--- title: "forests, peat, and mangroves are on the list" canonical_url: https://ensurance.app/guide/forests-peat-and-mangroves-are-on-the-list markdown_url: https://ensurance.app/guide/forests-peat-and-mangroves-are-on-the-list.md subtitle: "the three everyone names are pathways, not a short course in each biome" category: ecosystem-services --- # forests, peat, and mangroves are on the list *the three everyone names are pathways, not a short course in each biome* When people ask for the natural climate solutions list, they usually start with forests, peat, and mangroves. That instinct is fine. Those places matter. But the Griscom et al. framework is not a field guide to three famous ecosystems. It is a map of climate pathways across living systems and working lands. These places exist whether or not anyone buys a certificate. That matters because ensurance funds the pathway. It does not define the forest, peatland, wetland, grassland, coast, or farm. Price can help move care, protection, and restoration into action. It is a bridge, never the worth. The 2017 PNAS paper assessed 20 conservation, restoration, and improved land management pathways across global forests, wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands. The main text names pathways such as Avoided Forest Conversion, Reforestation, Natural Forest Management, Fire Management, Trees in Croplands, Grazing—Optimal Intensity, Coastal Wetland Restoration, and Avoided Coastal Wetland Impacts. The paper's twenty are completed in the supplement. So yes: forests are on the list. Peat is on the list through wetland pathways. Mangroves are on the list through coastal wetland pathways. But grasslands and working lands are on the same map, not in a separate category of lesser importance. :::johnson **the three everyone names are pathways, and the biome series already teach the places.** ::: ## where forests, peat, and mangroves fit on the list The shortest useful answer is this: a place is on the list when protecting it, restoring it, or changing management in it can reduce emissions or increase removals within the paper's rules. That is why the list is organized by action, not by charisma. | place | why it is on the list | where to read the biome | |---|---|---| | forest | Forest pathways include avoiding conversion, restoring tree cover where appropriate, and improving management so more carbon stays stored in living systems and soils. | [what forests actually are](/guide/what-forests-actually-are) | | peat | Peat belongs on the map because wet peatlands hold immense carbon stocks, and avoiding damage or restoring wet conditions can prevent large losses. | [what peatlands actually are](/guide/what-peatlands-actually-are), [/inland-wetlands.ensurance?from=guide](/inland-wetlands.ensurance?from=guide) | | mangrove | Mangroves appear through coastal wetland pathways because protecting and restoring tidal systems can keep carbon in biomass and sediments while supporting shore function. | [a blue carbon credit is not a living shore](/guide/a-blue-carbon-credit-is-not-a-living-shore), [/coastal-systems.ensurance?from=guide](/coastal-systems.ensurance?from=guide) | | grassland | Grasslands are on the list because climate benefit can come from how they are stewarded, especially through fire and grazing pathways suited to open systems. | [what grasslands actually are](/guide/what-grasslands-actually-are), [/grasslands.ensurance?from=guide](/grasslands.ensurance?from=guide) | | working land | Working lands are on the list because farms and managed grazing lands can change practice without ceasing to produce food or fiber. | [twenty pathways, three verbs](/guide/the-natural-climate-solutions-pathways) | That table is simple on purpose. It keeps the distinction clean. A forest is a place. Avoided Forest Conversion is a pathway. A peatland is a place. The pathway is avoiding impact or restoring wet conditions in inland wetland systems. A mangrove coast is a place. Coastal Wetland Restoration and Avoided Coastal Wetland Impacts are pathways. The same logic holds for grasslands and working lands. The climate pathway is not the biome itself. It is the protect, restore, or manage-better move that changes emissions or storage. ## why readers get stuck on the famous three Part of the confusion comes from how recent nature-investment writing treats natural climate solutions largely as carbon-credit and reforestation deals. If you read enough of that material, it is easy to come away thinking the category is mostly trees, with a side of mangroves, and that peat shows up only when someone wants to make a point about very dense carbon stocks. But that is narrower than the paper. Griscom et al. estimate a maximum potential of 23.8 PgCO2e per year at a 2030 reference year, constrained by food security, fiber security, and biodiversity conservation, though not constrained by cost. About half of that maximum, 11.3 PgCO2e per year, is cost-effective if the social cost of CO2 is at least $100 per MgCO2e by 2030. Natural climate solutions can provide 37% of