Restore Grasslands & Savannas

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Remove Carbon
Cluster
Restore & Manage Ecosystems
Image
Peatland
Coming Soon
On
Description for Social and Search
The Restore Grasslands & Savannas solution is coming soon.
Dashboard
Action Word
Restore
Solution Title
Grasslands & Savannas
Classification
Highly Recommended
Updated Date

Restore Forests

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Nature-Based Carbon Removal
Mode
Remove Carbon
Cluster
Restore & Manage Ecosystems
Image
Boreal forest
Coming Soon
On
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,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. 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. 

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

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 1a–e), 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).

left_text_column_width

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). 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 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).

left_text_column_width

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
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.

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

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

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

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.

left_text_column_width
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.

left_text_column_width
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 industrial 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.

left_text_column_width
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.

left_text_column_width
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 (outside of existing forests) 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, this study is also one of the most recent studies, it includes a review of 89 other forest restoration maps, and it 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.

left_text_column_width

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 assigned an arbitrary achievable range of 50–75% of the adoption ceiling, equal to 48.4–72.6 Mha of forest restoration (Table 4a–e). Much of 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).

left_text_column_width

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 0.717 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the low-achievable adoption scenario, 1.077 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr at the high-achievable adoption scenario, and 1.436 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.

left_text_column_width

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 0.717
Achievable – high 1.077
Adoption ceiling 1.436
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).

left_text_column_width
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.

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

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

left_text_column_width

Competing

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

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
05.8610.2
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
011.4912.12
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
011.5311.78
units
Current Not Determined 01.7×10⁶2.6×10⁶
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current Not Determined 0.020.031
US$ per t CO₂-eq
53
Delayed

CO₂

Solution Basics

ha under restoration

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
017.0617.62
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).

left_text_column_width
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 FPICt; 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:

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.

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Improve Annual Cropping

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

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

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

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

Minimal Soil Disturbance

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

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

Permanent Soil Cover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellows

  • Avery Driscoll

  • Erika Luna

  • Megan Matthews, Ph.D.

  • Eric Toensmeier

  • Aishwarya Venkat, Ph.D.

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Emily Cassidy, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

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

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

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

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

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions and removing carbon.

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq/ha/yr, 100-yr basis

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

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

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

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

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq, 100-yr basis

Median 47.80
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

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

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

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

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

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

left_text_column_width
Caveats

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

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

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

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current (2025) adoption level.

Unit: Mha of improved annual cropping

Estimate 267.4
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

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

left_text_column_width

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

Unit: Mha adopted/yr

Mean 9.99
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

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

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: Mha

Adoption ceiling 1,067
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

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

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

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mha

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

Unit: Mha installed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

left_text_column_width

Table 8. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

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

(from nitrous oxide)

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

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

(from SOC)

Unit: Gt CO₂ ‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis

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

Extreme Weather Events

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

Droughts

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

Income and Work

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

Food Security

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

Nature Protection

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

Land Resources

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

Water Quality

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

left_text_column_width
Risks

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

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

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

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

left_text_column_width

COMPETING

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

left_text_column_width

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

left_text_column_width

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

left_text_column_width

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

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha cropland

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit/yr
00.881.8
units
Current 2.674×10⁸ 03.317×10⁸7.0×10⁸
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).

left_text_column_width
t CO2-eq/ha
0≥ 400

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

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

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

t CO2-eq/ha
0≥ 400

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

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

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

Maps Introduction

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

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

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

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness of cover cropping for sequestering carbon: 

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

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

Consensus of effectiveness of reduced tillage for sequestering carbon: Mixed

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

Nitrous oxide reduction: Mixed

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

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

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Reduce Overfishing

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

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

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

What is our assessment?

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

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

What is it?

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

Does it work?

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

Why are we excited?

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

Why are we concerned?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Christina Richardson, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewer

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

Improve Manure Management

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

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

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

What is our assessment? 

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

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

What is it? 

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

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

Does it work? 

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

Why are we excited? 

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

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

Why are we concerned?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Aishwarya Venkat, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewer

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

Improve Rice Production

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

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

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

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

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

Methane Reduction

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

Nitrous Oxide Reduction

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

Other Promising Practices

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Eric Toensmeier

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Zoltan Nagy, Ph.D.

  • Ted Otte

  • Paul C. West, Ph.D.

Effectiveness

Methane Reduction

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

Nitrous Oxide Reduction

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

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

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

Combined Reduction

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

left_text_column_width

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha/yr

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha rice paddies/yr

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

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha rice paddies/yr

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha rice paddies/yr

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

Unit: t CO₂‑eq /ha rice paddies/yr

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

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

left_text_column_width

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

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies

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

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

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

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

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

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

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

Combined Net Profit per Hectare

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

Net Net Cost Compared to Conventional Paddy Rice

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

left_text_column_width

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

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies

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

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

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

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

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

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Unit: US$/ha rice paddies/yr

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

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Unit: US$/t CO₂‑eq  

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

Non-continuous flooding and nutrient management.

Left Text Column Width

Cost per unit climate impact

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

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Weighted average cost per unit climate impact.

Unit: US$/t CO₂‑eq

Weighted average -175.0
Left Text Column Width
Learning Curve

Learning curve data are not available for improved rice cultivation.

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

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

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

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

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

left_text_column_width
Caveats

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

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Noncontinuous Flooding

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

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

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Current adoption level (2025).

Unit: Mha

Mean 48.65

Noncontinuous flooding, ha installed.

Left Text Column Width

Nutrient Management

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

left_text_column_width
Adoption Trend

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

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

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Adoption trend.

Unit: %

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

Percent annual growth rate.

Left Text Column Width
Adoption Ceiling

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

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

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

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

left_text_column_width

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

Unit: Mha

Median 77.53

Mha of improved rice production installed.

Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

Table 8. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: Mha

Current adoption 48.65
Achievable – low 49.56
Achievable – high 77.53
Adoption ceiling 77.53

Mha of improved rice production installed.

Left Text Column Width

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

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

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

left_text_column_width

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

left_text_column_width

Table 9. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr

Current adoption 0.10
Achievable – low 0.10
Achievable – high 0.16
Adoption ceiling 0.16

Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr

Current adoption 0.29
Achievable – low 0.29
Achievable – high 0.46
Adoption ceiling 0.46
Left Text Column Width

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

left_text_column_width
Additional Benefits

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

Health

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

Land Resources

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

Water Resources

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

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

Water Quality

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

left_text_column_width
Risks

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

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

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

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

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

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

ha rice paddies

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

Climate Impact

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

CH₄ , N₂O

Trade-offs

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

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

left_text_column_width
% of area
0100

Paddy rice area, 2020

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

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

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

% of area
0100

Paddy rice area, 2020

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

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

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

Maps Introduction

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

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

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

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

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

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

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

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

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

left_text_column_width
Appendix

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

Emissions Factors

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

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

Current, Target, and Avoidable Nitrogen Inputs and Emissions

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

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

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

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

left_text_column_width
Updated Date

Improve Irrigation Water Use Efficiency

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

Irrigation water use efficiency involves reducing water use without compromising crop productivity by improving irrigation scheduling and/or equipment. Irrigation produces GHG emissions by altering biogeochemical cycling of carbon and nitrogen cycles in water and soils, and through energy use for pumping. Reducing the duration of soil saturation, the amount of groundwater extracted, and the total volume of water pumped can help reduce associated emissions. However, data on the effectiveness of improved water use efficiency in reducing emissions remain very limited. We will "Keep Watching" this solution as additional data become available.

