 2018). Restoration must be implemented using an equity-centered approach that reduces power imbalances between stakeholders, ensures people are not displaced, and involves local actors (Löfqvist et al., 2023).

Nature Protection

Forests are home to a wide range of species and habitats and are essential for safeguarding biodiversity. Reforestation of native forests increases the biodiversity of an ecosystem relative to its previous cleared state (Brancalion et al., 2025; Hua et al., 2022). While many factors, such as the restoration method, time since restoration, and biophysical conditions, can impact restoration, studies of reforestation report increases in biodiversity and more species abundance after restoration, though the biodiversity typically remains below that of intact forests (Crouzeilles et al., 2016; Hua et al., 2022).

Water Quality

The impacts of reforestation on water quality vary based on factors such as geography and time since undergoing restoration (Dib et al., 2023). In general, forests act as natural water filters, maintaining and improving water quality (Dib et al., 2023; Melo et al., 2021). Restoration of forests is associated with improved water quality in streams compared with their previously degraded state (dos Reis Oliveira et al., 2025).

Risks

Forest restoration initiatives that are not responsive to local socioeconomic conditions risk displacing community land access and compromising local livelihoods. Effective forest restoration activities can be highly diverse, but must be targeted towards local environmental, sociopolitical, and economic conditions (Stanturf et al., 2019). 

If forest restoration encroaches on agricultural lands, it can trigger clearing of forests elsewhere to replace lost agricultural production. 

Planting trees in areas where they do not naturally occur, such as in grasslands and savannas, can alter hydrologic cycles and harm biodiversity (Veldman et al., 2015a; Veldman et al., 2015b). The estimates of potential forest restoration area that we use in this analysis are constrained to minimize these risks by including only land that was once forested and not allowing for forest restoration on croplands or in urban areas.

Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Forest restoration can improve the health and function of adjacent ecosystems that are being protected or restored.

Competing

These solutions are all suitable to implement on degraded land, and thus are in competition for the available degraded land.

Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
09.4410.21median
units
Current Not Determined 09.7×10⁶1.46×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 0.0990.149
US$ per t CO₂-eq
53
Delayed

CO₂

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
010.1612.11median
units
Current Not Determined 09.5×10⁶1.43×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 0.1150.173
US$ per t CO₂-eq
53
Delayed

CO₂

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
09.6811.78median
units
Current Not Determined 01.7×10⁶2.6×10⁶
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 0.0210.031
US$ per t CO₂-eq
53
Delayed

CO₂

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
014.6717.63median
units
Current Not Determined 02.74×10⁷4.11×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 0.4830.725
US$ per t CO₂-eq
53
Delayed

CO₂

Trade-offs

Forest restoration can divert resources from other climate solutions, including protecting intact forests. Humans clear approximately 0.4% of forests annually (Curtis et al., 2018; Hansen et al., 2013; Sims et al., 2025), and halting further deforestation is an urgent priority with huge benefits for the climate, biodiversity, and other ecosystem services (see Protect Forests). While restoration provides carbon sequestration over a period of decades, preventing deforestation reduces emissions immediately and is typically more cost-effective. Restoration should therefore complement, rather than compete with, efforts to reduce deforestation.

Forest restoration can also decrease the albedo, or reflectivity, of Earth’s surface. This can increase temperatures as more of the sun’s energy is absorbed and reradiated as thermal energy. Albedo effects are most pronounced in boreal and dryland regions, where they reduce the net climate benefits of forest restoration (Hasler et al., 2024).

t CO2-eq/ha/yr
025

CO2 sequestration potential from low-intensity forest restoration on suitable lands

Regrowth of deforested areas can sequester carbon in biomass. Here we show potential annual carbon sequestration by natural regrowth in areas where at least 5% of the landscape is deforested and where forest restoration would not adversely impact food production or existing communities. Green shaded areas indicate locations where this solution is effective; zoom in for details.

