Protect, manage, and restore ecosystems to maintain or increase climate benefits.

Prepared by Richard Birdsey and Wayne S. Walker



Protecting threatened high-carbon ecosystems can avoid emissions and help protect biodiversity; the benefits are immediate and difficult to replace once lost, making ecosystem protection a top priority. Improved management can be applied at low cost over large areas, and can have substantial and enduring co-benefits. Restoring degraded land to native vegetation can increase biodiversity while increasing carbon stocks to levels consistent with the potential of the site over the long term. While important, restoration should not be viewed as an alternative to or replacement for protection.


Natural climate solutions can be categorized in terms of three broad classes of activities: protecting, managing, and restoring. According to a recent synthesis by Cook-Patton et al. (2022), these interventions can be prioritized in terms of their magnitude, immediacy of mitigation potential, cost-effectiveness, and the co-benefits they offer. Here we describe each and provide some examples.

Protecting high value and high carbon ecosystems

map showing carbon, stored both above and belowground in vegetation and soils, varies greatly around the globe.

Figure 1. Carbon, stored both above and belowground in vegetation and soils, varies greatly around the globe. This map shows current carbon (ca. 2016; megagrams per ha) in aboveground biomass, belowground biomass, and soil under baseline climate (Walker et al. 2022).

Plants naturally remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through the process of photosynthesis, converting CO2 to carbon that is then stored in the biomass of leaves, branches, stems, roots, and soil. The carbon stored in the biomass and soils of high-carbon ecosystems can be lost quickly (e.g., through forest clearing) and take decades to centuries to replace. Protecting high-carbon ecosystems from degradation, logging, or conversion to other land uses can avoid emissions of stored carbon and retain their capacity to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (Birdsey et al. 2023; Walker et al. 2022).

  • Older forests with high carbon stocks can continue to remove CO2 from the atmosphere for many decades or centuries depending on tree species, geography, climate, and natural disturbances (Curtis and Gough 2018). It has also been shown that rates of carbon accumulation in most tree species increase continuously with tree size, such that the largest 1% of trees globally store half of the aboveground biomass (Stephenson et al. 2012; Lutz et al. 2018).
  • Among the planet’s forest biomes, tropical forests store the most above-ground biomass, remove the most CO2 from the atmosphere, and include the greatest area of primary forest (Mackey et al. 2020; Pan et al. 2011; Walker et al. 2022). They also provide significant biophysical cooling in addition to the effect of removing and storing carbon (Lawrence et al. 2022). When implementing NCS strategies, avoiding the fragmentation or degradation of existing tracts of primary tropical forest and protecting the largest trees—wherever they occur—should be prioritized.
  • Terrestrial wetlands (i.e. non-tidal freshwater wetlands) cover about 71 million hectares in the U.S. About half of this area is forested wetland and 23% is peatland, which contains very high carbon stocks (Kolka et al. 2018). Terrestrial wetlands are significant carbon sinks, sequestering about 55 million metric tons of carbon per year both above- and below-ground. The main threats to terrestrial wetlands have been vegetation removal, surface hardening, and drainage (U.S. EPA 2016). Despite policies in the U.S. and elsewhere designed to avoid wetland conversion, losses to development and other competing land uses still occur.
  • Coastal/tidal wetlands and estuaries also store large amounts of carbon. These are extremely dynamic ecosystems since they receive large quantities of soil and organic matter from adjacent terrestrial ecosystems, storing a portion within the area and exporting some to the coastal ocean (Windham-Meyers et al. 2018). Tidal wetlands in particular are among the strongest long-term carbon sinks per unit area because carbon accumulates continuously in sediments (Chmura et al., 2003). Tidal wetlands (including mangroves) and estuaries are threatened by rising sea levels, chemical runoff from the land, and disturbances such as hurricanes and drainage for development.
  • Arctic and boreal ecosystems store large quantities of carbon in soils. This carbon is vulnerable to being released to the atmosphere, due to warming temperatures and increases in natural disturbances, such as wildfire and insect outbreaks (Miner et al. 2022; Schuur et al. 2018, 2022). This is especially true in frozen soils (permafrost), which in total store twice as much carbon as is found currently in the atmosphere (Zimov et al. 2006). The circumpolar permafrost zone is warming roughly 3-4 times faster than the rest of the planet—this warming is thawing perennially frozen ground and causing the release of stored carbon as carbon dioxide and methane (Chyleck et al. 2022; Romanovsky et al. 2016; Watts et al., 2023). Wildfires are also of particular concern and degraded boreal forests may be more vulnerable to their impacts (Euskirchen et al., 2022). Human influence is increasing in some areas, and more intensive land management near communities may be needed to reduce the risk of wildfire or to suppress fires after ignition (Breen et al. 2016).