Description for Social and Search
The Improve Irrigation Efficiency solution is coming soon.
Overview

What is our assessment?

Improving irrigation water use efficiency is a promising strategy for reducing emissions. However, additional data are needed to evaluate the magnitude of its impact and its effectiveness, especially under different environmental and management conditions. Therefore, this solution is classified as "Keep Watching."

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

What is it? 

Improving irrigation water use efficiency involves optimizing the timing, volume, and method of irrigation to reduce water use while still meeting crop water demand, thereby reducing emissions from soils, extracted groundwater, and pumping. Irrigation is the practice of adding water to croplands or pastures to reduce crop water stress and increase productivity. However, irrigation also creates wet soil conditions that promote nitrous oxide emissions, releases greenhouse gases that had been dissolved in groundwater, and, in some cases, uses energy to pump water. Increasing water use efficiency will reduce the duration of near-saturated soil conditions, potentially reducing nitrous oxide emissions from soils. For the ~40% of global irrigated croplands that rely on groundwater, increasing water use efficiency will reduce emissions from groundwater. For irrigation systems that use pumps powered by fossil fuels or non-renewable electricity, improving water use efficiency can also reduce pumping-related emissions. Of note, energy use for pumping is also addressed by Deploy Electric Irrigation Pumps. 

Does it work?

Although the mechanisms by which improved irrigation water use efficiency can reduce emissions from soils, groundwater, and pumping are scientifically sound, the effectiveness of this solution is context-dependent, and data on effectiveness and potential impact are very limited.

Irrigation contributes to nitrous oxide emissions by stimulating denitrification, a microbial process that produces nitrous oxide emissions and tends to occur when soils are nearly saturated with water. Reducing the frequency and duration of near-saturated conditions through improved irrigation water use efficiency will likely reduce associated pulses of nitrous oxide emissions. One recent study reported that irrigation increased nitrous oxide emissions from U.S. croplands by 2.9 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr. However, data on nitrous oxide emissions under different types of irrigation management, including improved water use efficiency, are not yet available.

For croplands irrigated with groundwater, reducing water use will directly reduce emissions from groundwater degassing. Groundwater is often supersaturated in CO₂, meaning that it contains more dissolved CO₂ gas than the atmosphere. The excess CO₂ in groundwater accumulates from two sources: 1) the air space in soils tends to have high CO₂ concentrations from microbial respiration, and groundwater absorbs some of the CO₂ as it percolates through the soil profile; and 2) groundwater reacts with carbonate-containing minerals in aquifers. Similarly, dissolved nitrous oxide can also accumulate in groundwater, particularly in regions with heavy fertilizer use. However, the concentration of these GHGs in groundwater remains uncertain as it varies substantially between aquifers. Recent studies have estimated that degassing of CO₂ from groundwater produces 1.7–3.6 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr in the U.S., and one global study reported 6 Mt CO₂‑eq/yr ; however, many uncertainties remain in these studies. 

For croplands that already rely on pumps for irrigation, improving irrigation scheduling to reduce water use will reduce emissions from energy use. However, other croplands rely on surface water and gravity irrigation methods and do not require pumps. For these croplands, switching to sprinklers or drip irrigation will increase water use efficiency but will also require the addition of pumps and associated energy use emissions. 

Why are we excited?

Irrigation has a tremendous impact on the planet, accounting for nearly 90% of human-caused consumptive water use. Globally, around 23% of croplands are irrigated. Therefore, opportunities to increase water use efficiency abound, and improvements in irrigation water management can have widespread impacts. Many places are facing surface water shortages and groundwater depletion, and improving irrigation practices is a critical part of sustainable water management as resource availability changes. Increases in irrigation water use efficiency have the potential to help alleviate water scarcity when coupled with appropriate policy reforms. Moreover, reducing water use can also reduce energy and water costs for producers, and reductions in runoff can improve water quality and slow erosion, benefitting biodiversity and soil health. 

Why are we concerned?

Due to limited data, the effects of irrigation on emissions from groundwater and soils remain poorly understood. Additional data, including direct field measurements, are needed before we can confidently assess the effectiveness of improved irrigation water use efficiency in reducing emissions. The effectiveness of this solution depends on environmental and management conditions, the extent to which water use is reduced, and the method used to improve irrigation water use efficiency. 

It is important that improvements in irrigation water use efficiency do not compromise crop yields. Efforts to improve irrigation water use efficiency that impose water stress and reduce yields can lead to the expansion of agricultural land, resulting in the loss of carbon-rich ecosystems.

Anand, S. K., Rosa, L., Mohanty, B. P., Rajan, N., & Calabrese, S. (2025). Balancing productivity and climate impact: A framework to assess climate-smart irrigation. Earth’s Future, 13(11), Article e2025EF006116. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1029/2025EF006116

Bateman, E. J., & Baggs, E. M. (2005). Contributions of nitrification and denitrification to N2O emissions from soils at different water-filled pore space. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 41(6), 379–388. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-005-0858-3

Butterbach-Bahl, K., Baggs, E. M., Dannenmann, M., Kiese, R., & Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. (2013). Nitrous oxide emissions from soils: How well do we understand the processes and their controls? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1621), Article 20130122. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0122

Driscoll, A. W., Marston, L. T., Ogle, S. M., Planavsky, N. J., Siddik, M. A. B., Spencer, S., Zhang, S., & Mueller, N. D. (2024). Hotspots of irrigation-related US greenhouse gas emissions from multiple sources. Nature Water, 2(9), 837–847. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-024-00283-w

Elberling, B. B., Kovács, G. M., Hansen, H. F. E., Fensholt, R., Ambus, P., Tong, X., Gominski, D., Mueller, C. W., Poultney, D. M. N., & Oehmcke, S. (2023). High nitrous oxide emissions from temporary flooded depressions within croplands. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), Article 1. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01095-8

Flint, E. M., Ascott, M. J., Gooddy, D. C., Stahl, M. O., & Surridge, B. W. J. (2025). Anthropogenic water withdrawals modify freshwater inorganic carbon fluxes across the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 59(8), 3949–3960. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c09426

Huo, P., & Gao, P. (2024). Degassing of greenhouse gases from groundwater under different irrigation methods: A neglected carbon source in agriculture. Agricultural Water Management, 301, 108941. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2024.108941

Huo, P., Li, H., Huang, X., Ma, X., Liu, L., Ji, W., Liu, Y., & Gao, P. (2022). Dissolved greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural groundwater irrigation in the Guanzhong Basin of China. Environmental Pollution, 309, Article 119714. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119714

Kebede, E. A., Oluoch, K. O., Siebert, S., Mehta, P., Hartman, S., Jägermeyr, J., Ray, D., Ali, T., Brauman, K. A., Deng, Q., Xie, W., & Davis, K. F. (2025). A global open-source dataset of monthly irrigated and rainfed cropped areas (MIRCA-OS) for the 21st century. Scientific Data, 12(1), 208. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-04313-w

McDermid, S., Mahmood, R., Hayes, M. J., Bell, J. E., & Lieberman, Z. (2021). Minimizing trade-offs for sustainable irrigation. Nature Geoscience, 14(10), 706–709. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00830-0

McDermid, S., Nocco, M., Lawston-Parker, P., Keune, J., Pokhrel, Y., Jain, M., Jägermeyr, J., Brocca, L., Massari, C., Jones, A. D., Vahmani, P., Thiery, W., Yao, Y., Bell, A., Chen, L., Dorigo, W., Hanasaki, N., Jasechko, S., Lo, M.-H., … Yokohata, T. (2023). Irrigation in the Earth system. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 4, 435–453. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00438-5