Fesenmyer, K. A., Poor, E. E., Terasaki Hart, D. E., Veldman, J. W., Fleischman, F., Choksi, P., Archibald, S., Armani, M., Fagan, M. E., Fricke, E. C., Terrer, C., Hasler, N., Williams, C. A., Ellis, P. W., & Cook-Patton, S. C. (2025). Addressing critiques refines global estimates of reforestation potential for climate change mitigation. Nature Communications, 16(1), Article 4572. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59799-8 

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

Robinson, N., Drever, C. R., Gibbs, D. A., Lister, K., Esquivel-Muelbert, A., Heinrich, V., Ciais, P., Silva-Junior, C. H. L., Liu, Z., Pugh, T. A. M., Saatchi, S., Xu, Y., & Cook-Patton, S. C. (2025). Protect young secondary forests for optimum carbon removal. Nature Climate Change, 15, 793–800. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02355-5 

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

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

t CO2-eq/ha/yr
025

CO2 sequestration potential from low-intensity forest restoration on suitable lands

Regrowth of deforested areas can sequester carbon in biomass. Here we show potential annual carbon sequestration by natural regrowth in areas where at least 5% of the landscape is deforested and where forest restoration would not adversely impact food production or existing communities. Green shaded areas indicate locations where this solution is effective; zoom in for details.

Fesenmyer, K. A., Poor, E. E., Terasaki Hart, D. E., Veldman, J. W., Fleischman, F., Choksi, P., Archibald, S., Armani, M., Fagan, M. E., Fricke, E. C., Terrer, C., Hasler, N., Williams, C. A., Ellis, P. W., & Cook-Patton, S. C. (2025). Addressing critiques refines global estimates of reforestation potential for climate change mitigation. Nature Communications, 16(1), Article 4572. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59799-8 

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

Robinson, N., Drever, C. R., Gibbs, D. A., Lister, K., Esquivel-Muelbert, A., Heinrich, V., Ciais, P., Silva-Junior, C. H. L., Liu, Z., Pugh, T. A. M., Saatchi, S., Xu, Y., & Cook-Patton, S. C. (2025). Protect young secondary forests for optimum carbon removal. Nature Climate Change, 15, 793–800. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-025-02355-5 

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

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

Maps Introduction

Tropical regions have particularly large potential for forest restoration. Regrowing forests tend to have higher rates of carbon uptake in the tropics, particularly in humid areas, than in regions where shorter growing seasons and water limitations can constrain growth (e.g., Cook-Patton et al., 2020, Bernal et al., 2018). Our estimates of effectiveness suggest that carbon uptake rates in the tropics are almost 20% higher than those in temperate and subtropical regions. 

There are also large areas of recently deforested land in the tropics that are suitable for restoration. Recently deforested lands tend to have larger seed stocks in the soil and may be in proximity to intact forest patches, conditions that can improve the success of low-intensity restoration efforts (Chazon et al., 2016). Using three existing maps of potential forest restoration extent, our estimates suggest that ~43% of the adoption ceiling for forest restoration is located in tropical regions. 

Temperate regions, which have historically experienced widespread and severe deforestation, have the second-most area available for forest restoration. Some deforested areas have already been returned to forest cover, and some have been converted to permanent cropland or urban development, land-cover classes that are excluded from this analysis because they are typically not considered suitable for restoration in large-scale studies (Fesenmeyer et al., 2025). Temperate regions contain an additional ~28% of the area suitable for forest restoration.

Locally, forest restoration efforts that are targeted towards expanding and improving connectivity of existing forests may provide the largest carbon benefits by reducing edge effects (Chaplin-Kramer et al., 2015). Forest connectivity and patch size are also important predictors of the benefits for biodiversity and other ecosystem services (Beltrão et al., 2024; Di Sacco et al., 2020). Additionally, areas close to existing forests are often more suitable for natural regeneration, which can be cheaper and more efficient to implement than tree planting (Busch et al., 2024; Di Sacco et al., 2020; Williams et al., 2024).

In addition to sequestering carbon, forest restoration can influence the climate by changing albedo, or the reflectivity of Earth’s surface. In places where increasing tree cover makes the surface less reflective, the resultant biophysical warming can offset the climate benefits of carbon sequestration (Betts, 2000; Hasler et al., 2024). These effects tend to be particularly large in drylands, which have low native vegetation cover, and boreal regions, which have persistent snow cover. Therefore, some studies omit boreal regions from their estimates of potential forest restoration (Griscom et al., 2017).