High-carbon ecosystems may also be of great value for biodiversity. For example, mangrove ecosystems store some of the highest amounts of carbon on earth, and are critical habitats for a range of marine and freshwater species (Sanderman et al. 2018). Biodiversity helps sustain ecosystem services by supporting their health and resilience, which enables them to resist or quickly recover from disturbances (Seddon et al. 2021).

Improving land management

Improving land management has large global potential for increasing carbon sequestration and can be applied broadly where management intensity is high, including across tropical and temperate regions where agriculture and forestry constitute significant land uses (Walker et al. 2022). However, the potential gains in carbon removal or reduced emissions from improved land management tend to be smaller on a unit-area basis than gains from activities that protect ecosystems (Fargione et al. 2018; National Academy of Sciences 2018). With small emission reductions per unit area, a larger total area of intervention is required to achieve net emission reductions equivalent to those of an activity that has a larger impact per unit area (Birdsey 2021).

Many strategies exist for improving land management (Figure 2). Some of the more promising ones include accelerating regeneration of forests after disturbance or harvest, increasing the productivity of degraded forests through stocking enhancement, extending rotation lengths (harvest intervals) of commercial forests, improving grazing land management, organic matter amendment on croplands, improving annual cropping systems (numerous options exist), and biochar (Bossio et al. 2020; Cook-Patton et al. 2021; National Academy of Sciences 2018). Reducing the risk of wildfire is also of global concern, though how to approach that without increasing emissions from fuel reduction treatments is a challenge. In tropical regions, some forests—such as those occupying floodplains—may never recover from fire events, suggesting that fire suppression may be an effective treatment (Garcia et al. 2021). In temperate forests, there is a general consensus that in many areas, thinning from below followed by periodic prescribed burns can be effective at both reducing emissions and restoring ecosystems (Prichard et al. 2021). In boreal zones, fire management may also be a cost-effective way to limit emissions (Elder et al. 2022; Phillips et al. 2022).

Many land management strategies have the potential to be implemented at lower cost than other natural climate solutions (Cook-Patton et al. 2021). Yet, there are significant barriers to widespread deployment of improved land management practices, such as the relatively low rate of additional carbon storage (mentioned above), the need to motivate millions of landowners/managers, inadequate monitoring capacity, and evolving carbon markets and registries (National Academy of Sciences 2018).

graph of climate mitigation potential of 21 NCS in the United States

Figure 2. Climate mitigation potential of 21 NCS in the United States (Fargione et al. 2018).

Restore degraded and low-carbon ecosystems
One of the most effective and intensive land management activities to increase climate benefits is to restore the functions of degraded ecosystems (Cook-Patton et al. 2021; Griscom et al. 2017). It may not be possible to restore degraded ecosystems to a previous state because of climate change or other environmental changes; nonetheless, ecosystem functions may be restored or rehabilitated. This work may be costly but has the potential to provide long-lasting climate benefits, especially if the restoration enables restored functions to persist indefinitely in the face of a changing climate. Restoration can take many decades to be effective—for example, benefits accrue over longer timescales for wetland restoration than for any other ecological restoration (Xu et al. 2019).

Ecosystem restoration may have significant co-benefits and/or tradeoffs (Strassburg et al. 2019). For example, restoration could increase removal of CO2 from the atmosphere and reverse biodiversity decline, but could also reduce food production if cropland is converted to another land use (e.g., forest), imposing financial costs on farmers (Brancalion et al. 2012).

How the principle may be applied to primary forests
Primary forest is often defined as any naturally occuring forest of native species characterized by little to no human disturbance, and may include intact, old-growth, and ecologically mature forest (Mackey et al. 2020). In many parts of the world, ‘primary’ forest is synonymous with ‘high carbon’ forest, i.e., a relatively long-lived and largely undisturbed forest that has been accumulating and storing carbon for long periods of time.

Reforestation (replacing forest on deforested land) and afforestation (planting new forest) are well-known, forest-based NCS approaches that both depend on the availability of land and the survival of small trees. In comparison, maintaining and managing existing forests that have long-established carbon storage and larger, older trees with a high carbon sequestration capacity can have an immediate and large effect, avoiding emissions from disturbing biomass and soils (DellaSala et al. 2022). Avoiding logging of primary forest, which can take decades to centuries to replace, is not only a more immediate and cost-effective approach to achieving forest-based negative emissions (Houghton and Nassikas, 2017), but it also serves to maximize associated co-benefits, including biodiversity enhancement, improved resistance to natural disturbances and improved resilience following them, improved air and water quality, control of floods and erosion, and enhanced human health and well-being (Moomaw et al. 2019).