McGill, B. M., Hamilton, S. K., Millar, N., & Robertson, G. P. (2018). The greenhouse gas cost of agricultural intensification with groundwater irrigation in a Midwest U.S. row cropping system. Global Change Biology, 24(12), 5948–5960. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14472

Qin, J., Duan, W., Zou, S., Chen, Y., Huang, W., & Rosa, L. (2024). Global energy use and carbon emissions from irrigated agriculture. Nature Communications, 15(1), Article 3084. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47383-5

Rosa, L., Chiarelli, D. D., Sangiorgio, M., Beltran-Peña, A. A., Rulli, M. C., D’Odorico, P., & Fung, I. (2020). Potential for sustainable irrigation expansion in a 3 °C warmer climate. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(47), 29526–29534. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2017796117

Wood, W. W., & Hyndman, D. W. (2017). Groundwater depletion: A significant unreported source of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Earth’s Future, 5(11), 1133–1135. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000586

Yang, Y., Jin, Z., Mueller, N. D., Driscoll, A. W., Hernandez, R. R., Grodsky, S. M., Sloat, L. L., Chester, M. V., Zhu, Y.-G., & Lobell, D. B. (2023). Sustainable irrigation and climate feedbacks. Nature Food, 4(8), Article 8. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00821-x

Credits

Lead Fellow

Avery Driscoll, Ph.D.

Internal Reviewers

Christina Swanson, Ph.D.

Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.

James Gerber, Ph.D.

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Irrigation Water Use Efficiency
Classification
Keep Watching
Updated Date

Improve Nutrient Management

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean (FALO)
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Shift Agriculture Practices
Image
Farm equipment applying fertilizer selectively
Coming Soon
Off
Summary

We define the Improve Nutrient Management solution as reducing excessive nitrogen use on croplands. Nitrogen is critical for crop production and is added to croplands as synthetic or organic fertilizers and through microbial activity. However, farmers often add more nitrogen to croplands than crops can use. Some of that excess nitrogen is emitted to the atmosphere as nitrous oxide, a potent GHG. 

Droughts
Income & work,Food security,Health
Nature protection
Description for Social and Search
Improve Nutrient Management is a Highly Recommended climate solution. Wise use of fertilizers reduces GHG emissions while ensuring crops get nutrients they need.
Overview

Agriculture is the dominant source of human-caused emissions of nitrous oxide (Tian et al., 2020). Nitrogen is critical for plant growth and is added to croplands in synthetic forms, such as urea, ammonium nitrate, or anhydrous ammonia; in organic forms, such as manure or compost; and by growing legume crops, which host microbes that capture nitrogen from the air and add it to the soil (Adalibieke et al., 2023; Ludemann et al., 2024). If more nitrogen is added than crops can use, the excess can be converted to other forms, including nitrous oxide, through microbial processes called denitrification and nitrification (Figure 1; Reay et al., 2012).

Figure 1. The agricultural nitrogen cycle represents the key pathways by which nitrogen is added to croplands and lost to the environment, including as nitrous oxide. The “4R” nutrient management principles – right source, right rate, right time, right place – increase the proportion of nitrogen taken up by the plant, therefore reducing nitrogen losses to the environment.

Diagram of agricultural nitrogen cycle.

Illustrations: BioRender CC-BY 4.0

Farmers can reduce nitrous oxide emissions from croplands by using the right amount and the right type of fertilizer at the right time and in the right place (Fixen, 2020; Gao & Cabrera Serrenho, 2023). Together, these four “rights” increase nitrogen use efficiency – the proportion of applied nitrogen that the crop uses (Congreves et al., 2021). Improved nutrient management is often a win-win for the farmer and the environment, reducing fertilizer costs while also lowering nitrous oxide emissions (Gu et al., 2023).

Improving nutrient management involves reducing the amount of nitrogen applied to match the crop’s requirements in areas where nitrogen is currently overapplied. A farmer can implement the other three principles – type, time, and place – in a number of ways. For example, fertilizing just before planting instead of after the previous season’s harvest better matches the timing of nitrogen addition to that of plant uptake, reducing nitrous oxide emissions before the crop is planted. Certain types of fertilizers are better suited for maximizing plant uptake, such as extended-release fertilizers, which allow the crop to steadily absorb nutrients over time. Techniques such as banding, in which farmers apply fertilizers in concentrated bands close to the plant roots instead of spreading them evenly across the soil surface, also reduce nitrous oxide emissions. Each of these practices can increase nitrogen use efficiency and decrease the amount of excess nitrogen lost as nitrous oxide (Gao & Cabrera Serrenho, 2023; Gu et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024; You et al., 2023).

For this solution, we estimated a target rate of nitrogen application for major crops as the 20th percentile of the current rate of nitrogen application (in t N/t crop) in areas where yields are near a realistic ceiling. Excess nitrogen was defined as the amount of nitrogen applied beyond the target rate (see Adoption and Appendix for more details). Our emissions estimates include nitrous oxide from croplands, fertilizer runoff, and fertilizer volatilization. They do not include emissions from fertilizer manufacturing, which are addressed in the Deploy Low-Emission Industrial Feedstocks and Boost Industrial Efficiency solutions. We excluded nutrient management on pastures from this solution due to data limitations and address nutrient management in paddy rice systems in the Improve Rice Production solution instead. 

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

Almaraz, M., Bai, E., Wang, C., Trousdell, J., Conley, S., Faloona, I., & Houlton, B. Z. (2018). Agriculture is a major source of NOx pollution in California. Science Advances, 4(1), eaao3477. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao3477

Antil, R. S., & Raj, D. (2020). Integrated nutrient management for sustainable crop production and improving soil health. In R. S. Meena (Ed.), Nutrient Dynamics for Sustainable Crop Production (pp. 67–101). Springer. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8660-2_3

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

Chivenge, P., Saito, K., Bunquin, M. A., Sharma, S., & Dobermann, A. (2021). Co-benefits of nutrient management tailored to smallholder agriculture. Global Food Security, 30, 100570. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100570

Deng, J., Guo, L., Salas, W., Ingraham, P., Charrier-Klobas, J. G., Frolking, S., & Li, C. (2018). Changes in irrigation practices likely mitigate nitrous oxide emissions from California cropland. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 32(10), 1514–1527. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GB005961

Domingo, N. G. G., Balasubramanian, S., Thakrar, S. K., Clark, M. A., Adams, P. J., Marshall, J. D., Muller, N. Z., Pandis, S. N., Polasky, S., Robinson, A. L., Tessum, C. W., Tilman, D., Tschofen, P., & Hill, J. D. (2021). Air quality–related health damages of food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(20), e2013637118. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013637118

Elberling, B. B., Kovács, G. M., Hansen, H. F. E., Fensholt, R., Ambus, P., Tong, X., Gominski, D., Mueller, C. W., Poultney, D. M. N., & Oehmcke, S. (2023). High nitrous oxide emissions from temporary flooded depressions within croplands. Communications Earth & Environment, 4(1), 1–9. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01095-8

Fixen, P. E. (2020). A brief account of the genesis of 4R nutrient stewardship. Agronomy Journal, 112(5), 4511–4518. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20315

Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N. D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D. K., West, P. C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E. M., Carpenter, S. R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., … Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337–342. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452

Gao, Y., & Cabrera Serrenho, A. (2023). Greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogen fertilizers could be reduced by up to one-fifth of current levels by 2050 with combined interventions. Nature Food, 4(2), 170–178. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00698-w