Action Word
Restore
Solution Title
Forests
Classification
Highly Recommended

Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Set achievable targets and pledges for forest restoration with clear effectiveness goals; regularly measure and report on restoration progress, area under restoration, challenges, and related data points.
  • Help develop definitions at the international level for forest restoration and degradation along with frameworks for measurement and monitoring; design indicators to capture long-term impacts, including metrics to capture social and biodiversity impacts.
  • Ensure public procurement uses deforestation-free products and sustainable products from reforested areas.
  • Create strong regulatory frameworks with clear definitions for active and passive restoration and/or related terms such as reforestation, regeneration, improving forest functionality, and increasing forest cover; ensure the framework is gender responsive and seeks to include women throughout the restoration process.
  • Coordinate forest protection and restoration policies horizontally (e.g., across agencies) and vertically (e.g., across subnational, national, and international efforts); seek to align social and environmental safeguards with protection and reforestation policies and goals.
  • Develop regional and transboundary coordination mechanisms for protection and restoring forests, especially, when working across international borders; consider using coordination methods from adjacent issue areas such as water management and/or working closely with existing coordination bodies for relevant watersheds.
  • Prioritize forest protection first and restoring forests second; ensure areas under restoration are classified as protected lands.
  • Create financial incentives for both active and passive restoration techniques, such as direct payments, payment for ecosystem services (PES), property tax breaks, rebates, subsidies, and cash prizes for meeting tree and/or vegetative growth metrics; ensure incentives allow for long timelines; provide similar incentives to reduce fertilizer use; ensure equitable access to incentives for low- and middle-income communities.
  • Provide financial incentives for businesses that support restoration by developing sustainable products.
  • Create disincentives by taxing or fining land clearance, deforestation, poor land management, and agricultural pollution.
  • Remove harmful agriculture and logging subsidies, particularly those that incentivize livestock, biofuels, land encroachment, and overuse of fertilizers.
  • Seek to designate lands for reforestation that are adjacent to or connect with already protected areas, intact lands, and/or watersheds.
  • Delegate the authority to allocate direct payments for fiscal incentives to local governments.
  • Use tax revenues from extractive industries to pay for restoration.
  • Use taxes from beneficiaries of forest services to pay for nearby restoration (e.g., use taxes from downstream users to improve practices upstream); before instituting such a tax regime, consult with stakeholders, clearly define tax arrangements, and put into place strict enforcement measures.
  • Create an ongoing, equity-centered community engagement process; ensure local communities help shape local projects and receive benefits.
  • Strengthen land and tree tenure rights; grant Indigenous communities’ full property rights and autonomy.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC); codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Ensure regulations allow and encourage a variety of legal models for reforestation efforts, such as cooperatives.
  • Prioritize reducing food loss and waste and improving diets.
  • Invest in R&D to identify best practices, where reforestation is viable, and how to improve the local enabling environment(s).
  • When possible, use social science research to determine the best interventions, incentives, and community engagement models before beginning restoration projects.
  • Create programs to monitor for activity and market leakage from reforestation sites; adjust enforcement and policies to reduce leakage, if necessary.
  • Foster national pride for the natural landscape and reforestation efforts through communication campaigns.
  • Work with public universities and other educational institutions to develop degree and certification programs in forest restoration; encourage them to offer subspecialities, such as protected lands governance, management, policy, and finance.
  • Create educational programs that work with schools, universities, NGOs, and the general public to inform communities how to participate in restoration efforts, benefits, and opportunities; expand extension services to develop local capacity in forest restoration, especially in community-led monitoring and evaluation; establish knowledge-sharing initiatives with Indigenous peoples.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, restoration activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify restoration activity and sustainable use of forest products.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Set achievable targets and pledges for forest restoration with clear effectiveness goals.
  • Help develop regulatory frameworks with clear definitions for active and passive restoration and/or related terms such as reforestation, regeneration, improving forest functionality, and increasing forest cover; ensure the framework is gender responsive and seeks to include women throughout the restoration process.
  • Help develop definitions at the international level for forest restoration and degradation along with frameworks for measurement and monitoring; design indicators to capture long term impacts, including metrics to capture social and biodiversity impacts.
  • Help develop or advocate for regional and transboundary coordination mechanisms for restoring forests, especially, when working across international borders; consider using coordination methods from adjacent issue areas such as water management and/or working closely with existing coordination bodies for relevant watersheds.
  • Offer or take advantage of financial incentives such as direct payments or PES; if necessary, advocate for public incentives for both active and passive restoration, such as property tax breaks, rebates, subsidies, and cash prizes for meeting tree and/or vegetative growth metrics; help ensure incentives allow for long timelines; help ensure equitable access to incentives for low- and middle-income communities.
  • Seek to designate lands for reforestation that are adjacent to or connect with already protected areas, intact lands, and/or watersheds.
  • Create an ongoing, equity-centered community engagement process; ensure local communities help shape local projects and receive benefits.
  • Advocate for strong land and tree tenure rights; support Indigenous property rights and autonomy.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; help codify FPICinto legal systems.
  • Help create high-integrity carbon markets with long durations; use dynamic baselines for more accurate additionality assessments.
  • Create programs to monitor for activity and market leakage from reforestation sites; advocate for adjustments to enforcement and policies to reduce leakage, if necessary.
  • Develop markets for native species products and other sustainable uses of reforested lands.
  • Develop or support opportunities for ecotourism industries in locally restored forests.
  • Explore and use alternative legal models for reforestation, such as cooperatives.
  • Invest in R&D to identify best practices, where reforestation is viable, and how to improve the local enabling environment(s).
  • When possible, use social science research to determine the best interventions, incentives, and community engagement models before beginning restoration projects.
  • Help foster pride for natural landscape and reforestation efforts through communication campaigns.