Birdsey, R.A. (2021) Annex P: Past and Prospective Changes in the Net CO2 Flux of U.S. Forests. In Net-Zero America: Potential Pathways, Infrastructure, and Impacts. Princeton University.
Birdsey, R.A., D.A. DellaSala, W.S. Walker, S.R. Gorelik, G. Rose, and C.E. Ramírez. (2023) Assessing carbon stocks and accumulation potential of mature forests and larger trees in U.S. federal lands. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 5:1074508.
Bossio, D.A., S.C. Cook-Patton, P.W. Ellis, J. Fargione, J. Sanderman, et al. (2020) The role of soil carbon in natural climate solutions. Nature Sustainability 3, 391–398.
Brancalion, P.H.S., R.A.G. Viani, B.B.N. Strassburg, and R.R. Rodrigues. (2012) Finding the money for tropical forest restoration. Unasylva 63, 239.
Breen, A.L., A. Bennett, T. Kurkowski, M. Lindgren, J. Schroder, A. D. McGuire, and T. S. Rupp. (2016) Projecting vegetation and wildfire response to changing climate and fire management in interior Alaska. Alaska Fire Science Consortium Research Summary. 7 pp.
Chmura, G.L., S.C. Anisfeld, D.R. Cahoon, and J.C. Lynch. (2003) Global carbon sequestration in tidal, saline wetland soils. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 17(4).
Chylek, P., C. Folland, J.D. Klett, M. Wang, N. Hengartner, G. Lesins, & M.K. Dubey. (2022) Annual Mean Arctic Amplification 1970-2020: Observed and Simulated by CMIP6 Climate Models. Geophysical Research Letters 49, e2022GL099371.
Cook-Patton, S.C., C.R. Drever, B.W. Griscom, K. Hamrick, et al. (2021) Protect, manage and then restore lands for climate mitigation. Nature Climate Change 11, 1027–1034.
Curtis, P.S. and C.M. Gough. (2018) Forest aging, disturbance and the carbon Cycle. New Phytologist 219:1188–1193.
DellaSala, D.A., B. Mackey, P. Norman, C. Campbell, P.J. Comer, C.F. Kormos, H. Keith, and B. Rogers. (2022) Mature and old-growth forests contribute to large-scale conservation targets in the conterminous USA. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 28:979528.
Euskirchen, E.S., L.M. Bruhwiler, R. Commane, F.W. Parmentier, C. Schädel, E.A.G. Schuur, and J. Watts. (2022) Chapter 5 – Current knowledge and uncertainties associated with the Arctic greenhouse gas budget. Editor(s): B. Poulter, J.G. Canadell, D.J. Hayes, R.L. Thompson, Balancing Greenhouse Gas Budgets. Elsevier 159-201 pp., ISBN 9780128149522.
Fargione, J.E., S. Bassett, T. Boucher…, J. Sanderman, et al. (2018) Natural climate solutions for the United States. Science Advances 4:eaat1869.
Garcia, L.C., J.K. Szabo, F.O. Roque, A.M.M. Pereira, C.N. da Cunha, et al. (2021) Record-breaking wildfires in the world’s largest continuous tropical wetland: Integrative fire management is urgently needed for both biodiversity and humans. Journal of Environmental Management 293:112870.
Griscom, B.W., J. Adams, P.W. Ellis, R.A. Houghton…, J. Sanderman, et al. (2017) Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 11645–11650.
Houghton, R.A. and A.A. Nassikas. (2017) Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850–2015. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 31.
Kolka, R., C. Trettin, W. Tang, K. Krauss, et al. (2018) Chapter 13: Terrestrial wetlands. In Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2): A Sustained Assessment Report [Cavallaro, N., G. Shrestha, R. Birdsey, M.A. Mayes, R.G. Najjar, S.C. Reed, P. Romero-Lankao, and Z. Zhu (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 507-567.
Lawrence, D., M. Coe, W. Walker, L. Verchot, and K. Vandecar. (2022) The Unseen Effects of Deforestation: Biophysical Effects on Climate. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 5.
Lutz, J.A., T.J. Furniss, D.J. Johnson, S.J. Davies, D. Allen, A. Alonso, et al. (2018) Global importance of large-diameter trees. Global Ecology & Biogeography 27, 849–864.
Mackey, B., C.F. Kormos, H. Keith, W.R. Moomaw, R.A. Houghton, R.A. Mittermeier, D. Hole, and S. Hugh. (2020) Understanding the importance of primary tropical forest protection as a mitigation strategy. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 25, 763–787.