Gerber, J. S., Carlson, K. M., Makowski, D., Mueller, N. D., Garcia de Cortazar-Atauri, I., Havlík, P., Herrero, M., Launay, M., O’Connell, C. S., Smith, P., & West, P. C. (2016). Spatially explicit estimates of nitrous oxide emissions from croplands suggest climate mitigation opportunities from improved fertilizer management. Global Change Biology, 22(10), 3383–3394. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13341

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

Gong, C., Tian, H., Liao, H., Pan, N., Pan, S., Ito, A., Jain, A. K., Kou-Giesbrecht, S., Joos, F., Sun, Q., Shi, H., Vuichard, N., Zhu, Q., Peng, C., Maggi, F., Tang, F. H. M., & Zaehle, S. (2024). Global net climate effects of anthropogenic reactive nitrogen. Nature, 632(8025), 557–563. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07714-4

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

Hergoualc’h, K., Akiyama, H., Bernoux, M., Chirinda, N., del Prado, A., Kasimir, Å., MacDonald, J. D., Ogle, S. M., Regina, K., & van der Weerden, T. J. (2019). Chapter 11: nitrous oxide Emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application (2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2019rf/pdf/4_Volume4/19R_V4_Ch11_Soils_nitrous oxide_CO2.pdf

Hergoualc’h, K., Mueller, N., Bernoux, M., Kasimir, Ä., van der Weerden, T. J., & Ogle, S. M. (2021). Improved accuracy and reduced uncertainty in greenhouse gas inventories by refining the IPCC emission factor for direct nitrous oxide emissions from nitrogen inputs to managed soils. Global Change Biology, 27(24), 6536–6550. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15884

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

Lam, S. K., Suter, H., Mosier, A. R., & Chen, D. (2017). Using nitrification inhibitors to mitigate agricultural nitrous oxide emission: A double-edged sword? Global Change Biology, 23(2), 485–489. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13338

Lawrence, N. C., Tenesaca, C. G., VanLoocke, A., & Hall, S. J. (2021). Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils challenge climate sustainability in the US Corn Belt. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(46), e2112108118. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2112108118

Ludemann, C. I., Wanner, N., Chivenge, P., Dobermann, A., Einarsson, R., Grassini, P., Gruere, A., Jackson, K., Lassaletta, L., Maggi, F., Obli-Laryea, G., van Ittersum, M. K., Vishwakarma, S., Zhang, X., & Tubiello, F. N. (2024). A global FAOSTAT reference database of cropland nutrient budgets and nutrient use efficiency (1961–2020): Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Earth System Science Data, 16(1), 525–541. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-525-2024

Menegat, S., Ledo, A., & Tirado, R. (2022). Greenhouse gas emissions from global production and use of nitrogen synthetic fertilisers in agriculture. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 14490. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18773-w

Michaelowa, A., Hermwille, L., Obergassel, W., & Butzengeiger, S. (2019). Additionality revisited: Guarding the integrity of market mechanisms under the Paris Agreement. Climate Policy, 19(10), 1211–1224. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1628695

Mueller, N. D., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Ray, D. K., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J. A. (2012). Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature, 490(7419), Article 7419. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11420

Patel, N., Srivastav, A. L., Patel, A., Singh, A., Singh, S. K., Chaudhary, V. K., Singh, P. K., & Bhunia, B. (2022). Nitrate contamination in water resources, human health risks and its remediation through adsorption: A focused review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(46), 69137–69152. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22377-2

Pinder, R. W., Davidson, E. A., Goodale, C. L., Greaver, T. L., Herrick, J. D., & Liu, L. (2012). Climate change impacts of US reactive nitrogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(20), 7671–7675. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114243109

Porter, E. M., Bowman, W. D., Clark, C. M., Compton, J. E., Pardo, L. H., & Soong, J. L. (2013). Interactive effects of anthropogenic nitrogen enrichment and climate change on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. Biogeochemistry, 114(1), 93–120. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-012-9803-3

Qiao, C., Liu, L., Hu, S., Compton, J. E., Greaver, T. L., & Li, Q. (2015). How inhibiting nitrification affects nitrogen cycle and reduces environmental impacts of anthropogenic nitrogen input. Global Change Biology, 21(3), 1249–1257. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12802

Qin, Z., Deng, S., Dunn, J., Smith, P., & Sun, W. (2021). Animal waste use and implications to agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 16(6), 064079. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac04d7

Reay, D. S., Davidson, E. A., Smith, K. A., Smith, P., Melillo, J. M., Dentener, F., & Crutzen, P. J. (2012). Global agriculture and nitrous oxide emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2(6), 410–416. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1458

Rockström, J., Williams, J., Daily, G., Noble, A., Matthews, N., Gordon, L., Wetterstrand, H., DeClerck, F., Shah, M., Steduto, P., de Fraiture, C., Hatibu, N., Unver, O., Bird, J., Sibanda, L., & Smith, J. (2017). Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio, 46(1), 4–17. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0793-6

Rurinda, J., Zingore, S., Jibrin, J. M., Balemi, T., Masuki, K., Andersson, J. A., Pampolino, M. F., Mohammed, I., Mutegi, J., Kamara, A. Y., Vanlauwe, B., & Craufurd, P. Q. (2020). Science-based decision support for formulating crop fertilizer recommendations in sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems, 180, 102790. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102790

Scavia, D., David Allan, J., Arend, K. K., Bartell, S., Beletsky, D., Bosch, N. S., Brandt, S. B., Briland, R. D., Daloğlu, I., DePinto, J. V., Dolan, D. M., Evans, M. A., Farmer, T. M., Goto, D., Han, H., Höök, T. O., Knight, R., Ludsin, S. A., Mason, D., … Zhou, Y. (2014). Assessing and addressing the re-eutrophication of Lake Erie: Central basin hypoxia. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 40(2), 226–246. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jglr.2014.02.004

Selim, M. M. (2020). Introduction to the integrated nutrient management strategies and their contribution to yield and soil properties. International Journal of Agronomy, 2020(1), 2821678. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2821678

Shcherbak, I., Millar, N., & Robertson, G. P. (2014). Global metaanalysis of the nonlinear response of soil nitrous oxide (nitrous oxide) emissions to fertilizer nitrogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(25), 9199–9204. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1322434111

Shindell, D. T., Faluvegi, G., Koch, D. M., Schmidt, G. A., Unger, N., & Bauer, S. E. (2009). Improved attribution of climate forcing to emissions. Science, 326(5953), 716–718. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1174760

Sobota, D. J., Compton, J. E., McCrackin, M. L., & Singh, S. (2015). Cost of reactive nitrogen release from human activities to the environment in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 10(2), 025006. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/2/025006

Tian, H., Xu, R., Canadell, J. G., Thompson, R. L., Winiwarter, W., Suntharalingam, P., Davidson, E. A., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Prather, M. J., Regnier, P., Pan, N., Pan, S., Peters, G. P., Shi, H., Tubiello, F. N., Zaehle, S., Zhou, F., … Yao, Y. (2020). A comprehensive quantification of global nitrous oxide sources and sinks. Nature, 586(7828), 248–256. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2780-0

van Grinsven, H. J. M., Bouwman, L., Cassman, K. G., van Es, H. M., McCrackin, M. L., & Beusen, A. H. W. (2015). Losses of ammonia and nitrate from agriculture and their effect on nitrogen recovery in the European Union and the United States between 1900 and 2050. Journal of Environmental Quality, 44(2), 356–367. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2014.03.0102

Vanlauwe, B., Descheemaeker, K., Giller, K. E., Huising, J., Merckx, R., Nziguheba, G., Wendt, J., & Zingore, S. (2015). Integrated soil fertility management in sub-Saharan Africa: Unravelling local adaptation. SOIL, 1(1), 491–508. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-1-491-2015