  • Work with educational institutions to develop degree and certification programs in forest restoration; encourage them to offer subspecialities such as protected lands governance, management, policy, and finance.
  • Create educational programs that work with schools, NGOs, and the general public to inform communities how to participate in restoration efforts, benefits, and opportunities; advocate for expanded extension services to develop local capacity in forest restoration, especially in community-led monitoring and evaluation; establish knowledge-sharing initiatives with Indigenous peoples.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, restoration activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify restoration activity and sustainable use of forest products.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Create deforestation-free supply chains, using data, information, and the latest technology to inform product sourcing.
  • Develop markets and supply chains for native species products; innovate other sustainable uses for resources from reforested lands.
  • Integrate deforestation-free business and investment policies and practices into your net-zero strategies.
  • Develop or support opportunities for ecotourism in restored forests.
  • Offer company grants to suppliers or others to improve resource management and support reforestation within your supply chain.
  • Offer incubator services for those restoring forests; offer pro bono business advice or general support for community restoration projects.
  • Enter into outgrower schemes to support smallholder farmers restoring their land; make long-term commitments to help stabilize projects.
  • Contribute to local restoration efforts; use an internal carbon fee or set aside a percentage of revenue to fund reforestation.
  • Only purchase carbon credits from high-integrity, verifiable carbon markets, and do not use them as replacements for reducing emissions.
  • Help create high-integrity carbon markets with long durations; use dynamic baselines for additionality assessments.
  • Help shift the public narrative around carbon markets as integrity increases to boost education, dialogue, and awareness.
  • Develop financial instruments to invest in reforestation, focusing on supporting Indigenous communities.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Offer employee professional development funds to be used for certification in reforestation or related fields such as curricular economies.
  • Create company volunteer opportunities such as annual-tree planting days; consider partnering with a relevant local non-profit.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, restoration activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify restoration activity and sustainable use of forest products.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Use deforestation-free products and sustainable products from reforested areas.
  • Help manage restoration projects; consider using alternatives to corporate business structures such as cooperatives to facilitate management and legal structures.
  • Advocate for achievable public targets and pledges for forest restoration with clear effectiveness goals.
  • Help develop regulatory frameworks with clear definitions for active and passive restoration and/or related terms such as reforestation, regeneration, improving forest functionality, and increasing forest cover; ensure the framework is gender responsive and seeks to include women throughout the restoration process.
  • Help develop definitions at the international level for forest restoration and degradation along with frameworks for measurement and monitoring; design indicators to capture long-term impacts, including social and biodiversity impacts.
  • Help develop or advocate for regional and transboundary coordination mechanisms for restoring forests, especially, when working across international borders; consider using coordination methods from adjacent issue areas such as water management and/or working closely with existing coordination bodies for relevant watersheds.
  • Offer or take advantage of financial incentives such as direct payments or PES; if necessary, advocate for public incentives such as property tax breaks, rebates, subsidies, and cash prizes for meeting tree and/or vegetative growth metrics; help ensure incentives allow for long timelines; help ensure equitable access to incentives.
  • Seek to designate lands for reforestation that are adjacent to or connect with already protected areas, intact lands, and/or watersheds.
  • Advocate to remove harmful agriculture and logging subsidies, particularly those that incentivize livestock, biofuels, land encroachment, and overuse of fertilizers.
  • Call on governments and administrators of reforestation projects to use transparent, inclusive, and ongoing community engagement processes to co-design restoration projects; help solicit community feedback on area designations, finance, monitoring, and distribution of benefits; help ensure projects address relevant sociological, agricultural, and ecological considerations.
  • Advocate for strong land and tree tenure rights; support Indigenous property rights and autonomy.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FIPC; help codify FIPC into legal systems.
  • Help create high-integrity, long-lasting carbon markets; use dynamic baselines for more accurate additionality assessments.
  • Help monitor reforestation projects for success metrics such as vegetative growth, biodiversity, and water quality using high-resolution data and active remote sensing if possible.
  • Help translate reforestation materials into locally relevant languages.
  • Conduct cost-benefit analyses of potential local interventions to identify optimal strategies.
  • Develop markets and supply chains for native species products; innovate other sustainable uses for resources from reforested lands.
  • Develop or support opportunities for ecotourism in restored forests.
  • Facilitate investment in reforestation; create economic models to help maintain long-term financing; identify priorities for financing and help distribute incentives.
  • Help identify local sources of degradation and distribute findings to policymakers and the public; document and share best practices for reforestation.
  • Help establish outgrower schemes and negotiate favorable contracts for smallholder farmers.
  • Create programs to monitor for activity and market leakage from reforestation sites; advocate for adjustments to enforcement and policies to reduce leakage, if necessary.
  • Support high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Help shift the public narrative around carbon markets as integrity increases to boost education, dialogue, and awareness.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities’ capacity for legal protection, administration, and public relations.
  • When possible, use social science research to determine the best interventions, incentives, and community engagement models before beginning restoration projects.
  • Help foster national pride for the natural landscape and reforestation efforts through communication campaigns.
  • Work with educational institutions to develop degree and certification programs in forest restoration; encourage them to offer subspecialities such as protected lands governance, management, policy, and finance.
  • Create educational programs that work with schools, NGOs, and the general public to inform communities how to participate in restoration efforts, benefits, and opportunities; advocate for expanded extension services to develop local capacity in forest restoration, especially in community-led monitoring and evaluation; establish knowledge-sharing initiatives with Indigenous peoples.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, restoration activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify restoration activity and sustainable use of forest products.