the cost-effective CO2 mitigation needed through 2030 for a greater than 66% chance of holding warming below 2°C. That frame is much bigger than a shortlist of favorite project types. It includes forests, yes. It also includes wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural lands. In the main text, the named pathways run from Reforestation and Natural Forest Management to Conservation Agriculture, Cropland Nutrient Management, Trees in Croplands, and several grazing pathways. One-third of the cost-effective slice can be delivered at or below $10 per MgCO2. The point is not that one place should beat another in a branding contest. The point is that climate work in living systems spans more than the three biomes people tend to name first. And the co-benefits named in the abstract are not small side notes. Water filtration, flood buffering, soil health, biodiversity habitat, and enhanced climate resilience are part of why these pathways matter in practice. They are not inside the tonne. The climate pathway is not the whole meaning of the place. Who already depends on it is [who pays for natural climate solutions](/guide/who-pays-for-natural-climate-solutions). ## a forest is not the same claim as new tree cover This is where a lot of public discussion gets sloppy. People hear that forests are on the list and jump straight to planting trees anywhere a map looks empty. But new tree cover is not automatically cooling, especially in snow-dominated, dryland, and native-grassland places. Protecting an intact forest, peatland, or mangrove does not take that gamble. If you want the short version on that point, read [do trees cool the planet](/guide/do-trees-cool-the-planet). That sentence is not an argument against reforestation. Reforestation is in the paper. It is an argument for reading pathways carefully. The list is not telling you to put trees on every acre that can physically hold them. It is asking a more disciplined question: in this place, under these constraints, what action reduces emissions or increases removals without breaking food security, fiber security, or biodiversity conservation? Sometimes that answer is protecting intact forest. Sometimes it is restoring coastal wetland function. Sometimes it is better nutrient management on cropland. Sometimes it is grazing reform on working grasslands. And sometimes the right move is to leave an already functioning open ecosystem open. ## what to read next if you came here for the list If you came for a quick confirmation, here it is plainly. Forests are on the natural climate solutions list. Peat is on the natural climate solutions list through wetland pathways. Mangroves are on the natural climate solutions list through coastal wetland pathways. Grasslands are on the natural climate solutions list. Working lands are on the natural climate solutions list. If you want the action map, go to [twenty pathways, three verbs](/guide/the-natural-climate-solutions-pathways). If you want the biome itself, use the biome guides instead of asking one pathway paper to do two jobs at once. Read [what forests actually are](/guide/what-forests-actually-are) for the place called forest. Read [what peatlands actually are](/guide/what-peatlands-actually-are) for peat. Read [a blue carbon credit is not a living shore](/guide/a-blue-carbon-credit-is-not-a-living-shore) for the coastal frame that includes mangroves. Read [what grasslands actually are](/guide/what-grasslands-actually-are) for grassland. If you are trying to connect the paper to practical stewardship and finance, ensurance can help map a pathway to place without flattening the place into the claim. Start with [/climate-stability.ensurance?from=guide](/climate-stability.ensurance?from=guide), [/inland-wetlands.ensurance?from=guide](/inland-wetlands.ensurance?from=guide), [/coastal-systems.ensurance?from=guide](/coastal-systems.ensurance?from=guide), or [/grasslands.ensurance?from=guide](/grasslands.ensurance?from=guide). If you want to talk through a live context, use [/contact?from=guide&topic=natural-climate-solutions](/contact?from=guide&topic=natural-climate-solutions). ## sources - Griscom, B. W., et al. (2017). Natural climate solutions. *PNAS*. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114 - Project Drawdown, natural climate solutions and land sinks: https://drawdown.org/ - The Nature Conservancy, natural climate solutions: https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-insights/perspectives/natural-climate-solutions/ ## the series - [what natural climate solutions actually are](/guide/what-natural-climate-solutions-actually-are) - [twenty pathways, three verbs](/guide/the-natural-climate-solutions-pathways) - [forests, peat, and mangroves are on the list](/guide/forests-peat-and-mangroves-are-on-the-list) - [the tonne is real and partial](/guide/the-carbon-tonne-is-not-the-climate) - [who pays for natural climate solutions](/guide/who-pays-for-natural-climate-solutions) - [how natural climate solutions get funded](/guide/how-natural-climate-solutions-get-funded)