Wang, C., Shen, Y., Fang, X., Xiao, S., Liu, G., Wang, L., Gu, B., Zhou, F., Chen, D., Tian, H., Ciais, P., Zou, J., & Liu, S. (2024). Reducing soil nitrogen losses from fertilizer use in global maize and wheat production. Nature Geoscience, 17(10), 1008–1015. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-024-01542-x

Wang, Y., Li, C., Li, Y., Zhu, L., Liu, S., Yan, L., Feng, G., & Gao, Q. (2020). Agronomic and environmental benefits of Nutrient Expert on maize and rice in Northeast China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27(22), 28053–28065. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09153-w

Ward, M. H., Jones, R. R., Brender, J. D., de Kok, T. M., Weyer, P. J., Nolan, B. T., Villanueva, C. M., & van Breda, S. G. (2018). Drinking water nitrate and human health: an updated review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1557. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071557

Withers, P. J. A., Neal, C., Jarvie, H. P., & Doody, D. G. (2014). Agriculture and eutrophication: where do we go from here? Sustainability, 6(9), Article 9. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su6095853

You, L., Ros, G. H., Chen, Y., Shao, Q., Young, M. D., Zhang, F., & de Vries, W. (2023). Global mean nitrogen recovery efficiency in croplands can be enhanced by optimal nutrient, crop and soil management practices. Nature Communications, 14(1), 5747. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41504-2

Zaehle, S., Ciais, P., Friend, A. D., & Prieur, V. (2011). Carbon benefits of anthropogenic reactive nitrogen offset by nitrous oxide emissions. Nature Geoscience, 4(9), 601–605. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1207

Zhang, X., Fang, Q., Zhang, T., Ma, W., Velthof, G. L., Hou, Y., Oenema, O., & Zhang, F. (2020). Benefits and trade-offs of replacing synthetic fertilizers by animal manures in crop production in China: A meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 26(2), 888–900. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14826

Credits

Lead Fellow

  • Avery Driscoll

Contributors

  • Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.

  • James Gerber, Ph.D.

  • Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.

  • Daniel Jasper

  • Alex Sweeney

  • Eric Toensmeier

Internal Reviewers

  • Aiyana Bodi

  • Hannah Henkin

  • Ted Otte

Effectiveness

We relied on the 2019 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emissions factors to calculate the emissions impacts of improved nutrient management. These are disaggregated by climate zone (“wet” vs. “dry”) and by fertilizer type (“organic” vs. “synthetic”). Nitrogen use reductions in wet climates, which include ~65% of the cropland area represented in this analysis (see Appendix for details), have the largest impact. In these areas, a 1 t reduction in nitrogen use reduces emissions by 8.7 t CO₂‑eq on average for synthetic fertilizers and by 5.0 t CO₂‑eq for organic fertilizers. Emissions savings are lower in dry climates, where a 1 t reduction in nitrogen use reduces emissions by 2.4 t CO₂‑eq for synthetic fertilizers and by 2.6 t CO₂‑eq for organic fertilizers. While these values reflect the median emissions reduction for each climate zone and fertilizer type, they are associated with large uncertainties because emissions are highly variable depending on climate, soil, and management conditions. 

Based on our analysis of the adoption ceiling for each climate zone and fertilizer type (see Appendix), we estimated that a 1 t reduction in nitrogen use reduces emissions by 6.0 t CO₂‑eq at the global median (Table 1). This suggests that ~1.4% of the applied nitrogen is emitted as nitrous oxide at the global average, which is consistent with existing estimates (IPCC, 2019). 

left_text_column_width

Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.

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

25th percentile 4.2
Median (50th percentile) 6.0
75th percentile 7.7
Left Text Column Width
Cost

Improving nutrient management typically reduces fertilizer costs while maintaining or increasing yields, resulting in a net financial benefit to the producer. Gu et al. (2023) found that a 21% reduction in global nitrogen use would be economically beneficial, notably after accounting for increased fertilizer use in places that do not currently have adequate access. Using data from their study, we evaluated the average cost of reduced nitrogen application considering the following nutrient management practices: increased use of high-efficiency fertilizers, organic fertilizers, and/or legumes; optimizing fertilizer rates; altering the timing and/or placement of fertilizer applications; and use of buffer zones. Implementation costs depend on the strategy used to improve nutrient management. For example, optimizing fertilizer rates requires soil testing and the ability to apply different fertilizer rates to different parts of a field. Improving timing can involve applying fertilizers at two different times during the season, increasing labor and equipment operation costs. Furthermore, planting legumes incurs seed purchase and planting costs. 

Gu et al. (2023) estimated that annual reductions of 42 Mt of nitrogen were achievable globally using these practices, providing total fertilizer savings of US$37.2 billion and requiring implementation costs of US$15.9 billion, adjusted for inflation to 2023. A 1 t reduction in excess nitrogen application, therefore, was estimated to provide an average of US$507.80 of net cost savings, corresponding to a savings of US$85.21 per t CO₂‑eq of emissions reductions (Table 2).

left_text_column_width

Table 2. Cost per unit of climate impact, 100-yr basis.

Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq

Mean -85.21
Left Text Column Width
Methods and Supporting Data

Abatzoglou, J. T., Dobrowski, S. Z., Parks, S. A., & Hegewisch, K. C. (2018). TerraClimate, a high-resolution global dataset of monthly climate and climatic water balance from 1958–2015. Scientific Data, 5(1), 170191. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.191

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

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

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

Mehta, P., Siebert, S., Kummu, M., Deng, Q., Ali, T., Marston, L., Xie, W., & Davis, K. F. (2024). Half of twenty-first century global irrigation expansion has been in water-stressed regions. Nature Water, 2(3), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-024-00206-9

Learning Curve

The improved nutrient management strategies considered for this solution are already well established and widely deployed (Fixen, 2020). Large nitrogen excesses are relatively easy to mitigate through simple management changes with low implementation costs. As nitrogen use efficiency increases, further reductions may require increasingly complex mitigation practices and increasing marginal costs. Therefore, a learning curve was not quantified for this solution.

left_text_column_width
Speed of Action

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

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

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

left_text_column_width
Caveats

Emissions reductions from improved nutrient management are permanent, though they may not be additional in all cases.

Permanence

As this solution reduces emissions rather than enhancing sequestration, permanence is not applicable.

Additionality

Additionality requires that the emissions benefits of the practice are attributable to climate-related incentives and would not have occurred in the absence of incentives (Michaelowa et al., 2019). If they are not contingent on external incentives, fertilizer use reductions implemented solely to maximize profits do not meet the threshold for additionality. However, fertilizer reductions may be additional if incentives are required to provide access to the technical knowledge and soil testing required to identify optimal rates. Other forms of nutrient management (e.g., applying nitrification inhibitors, using extended-release or organic fertilizers, or splitting applications between two time points) may involve additional costs, substantial practice change, and technical expertise. Thus, these practices are likely to be additional.

left_text_column_width
Current Adoption

Given that improved nutrient management takes a variety of forms and data on the adoption of individual practices are very limited, we leveraged several global datasets related to nitrogen use and yields to directly assess improvements in nitrogen use efficiency (see Appendix for details).