Further information:

Investors
  • Create deforestation-free investment portfolios.
  • Apply environmental and social standards to existing investments; divest from destructive industries and/or work with portfolio companies to improve practices.
  • Offer specific credit lines for reforestation projects with long-term timelines; offer low-interest loans, microfinancing, and specific financial products for medium-sized projects.
  • Own equity in sustainable projects that manage or support reforestation, especially during the early and middle phases.
  • Offer incubator services for those working on forest restoration projects; offer pro bono business advice or general support for community restoration projects.
  • Offer insurance and risk mitigation products for reforestation projects, especially, to farmers transitioning their lands.
  • Provide catalytic financing for businesses developing sustainable products made from native species, ecotourism, or other sustainable uses of reforested lands.
  • Invest in green bonds or high-integrity carbon credits for reforestation.
  • Support reforestation, other investors, and NGOs by sharing data, information, and investment frameworks that successfully avoid investments that drive deforestation.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, restoration activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Use deforestation-free products and sustainable products from reforested areas.
  • Offer grants or credit lines for reforestation projects with long-term timelines; offer low-interest loans, microfinancing options, and favorable financial products for medium-sized projects.
  • Own equity in sustainable projects that manage or support reforestation, especially during the early and middle phases.
  • Offer incubator services for those working on forest restoration; offer pro bono business advice or general support for community restoration projects.
  • Offer insurance and risk mitigation products for reforestation projects, especially, to farmers transitioning their lands.
  • Provide catalytic financing for businesses developing sustainable products made from native species, local ecotourism, or other sustainable uses of reforested lands.
  • Advocate for achievable public targets and pledges for forest restoration with clear effectiveness goals.
  • Help develop regulatory frameworks with clear definitions for active and passive restoration and/or related terms such as reforestation, regeneration, improving forest functionality, and increasing forest cover; ensure the framework is gender responsive and seeks to include women throughout the restoration process.
  • Help develop definitions at the international level for forest restoration and degradation along with frameworks for measurement and monitoring; design indicators to capture long-term impacts, including metrics to capture social and biodiversity impacts.
  • Help develop or advocate for regional and transboundary coordination mechanisms for restoring forests, especially, when working across international borders; consider using coordination methods from adjacent issue areas such as water management and/or working closely with existing coordination bodies for relevant watersheds.
  • Offer or take advantage of financial incentives such as PES; if necessary, advocate for public incentives for both active and passive restoration techniques such as property tax breaks, rebates, subsidies, and cash prizes for meeting tree and/or vegetative growth metrics; help ensure incentives allow for long timelines; help ensure equitable access to incentives.
  • Seek to designate lands for reforestation that are adjacent to or connect with already protected areas, intact lands, and/or watersheds.
  • Advocate to remove harmful agriculture and logging subsidies, particularly those that incentivize livestock, biofuels, land encroachment, and overuse of fertilizers.
  • Call on governments and administrators to use transparent, inclusive, and ongoing community engagement to co-design restoration projects; help solicit community feedback on area designations, finance, monitoring, and distribution of benefits; help ensure projects address relevant sociological, agricultural, and ecological considerations.
  • Advocate for strong land and tree tenure rights; support Indigenous property rights and autonomy.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; help codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Help create high-integrity carbon markets with long durations; use dynamic baselines for more accurate additionality assessments.
  • Help monitor reforestation projects using high-resolution data and active remote sensing if possible.
  • Help translate reforestation materials into local relevant languages.
  • Conduct cost-benefit analysis of potential local interventions to identify optimal reforestation strategies.
  • Develop markets and supply chains for native species products; innovate other sustainable uses for resources from reforested lands.
  • Develop or support opportunities for ecotourism industries in locally restored forests.
  • Facilitate investment strategies among stakeholders; create economic models to help maintain long-term financing; identify priorities for financing and help to distribute both financial and nonfinancial incentives to stakeholders.
  • Help identify local sources of degradation and distribute findings to policymakers and the public; document and share best practices for reforestation.