Miner, K.R., M.R. Turetsky, E. Malina, et al. (2022) Permafrost carbon emissions in a changing Arctic. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 3, 55–67.
Moomaw, W.R., S.A. Masino and E.K. Faison. (2019) Intact forests in the United States: Proforestation Mitigates Climate Change and Serves the Greatest Good. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change 2, 1–27.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018) Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Pan, Y, R.A Birdsey, J. Fang, R. Houghton, P.E. Kauppi, W.A. Kurz, et al. (2011) A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333, 988-993.
Prichard, S. J., P.F. Hessburg, R.K. Hagmann, N.A. Povak, et al. (2021) Adapting western North American forests to climate change and wildfires: 10 common questions. Ecological Applications 31(8):e02433.
Romanovsky, V.E., S.L. Smith, K. Isaksen, N.I. Shiklomanov, et al. (2016) The Arctic: Terrestrial permafrost [in State of the Climate in 2015]. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 97(8) S149-S152.
Sanderman, J., T. Hengl, G. Fiske, K. Solvik, et al. (2018) A global map of mangrove forest soil carbon at 30 m spatial resolution. Environmental Research Letters 13 055002.
Schuur, E.A.G., A.D. McGuire, V. Romanovsky, C. Schädel, and M. Mack. (2018) Chapter 11: Arctic and boreal carbon. In Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2): A Sustained Assessment Report [Cavallaro, N., G. Shrestha, R. Birdsey, M.A. Mayes, R. G. Najjar, S.C. Reed, P. Romero-Lankao, and Z. Zhu (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 428-468.
Schuur, E.A.G., B.W. Abbott, R. Commane, J. Ernakovich, … S. Natali, H. Rodenhizer, V. Salmon, C. Schaedel, et al. (2022) Permafrost and Climate Change: Carbon Cycle Feedbacks From the Warming Arctic, Annual Review of Environment and Resources 47, 343–371.
Seddon, N., A. Smith, P. Smith, I. Key, A. Chausson, C. Girardin, J. House, S. Srivastava and B. Turner. (2021) Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change. Global Change Biology.
Stephenson, N.L., A.J. Das, R. Condit, S.E. Russo, et al. (2014) Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size. Nature 507, 90–93.
Strassburg, B.B.N., H.L. Beyer, R. Crouzeilles, A. Iribarrem, et al. (2019) Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs. Nature Ecology & Evolution 3, 62–70.
U.S. EPA. (2016) National Wetland Condition Assessment 2011: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation’s Wetlands. EPA Report EPA-843-R-15-005.
Walker, W.S., S.R. Gorelik, S.C. Cook-Patton, A. Baccini, M.K. Farina, K.K. Solvik, P.W. Ellis, J. Sanderman, R.A. Houghton, S.M. Leavitt, C.R. Schwalm, & B.W. Griscom. (2022) The global potential for increased storage of carbon on land. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Walker, W.S., S.R. Gorelik, A. Baccini, M. Farina, K. Solvik, S. Cook-Patton, P. Ellis, J. Sanderman, R. Houghton, S. Leavitt, C. Schwalm, and B. Griscom. (2022) Global Potential Carbon., Harvard Dataverse, V6
Watts, J. D., M. Farina, J.S. Kimball, L.D. Schiferl, Z. Liu, K.A. Arndt, et al. (2023) Carbon uptake in Eurasian boreal forests dominates the high-latitude net ecosystem carbon budget. Global Change Biology 29(7), 1870-1889.
Windham-Myers, L., W.J. Cai, S.R. Alin, A. Andersson, et al. (2018) Chapter 15: Tidal wetlands and estuaries. In Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2): A Sustained Assessment Report [Cavallaro, N., G. Shrestha, R. Birdsey, M.A. Mayes, R. G. Najjar, S.C. Reed, P. Romero-Lankao, and Z. Zhu (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 596-648.
Xu, S., X. Liu, X. Li and C. Tian. (2019) Soil organic carbon changes following wetland restoration: a global meta-analysis. Geoderma 353, 89–96.
Zimov, S.A., E.A.G. Schuur and F.S. Chapin. (2006) Permafrost and the Global Carbon Budget. Science 312(5780), 1612–1613.