First, we calculated nitrogen use per metric ton of crop produced using global maps of nitrogen fertilizer use (Adalibieke et al., 2023) and global maps of crop yields (Gerber et al., 2024) for 17 major crops (see Appendix). Next, we determined a target nitrogen use rate (t nitrogen/t crop) for each crop, corresponding to the 20th percentile of nitrogen use rates observed in croplands with yield gaps at or below the 20th percentile, meaning that actual yields were close to an attainable yield ceiling (Gerber et al., 2024). Areas with large yield gaps were excluded from the calculation of target nutrient use efficiency because insufficient nitrogen supply may be compromising yields (Mueller et al., 2012). Yield data were not available for a small number of crops; for these, we assumed reductions in nitrogen use to be proportional to those of other crops.

We considered croplands that had achieved the target rate and had yield gaps lower than the global median to have adopted the solution. We calculated the amount of excess nitrogen use avoided from these croplands as the difference in total nitrogen use under current fertilization rates relative to median fertilizer application rates. As of 2020, croplands that had achieved the adoption threshold for improved nutrient management avoided 10.45 Mt of nitrogen annually relative to the median nitrogen use rate (Table 3), equivalent to 11% of the adoption ceiling.

left_text_column_width

Table 3. Current (2020) adoption level.

Unit: t nitrogen/yr

Estimate 10,450,000
Left Text Column Width
Adoption Trend

Global average nitrogen use efficiency increased from 47.7% to 54.6% between 2000 and 2020, a rate of approximately 0.43%/yr (Ludemann et al., 2024). This increase accelerated somewhat in the latter decade, from an average rate of 0.38%/yr to 0.53%/yr. Underlying this increase were increases in both the amount of nitrogen used and the amount of excess nitrogen. Total nitrogen additions increased by approximately 2.64 Mt/yr, with the amount of nitrogen used increasing more rapidly (1.99 Mt/yr) than the amount of excess nitrogen (0.65 Mt/yr) between 2000 and 2020 (Ludemann et al., 2024). Although nitrogen use increased between 2000 and 2020 as yields increased, the increase in nitrogen use efficiency suggests uptake of this solution.

left_text_column_width
Adoption Ceiling

We estimated the adoption ceiling of improved nutrient management to be 95.13 Mt avoided excess nitrogen use/year, not including current adoption (Table 4). This value reflects our estimate of the maximum potential reduction in nitrogen application while avoiding large yield losses and consists of the potential to avoid 62.25 Mt of synthetic nitrogen use and 32.88 Mt of manure and other organic nitrogen use, in addition to current adoption. In total, this is equivalent to an additional 68% reduction in global nitrogen use. The adoption ceiling was calculated as the difference between total nitrogen use at the current rate and total nitrogen use at the target rate (as described in Current Adoption), assuming no change in crop yields. For nitrogen applied to crops for which yield data were not available, the potential reduction in nitrogen use was assumed to be proportional to that of crops for which full data were available.

left_text_column_width

Table 4. Adoption ceiling.

Unit: t nitrogen/yr

Estimate 105,580,000
Left Text Column Width
Achievable Adoption

We estimated that fertilizer use reductions of 69.85–91.06 Mt of nitrogen are achievable, reflecting current adoption plus nitrogen savings due to the achievement of nitrogen application rates equal to the median and 30th percentile of nitrogen application rates occurring in locations where yield gaps are small (Table 5).

This range is more ambitious than a comparable recent estimate by Gu et al. (2023), who found that reductions of approximately 42 Mt of nitrogen are avoidable via cost-effective implementation of similar practices. Differences in target nitrogen use efficiencies underlie differences between our estimates and those of Gu et al., whose findings correspond to an increase in global average cropland nitrogen use efficiency from 42% to 52%. Our estimates reflect higher target nitrogen use efficiencies. Nitrogen use efficiencies greater than 52% have been widely achieved through basic practice modification without compromising yields or requiring prohibitively expensive additional inputs. For instance, You et al. (2023) estimated that the global average nitrogen use efficiency could be increased to 78%. Similarly, cropland nitrogen use efficiency in the United States in 2020 was estimated to be 71%, and substantial opportunities for improved nitrogen use efficiency are still available within the United States (Ludemann et al., 2024), though Lu et al. (2019) and Swaney et al. (2018) report slightly lower estimates. These findings support our slightly more ambitious range of achievable nitrogen use reductions for this solution.

left_text_column_width

Table 5. Range of achievable adoption levels.

Unit: t nitrogen/yr

Current adoption 10,450,000
Achievable – low 69,850,000
Achievable – high 91,060,000
Adoption ceiling 105,580,000
Left Text Column Width

We estimated that improved nutrient management has the potential to reduce emissions by 0.63 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, with achievable emissions reductions of 0.42–0.54 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Table 6). This is equivalent to an additional 56–76% reduction in total nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer use, based on the croplands represented in our analysis.

We estimated avoidable emissions by multiplying our estimates of adoption ceiling and achievable adoption by the relevant IPCC 2019 emissions factors, disaggregated by climate zone and fertilizer type. Under the adoption ceiling scenario, approximately 70% of emissions reductions occurred in wet climates, where emissions per t of applied fertilizer are higher. Reductions in synthetic fertilizer use, which are larger than reductions in organic fertilizer use, contributed about 76% of the potential avoidable emissions. We estimated that the current implementation of improved nutrient management was associated with 0.06 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr of avoided emissions. 

Our estimates are slightly more optimistic but well within the range of the IPCC 2021 estimates, which found that improved nutrient management could reduce nitrous oxide emissions by 0.06–0.7 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr.

left_text_column_width

Table 6. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.

Unit: Gt CO₂-eq/yr, 100-yr basis

Current adoption 0.06
Achievable – low 0.42
Achievable – high 0.54
Adoption ceiling 0.63
Left Text Column Width
Additional Benefits

Droughts

Balanced nutrient concentration contributes to long-term soil fertility and improved soil health by enhancing organic matter content, microbial diversity, and nutrient cycling (Antil & Raj, 2020; Selim, 2020). Healthy soil experiences reduced erosion and has higher water content, which increases its resilience to droughts and extreme heat (Rockström et al., 2017).

Income and Work

Better nutrient management reduces farmers' input costs and increases profitability (Rurinda et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). It is especially beneficial to smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, where site-specific nutrient management programs have demonstrated a significant increase in yield (Chivenge et al., 2021). A review of 61 studies across 11 countries showed that site-specific nutrient management resulted in an average increase in yield by 12% and increased farmer’s’ income by 15% while improving nitrogen use efficiency (Chivenge et al., 2021). 

Food Security

While excessive nutrients cause environmental problems in some parts of the world, insufficient nutrients are a significant problem in others, resulting in lower agricultural yields (Foley et al., 2011). Targeted, site-specific, efficient use of fertilizers can improve crop productivity (Mueller et al., 2012; Vanlauwe et al., 2015), improving food security globally. 

Health

Domingo et al. (2021) estimated about 16,000 premature deaths annually in the United States are due to air pollution from the food sector and found that more than 3,500 premature deaths per year could be avoided through reduced use of ammonia fertilizer, a secondary particulate matter precursor. Better agriculture practices overall can reduce particulate matter-related premature deaths from the agriculture sector by 50% (Domingo et al., 2021). Nitrogen oxides from fertilized croplands are another source of agriculture-based air pollution, and improved management can lead to decreased respiratory and cardiovascular disease (Almarez et al., 2018; Sobota et al., 2015). 

Nitrate contamination of drinking water due to excessive runoff from agriculture fields has been linked to several health issues, including blood disorders and cancer (Patel et al., 2022; Ward et al., 2018). Reducing nutrient runoff through better management is critical to minimize these risks (Ward et al., 2018). 