  • Help establish outgrower schemes and negotiate contracts for smallholder farmers to ensure they receive the most favorable terms possible.
  • Create programs to monitor for activity and market leakage from reforestation sites; advocate for adjustments to enforcement and policies to reduce leakage if necessary.
  • Support high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Help shift the public narrative around carbon markets as integrity increases to boost education, dialogue, and awareness.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Invest in and support Indigenous and local communities' capacity for legal protection, administration, and public relations.
  • When possible, use social science research to determine the best interventions, incentives, and community engagement models before beginning restoration projects.
  • Work with educational institutions to develop degree and certification programs in forest restoration; encourage them to offer subspecialities such as protected lands governance, management, policy, and finance.
  • Create educational programs that work with schools, NGOs, and the general public to inform communities of how to participate in restoration efforts, benefits, and opportunities; advocate for expanded extension services to develop local capacity in forest restoration, especially in community-led monitoring and evaluation; establish knowledge-sharing initiatives with Indigenous peoples.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, restoration activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify restoration activity and sustainable use of forest products.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • If possible, conduct restoration projects on your property; work with local experts, share your experience, and document your progress.
  • Advocate for achievable public targets and pledges for forest restoration with clear effectiveness goals.
  • Help develop regulatory frameworks with clear definitions for active and passive restoration and/or related terms such as reforestation, regeneration, improving forest functionality, and increasing forest cover; ensure the framework is gender responsive and seeks to include women throughout the restoration process.
  • Help develop definitions at the international level for forest restoration and degradation along with frameworks for measurement and monitoring; design indicators to capture long-term impacts, including metrics to capture social and biodiversity impacts.
  • Help develop or advocate for regional and transboundary coordination mechanisms for restoring forests, especially, when working across international borders; consider using coordination methods from adjacent issue areas such as water management and/or working closely with existing coordination bodies for relevant watersheds.
  • Take advantage of and/or advocate for public incentives for both active and passive restoration techniques such as direct payments, PES, property tax breaks, rebates, subsidies, and cash prizes for meeting tree and/or vegetative growth metrics; help ensure incentives allow for long timelines; help ensure equitable access to incentives.
  • Seek to designate lands for reforestation that are adjacent to or connect with already protected areas, intact lands, and/or watersheds.
  • Advocate to remove harmful agriculture and logging subsidies, particularly those that incentivize livestock, biofuels, land encroachment, and overuse of fertilizers.
  • Call on governments and administrators to use transparent, inclusive, and ongoing community engagement processes to co-design restoration projects; help solicit community feedback on area designations, finance, monitoring, and distribution of benefits; help ensure projects address relevant sociological, agricultural, and ecological considerations.
  • Advocate for strong land and tree tenure rights; support Indigenous property rights and autonomy.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; help codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Help create high-integrity carbon markets with long durations; use dynamic baselines for more accurate additionality assessments.
  • Help identify local sources of degradation and distribute findings to policymakers and the public; document and share best practices for reforestation.
  • Support high-integrity carbon markets, institutions, rules, and norms to cultivate the demand for high-quality carbon credits.
  • Help shift the public narrative around carbon markets as integrity increases to boost education, dialogue, and awareness.
  • Amplify the voices of local communities and civil society to promote robust media coverage.
  • Work with educational institutions to develop degree and certification programs in forest restoration; encourage them to offer subspecialities such as protected lands governance, management, policy, and finance.
  • Create educational programs that work with schools, NGOs, and the general public to inform communities of how to participate in restoration efforts, benefits, and opportunities; advocate for expanded extension services to develop local capacity in forest restoration, especially in community-led monitoring and evaluation; establish knowledge-sharing initiatives with Indigenous peoples.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, restoration activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify restoration activity and sustainable use of forest products.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Examine and compare a wide range of interventions, ideally in local sites, to inform reforestation.