Nature Protection

Nutrient runoff from agricultural systems is a major driver of water pollution globally, leading to eutrophication and hypoxic zones in aquatic ecosystems (Bijay-Singh & Craswell, 2021). Nitrogen pollution also harms terrestrial biodiversity through soil acidification and increases productivity of fast-growing species, including invasives, which can outcompete native species (Porter et al., 2013). Improved nutrient management is necessary to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loads to water bodies (Withers et al., 2014; van Grinsven et al., 2019) and terrestrial ecosystems (Porter et al., 2013). These practices have been effective in reducing harmful algal blooms and preserving biodiversity in sensitive water systems (Scavia et al., 2014). 

left_text_column_width
Risks

Although substantial reductions in nitrogen use can be achieved in many places with no or minimal impacts on yields, reducing nitrogen application by too much can lead to yield declines, which in turn can boost demand for cropland, causing GHG-producing land use change. Reductions in only excess nitrogen application will prevent substantial yield losses.

left_text_column_width

Some nutrient management practices are associated with additional emissions. For example, nitrification inhibitors reduce direct nitrous oxide emissions (Qiao et al., 2014) but can increase ammonia volatilization and subsequent indirect nitrous oxide emissions (Lam et al., 2016). Additionally, in wet climates, nitrous oxide emissions may be reduced through the use of manure instead of synthetic fertilizers (Hergoualc’h et al., 2019), though impacts vary across sites and studies (Zhang et al., 2020). Increased demand for manure could increase livestock production, which has high associated GHG emissions. Emissions also arise from transporting manure to the site of use (Qin et al., 2021).

Although nitrous oxide has a strong direct climate-warming effect, fertilizer use can cool the climate through emissions of other reactive nitrogen-containing compounds (Gong et al., 2024). First, aerosols from fertilizers scatter heat from the sun and cool the climate (Shindell et al., 2009; Gong et al., 2024). Moreover, other reactive nitrogen compounds from fertilizers shorten the lifespan of methane in the atmosphere, reducing its warming effects (Pinder et al., 2012). Finally, nitrogen fertilizers that leave farm fields through volatilization or runoff are ultimately deposited elsewhere, enhancing photosynthesis and storing more carbon in plants and soils (Zaehle et al., 2011; Gong et al., 2024). Improved nutrient management would reduce these cooling effects.

left_text_column_width
Interactions with Other Solutions

Reinforcing

Improved nutrient management will reduce emissions from the production phase of biomass crops, increasing their benefit.

left_text_column_width

(mixed) Improving nutrient management can reduce nutrient pollution in nearby and downstream ecosystems, aiding in their protection or restoration. However, this interaction can be mixed as fertilizer can also enhance terrestrial primary productivity and carbon sequestration in some landscapes.

left_text_column_width

Competing

Improved nutrient management will reduce the GHG production associated with each calorie and, therefore, the impacts of the Improve Diets and Reduce Food Loss and Waste solutions will be reduced. 

left_text_column_width

Each of these solutions could decrease emissions associated with fertilizer production, but improved nutrient management will reduce total demand for fertilizers.

left_text_column_width
Dashboard

Solution Basics

t avoided excess nitrogen application

t CO₂-eq (100-yr)/unit
04.26
units/yr
Current 1.045×10⁷ 06.985×10⁷9.106×10⁷
Achievable (Low to High)

Climate Impact

Gt CO₂-eq (100-yr)/yr
Current 0.06 0.420.54
US$ per t CO₂-eq
-85
Gradual

N₂O

t CO2-eq/ha/yr
01

The problem: nitrous oxide emissions from over-fertilized soils

The world’s agricultural lands can emit high levels of nitrous oxide, the third most powerful greenhouse gas. These emissions stem from overusing nitrogen-based fertilizers, especially in regions in China, India, Western Europe, and central North America (in red). While crops absorb some of the nitrogen fertilizer we apply, much of what remains is lost to the atmosphere as nitrous oxide pollution or to local waterways as nitrate pollution. Using fertilizers more wisely can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution while maintaining high levels of crop production.

Project Drawdown

t CO2-eq/ha/yr
01

The problem: nitrous oxide emissions from over-fertilized soils

The world’s agricultural lands can emit high levels of nitrous oxide, the third most powerful greenhouse gas. These emissions stem from overusing nitrogen-based fertilizers, especially in regions in China, India, Western Europe, and central North America (in red). While crops absorb some of the nitrogen fertilizer we apply, much of what remains is lost to the atmosphere as nitrous oxide pollution or to local waterways as nitrate pollution. Using fertilizers more wisely can dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution while maintaining high levels of crop production.

Project Drawdown

Maps Introduction

Improved nutrient management will have the greatest emissions reduction if it is targeted at areas with the largest excesses of nitrogen fertilizer use. In 2020, China, India, and the United States alone accounted for 52% of global excess nitrogen application (Ludemann et al., 2024). Improved nutrient management could be particularly beneficial in China and India, where nutrient use efficiency is currently lower than average (Ludemann et al., 2024). You et al. (2023) also found potential for large increases in nitrogen use efficiency in parts of China, India, Australia, Northern Europe, the United States Midwest, Mexico, and Brazil under standard best management practices. Gu et al. (2024) found that nitrogen input reductions are economically feasible in most of Southern Asia, Northern and Western Europe, parts of the Middle East, North America, and Oceania.

In addition to regional patterns in the adoption ceiling, greater nitrous oxide emissions reductions are possible in wet climates or on irrigated croplands compared to dry climates. Nitrous oxide emissions tend to peak when nitrogen availability is high and soil moisture is in the ~70–90% range (Betterbach-Bahl et al., 2013; Elberling et al., 2023; Hao et al., 2025; Lawrence et al., 2021), though untangling the drivers of nitrous oxide emissions is complex (Lawrence et al., 2021). Water management to avoid prolonged periods of soil moisture in this range is an important complement to nutrient management in wet climates and on irrigated croplands (Deng et al., 2018).

Importantly, improved nutrient management, as defined here, is not appropriate for implementation in areas with nitrogen deficits or negligible nitrogen surpluses, including much of Africa. In these areas, crop yields are constrained by nitrogen availability, and an increase in nutrient inputs may be needed to achieve target yields. Additionally, nutrient management in paddy (flooded) rice systems is not included in this solution but rather in the Improve Rice Production solution.

Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Nutrient Management
Classification
Highly Recommended
Lawmakers and Policymakers
  • Focus policies and regulations on the four nutrient management principles – right rate, type, time, and place.
  • Create dynamic nutrient management policies that account for varying practices, environments, drainage, historical land use, and other factors that may require adjusting nutrient regulations.
  • Offer financial assistance responsive to local soil and weather conditions, such as grants and subsidies, insurance programs, and tax breaks, to encourage farmers to comply with regulations.
  • Mandate insurance schemes that allow farmers to reduce fertilizer use.
  • Mandate nutrient budgets or ceilings that are responsive to local yield, weather, and soil conditions.
  • Require farmers to formulate nutrient management and fertilizer plans.
  • Mandate efficiency rates for manure-spreading equipment.
  • Ensure access to and require soil tests to inform fertilizer application.
  • Invest in research on alternative organic nutrient sources.
  • Create and expand education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

Further information:

Practitioners
  • Use the four nutrient management principles – right rate, type, time, and place – to guide fertilizer application.
  • Utilize or advocate for financial assistance and tax breaks for farmers to improve nutrient management techniques.
  • Create and adhere to nutrient and fertilizer management plans.
  • Conduct soil tests to inform fertilizer application.
  • Use winter cover crops, crop rotations, residue retention, and split applications for fertilizer.
  • Improve the efficiency of, and regularly calibrate, manure-spreading equipment.
  • Leverage agroecological practices such as nutrient recycling and biological nitrogen fixation.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving nutrient management.
  • Take advantage of education programs, support groups, and extension services focused on improved nutrient management.

Further information:

Business Leaders
  • Provide incentives for farmers in primary sourcing regions to adopt best management practices for reducing nitrogen application.
  • Invest in companies that use improved nutrient management techniques or produce equipment or research for fertilizer application and testing.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved nutrient management techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving nutrient management practices.
  • Promote products produced with improved nutrient management techniques and educate consumers about the importance of the practice.
  • Create or support education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance.
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

Further information:

Nonprofit Leaders
  • Start model farms to demonstrate improved nutrient management techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Conduct and share research on improved nutrient management techniques, alternative organic fertilizers, or local policy options.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved nutrient management techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor water quality and soil health.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving nutrient management practices.
  • Create or support education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance.
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

Further information:

Investors
  • Invest in companies developing technologies that support improved nutrient management such as precision fertilizer applicators, alternative fertilizers, soil management equipment, and software.
  • Invest in ETFs and ESG funds that hold companies committed to improved nutrient management techniques in their portfolios.
  • Encourage companies in your investment portfolio to adopt improved nutrient management.
  • Provide access to capital at reduced rates for farmers adhering to improved nutrient management.

Further information:

Philanthropists and International Aid Agencies
  • Provide financing for farmers to improve nutrient management.
  • Start model farms to demonstrate nutrient management techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Conduct and share research on improved nutrient management, alternative organic fertilizers, or local policy options.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved nutrient management techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor water quality and soil health.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships or certification programs dedicated to improving nutrient management practices.
  • Create or support education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance.
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

Further information:

Thought Leaders
  • Start model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Conduct and share research on improved nutrient management, alternative organic fertilizers, or local policy options.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved nutrient management techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor water quality and soil health.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships dedicated to improving nutrient management practices.
  • Create or support education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance.
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

Further information:

Technologists and Researchers
  • Improve technology and cost-effectiveness of precision fertilizer application, slow-release fertilizer, alternative organic fertilizers, nutrient recycling, and monitoring equipment.
  • Create tracking and monitoring software to support farmers' decision-making.
  • Research and develop the application of AI and robotics for precise fertilizer application.
  • Improve data and analytics to monitor soil and water quality, assist farmers, support policymaking, and assess the impacts of policies.
  • Develop education and training applications to promote improved nutrient management and provide real-time feedback.

Further information:

Communities, Households, and Individuals
  • Create or join community-supported agriculture programs that source from farmers who used improved nutrient management practices.
  • Conduct soil tests on your lawn and garden and reduce fertilizer use if you are over-fertilizing.
  • Volunteer for soil and water quality monitoring and restoration projects.
  • Start model farms to demonstrate techniques, conduct experiments, and educate local farmers.
  • Advocate to policymakers for improved nutrient management techniques, incentives, and regulations.
  • Engage with businesses to encourage corporate responsibility and/or monitor water quality and soil health.
  • Join, create, or participate in partnerships dedicated to improving nutrient management.
  • Create or support education programs and extension services that highlight the problems that arise from the overuse of fertilizers, benefits of soil management such as cost-savings, and penalties for non-compliance.
  • Create ongoing support groups among farmers.

Further information:

Sources
Evidence Base

Consensus of effectiveness in reducing nitrous oxide emissions from croplands: High

There is high scientific consensus that reducing nitrogen surpluses through improved nutrient management reduces nitrous oxide emissions from croplands. 

Nutrient additions to croplands produce an estimated 0.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (range 0.7–1.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ) of direct nitrous oxide emissions from fields, plus approximately 0.3 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr of emissions from fertilizers that runoff into waterways or erode (Tian et al., 2020). Nitrous oxide emissions from croplands are directly linked to the amount of nitrogen applied. Furthermore, the amount of nitrous oxide emitted per unit of applied nitrogen is well quantified for a range of different nitrogen sources and field conditions (Reay et al., 2012; Shcherbak et al., 2014; Gerber et al., 2016; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2019; Hergoualc’h et al., 2021). Tools to improve nutrient management have been extensively studied, and practices that improve nitrogen use efficiency through right rate, time, place, and type principles have been implemented in some places for several decades (Fixen, 2020; Ludemann et al., 2024).

Recently, Gao & Cabrera Serrenho (2023) estimated that fertilizer-related emissions could be reduced up to 80% by 2050 relative to current levels using a combination of nutrient management and new fertilizer production methods. You et al. (2023) found that adopting improved nutrient management practices would increase nitrogen use efficiency from a global average of 48% to 78%, substantially reducing excess nitrogen. Wang et al. (2024) estimated that the use of enhanced-efficiency fertilizers could reduce nitrogen losses to the environment 70–75% for maize and wheat systems. Chivenge et al. (2021) found comparable results in smallholder systems in Africa and Asia.

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

left_text_column_width
Appendix

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

Emissions Factors

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

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

Current, Target, and Avoidable Nitrogen Inputs and Emissions

Using highly disaggregated data on nitrogen inputs from Adalibieke et al. (2024) for 21 crop groups (Table S1), we calculated total crop-specific inputs of synthetic and organic nitrogen. We then averaged over 2016–2020 to reduce the influence of interannual variability in factors like fertilizer prices. These values are subsequently referred to as “current” nitrogen inputs. We calculated nitrous oxide emissions under current nitrogen inputs as the sum of the products of nitrogen inputs and the climatically relevant emissions factors for each fertilizer type.

Next, we calculated target nitrogen application rates in terms of kg nitrogen per ton of crop yield using data on actual and attainable yields for 17 crops from Gerber et al., 2024 (Table S1). For each crop, we first identified pixels in which the ratio of actual to attainable yields was above the 80th percentile globally. The target nitrogen application rate was then calculated as the 20th percentile of nitrogen application rates across low-yield-gap pixels. Finally, we calculated total target nitrogen inputs as the product of actual yields and target nitrogen input rates. We calculated hypothetical nitrous oxide emissions from target nitrogen inputs as the product of nitrogen inputs and the climatically relevant emissions factor for each fertilizer type.

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

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

left_text_column_width

Table S1. Crops represented by the source data on nitrogen inputs (Adalibieke et al., 2024) and estimated and attainable yields (Gerber et al., 2024). Crop groups included consistently in both datasets are marked as “both,” and crop groups represented in the nitrogen input data but not in the yield datasets are marked as “nitrogen only.”

Crop Dataset(s)
BarleyBoth
CassavaBoth
CottonBoth
MaizeBoth
MilletBoth
Oil palmBoth
PotatoBoth
RiceBoth
RyeBoth
RapeseedBoth
SorghumBoth
SoybeanBoth
SugarbeetBoth
SugarcaneBoth
SunflowerBoth
Sweet potatoBoth
WheatBoth
GroundnutNitrogen only
FruitsNitrogen only
VegetablesNitrogen only
OtherNitrogen only
Left Text Column Width
Updated Date

Improve Forest Management

Submitted by Drawdown Admin on
Sector
Food, Agriculture, Land & Ocean (FALO)
Mode
Cut Emissions
Cluster
Protect & Manage Ecosystems
Image
Foresters with laptop computer in forest
Coming Soon
On
Description for Social and Search
The Improve Forest Management solution is coming soon.
Dashboard
Action Word
Improve
Solution Title
Forest Management
Classification
Highly Recommended
Updated Date
Subscribe to

Drawdown Delivered

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

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

Support Climate Action

back to top