  • Help document and examine local knowledge as it relates to reforestation; help integrate Indigenous and local knowledge into restoration science and technology.
  • Help develop local spatial models to identify sites suitable for restoration with low risk of being recleared.
  • Use or improve Artificial Intelligence models and satellite imagery to help develop early warning systems and predictive models for degraded forests and illegal deforestation.
  • Use AI and satellite data to monitor and evaluate restoration activities; map practices and identify locally relevant interventions.
  • Develop web-based platforms and applications to support large-scale forest restoration; include peer-reviewed studies that map risks and amounts of buffer pools available for each disturbance.
  • Research locally viable risk management strategies in restoration; study and identify social risks and related mitigation strategies.
  • Create a database to measure reforestation progress against global commitments.
  • Develop or improve techniques to monitor for activity and market leakage from reforestation sites.
  • Examine and compare a wide range of local incentive structures to identify optimal policies.
  • Conduct long-term documentation of socioeconomic and biodiversity outcomes for restoration projects; identify challenges and opportunities; distill best practices for a global audience.
  • Conduct social ground truthing for local restoration projects to gather data, test models, and develop potential interventions.
  • Conduct research on native species found in restored forests and potential uses for sustainable commercial development.
  • Evaluate the relationships among large-scale forest restoration, food security, and wood demand; develop recommendations for land and resource allocation among these activities.
  • Improve understanding of forest dynamics, including how they relate to cloud feedbacks, volatile organic compounds, aerosol effects, and black carbon.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • If possible, restore forests on your property; work with local experts, share your experience, and document your progress.
  • Help establish and participate in local restoration efforts; volunteer with a local nonprofit or establish one if none exists.
  • If degraded forests are in your area and no action is being taken, speak to local officials, hand out fliers, or otherwise advocate for restoration.
  • Reduce and/or eliminate use of chemicals on your lawn and/or property; set up a sign that indicates your lawn is chemical-free.
  • Prioritizing reducing your household’s food waste and improving your diet to incorporate more plant-rich meals.
  • Have community conversations about local forests, agriculture, and lawn maintenance practices; seek to reduce harmful practices such as overuse of fertilizers and pesticides and to initiate restoration efforts; educate friends and neighbors about local degraded forests and potential solutions.
  • Contribute to local restoration efforts.
  • When traveling, look for opportunities to support reforestation projects and ecotourism.
  • Help document and develop knowledge-sharing opportunities for Indigenous and local knowledge.
  • Help identify local sources of degradation and distribute findings to policymakers and the public; document and share best practices for reforestation.
  • Try to purchase sustainable forest products that support local reforestation.
  • Take advantage of and/or advocate for public incentives for restoration techniques such as direct payments, PES, property tax breaks, rebates, subsidies, and cash prizes for meeting tree and/or vegetative growth metrics; help ensure incentives allow for long timelines; help ensure equitable access to incentives.
  • Seek to designate lands for reforestation that are adjacent to or connect with already protected areas, intact lands, and/or watersheds.
  • Advocate to remove harmful agriculture and logging subsidies, particularly those that incentivize livestock, biofuels, land encroachment, and overuse of fertilizers.
  • Call on governments and administrators to use transparent, inclusive, and ongoing community engagement processes to co-design restoration projects; help solicit community feedback on area designations, finance, monitoring, and distribution of benefits; help ensure projects address relevant sociological, agricultural, and ecological considerations.
  • Advocate for strong land and tree tenure rights; support Indigenous property rights and autonomy.
  • Ensure projects operating in or with Indigenous communities only do so under FPIC; help codify FPIC into legal systems.
  • Create educational programs that work with schools, NGOs, and the general public to inform communities how to participate in restoration efforts, benefits, and opportunities; advocate for expanded extension services to develop local capacity in forest restoration, especially in community-led monitoring and evaluation; establish knowledge-sharing initiatives with Indigenous peoples.
  • Join, create, or participate in public-private partnerships dedicated to mobilizing financing, restoration activities, knowledge transfers, general education, and other relevant areas.
  • Join, support, or create certification schemes that verify restoration activity and sustainable use of forest products.

Further information:

“Take Action” Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in enhancing carbon removal: High

Many scientific studies have evaluated the potential for forest restoration, consistently reporting that forest restoration has potential to provide substantial carbon removal. The effectiveness of forest restoration in terms of carbon uptake per hectare is highly spatially variable, with over 100-fold variability in uptake rates globally (Cook-Patton et al., 2020). These uptake rates have been extensively modeled, though estimates vary with respect to restoration activity (e.g., natural regeneration or plantation establishment) and carbon pools included (e.g., above-ground biomass only, above- and below-ground biomass, or total biomass and soil carbon). For forests undergoing natural regeneration, estimates of effectiveness ranged from 1.0 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr for biomass in boreal forests (Cook-Patton et al., 2020) to 18.8 t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr for biomass and soils in humid tropical forests in South America (Bernal et al., 2018).

Estimates of the potential climate impacts of forest restoration vary widely, with differences driven largely by variability in the estimates of land area available for forest restoration. The IPCC reported a global technical mitigation potential of 3.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr with an uncertainty range of 0.5–10.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, and an economically feasible mitigation potential of 1.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr with an uncertainty range of 0.5–3.0 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Nabuurs et al., 2022). Cook-Patton et al. (2020) estimated a maximum mitigation potential of 8.91 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr and a mitigation potential of 5.87 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr under existing national commitments. Roe et al. (2021) estimated a technical mitigation potential of 8.47 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr and a cost-effective mitigation potential of 1.53 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Griscom et al. (2017) reported a technical mitigation potential of 10.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, though the uncertainty estimates spanned 2.7–17.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Using a more conservative estimate of the area available for forest restoration than previous studies, Fesenmeyer et al. (2025) estimated that sequestration of 2.2 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr is feasible.

The quantitative results presented in this assessment synthesize findings from 16 global datasets supplemented by four national-scale studies. We recognize that geographic bias in the information underlying global data products creates bias and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.

Updated Date
Coming Soon Label
Coming Soon

Improve Annual Cropping

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

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

Extreme weather events,Droughts
Income & work,Food security
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
Subscribe to Remove Carbon
back to top