Methane income makes more land financially viable for reforestation.
Methane income raises project returns. In the model, some land then meets the 12% required return.
Impact
Modeled Effects of Methane Revenue on Reforestation
Trees remove methane through their bark. This study models how revenue from that uptake could change tropical reforestation finance, project delivery, and forest area.
Mha means million hectares. MtCO₂e/yr means million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per year. GWP100 compares methane with CO₂ over 100 years. The separate GWP* scenario describes the warming effect of changes in the methane removal rate.
+1.8 Mha
more land meets the 12% required return at $50/tCO₂e under GWP100
+6.1 Mhaunder the separate GWP* scenario
+0.8 Mha
of land is covered by projects expected to secure finance, reach planting, and complete delivery in the central scenario on land already financially viable without methane, under GWP100
+2.8 Mhaunder the separate GWP* scenario
This scenario tests several possible relationships between project returns and delivery. We do not yet have enough project records to measure that relationship directly.
43.4 MtCO₂e/yr
of modeled annual CO₂ and methane uptake once forest growth reaches the full rate, on the study's central creditable basis, for the +2.8 Mha completion scenario
87.0 MtCO₂e/yrof modeled annual CO₂ and methane uptake on the same basis if all 6.1 Mha made newly viable at $50/tCO₂e were built
On that basis, 42.5 MtCO₂/yr comes from tree growth and 0.96 MtCO₂e/yr comes from bark methane. These values include the study's permanence-buffer and leakage deductions. They are not observed or forecast delivery.
No registry credits bark methane today. The bankability result comes from the spatial cash-flow model. The completion result and its annual-capacity case depend on relationships that have not yet been measured across reforestation projects. The market-potential capacity case assumes that all land made financially viable by methane is planted. The results describe possible effects of future methane income.
How the results happen
Five Ways Methane Income Can Affect Reforestation
The study examines five ways methane income could lead to more completed reforestation. They cover financial viability, project delivery, and the timing and amount of financing.
Methane income can change which projects get built.
More projects on already viable land reach finance and planting.
On land already financially viable, added income could help more projects secure finance and reach planting. The study tests possible responses because we do not yet have enough project records to measure the effect.
Fewer projects fail after work starts.
Added income could help a project keep paying for planting, maintenance, and monitoring. The study has no separate estimate for this route.
Methane income can change when projects need capital.
Projects need less financing before credit revenue arrives.
The average peak financing need falls by $18/ha under GWP100 and $61/ha under GWP* in the spatial model.
Projects break even sooner, which may let developers reuse capital sooner.
In one 9,000 ha example, cumulative revenue catches up with costs about 1 year sooner under GWP*. The study does not estimate this effect across a portfolio.
The +0.8 Mha and +2.8 Mha completion result covers both more project starts and fewer later failures. The study cannot divide the total between those two routes.
What the Study Finds for Each Route
The spatial model uses a 12% required return and a $50/tCO₂e carbon price.
| Effect | GWP100 | GWP* |
|---|---|---|
| Land made financially viable | +1.8 Mha | +6.1 Mha |
| Land covered by projects expected to secure finance, reach planting, and complete delivery, central scenario | +0.8 Mha | +2.8 Mha |
| Projects that avoid failure after work starts | The study has no separate estimate. | The study has no separate estimate. |
| Peak financing need | $18/ha lower (1.6%) | $61/ha lower (5.4%) |
| Break-even in one 9,000 ha example | year 8, unchanged from no methane | year 7, about 1 year sooner |
Financial viability and peak financing need come from the spatial cash-flow model. The completion result shows the central scenario. Across the tested completion scenarios, the increase ranges from 0.64 to 0.84 Mha under GWP100 and 2.43 to 2.85 Mha under GWP*. Project failure has no separate estimate. The break-even result comes from one illustrative project.
Methane income makes more land financially viable for reforestation.
At $50/tCO₂e, the model finds that 62.5 million hectares meet a 12% required return without methane income. Adding methane income makes another 1.8 million hectares financially viable under GWP100, or 6.1 million hectares under the separate GWP* scenario.
These figures identify land where a modeled project meets the 12% return threshold. Actual planting also depends on whether projects secure financing and complete the work. The model applies the mature methane-uptake rate from year one. Measurements from young forests do not yet show how quickly uptake develops.
The spatial cash-flow model covers 5.35 million tropical grid cells.
More projects on already viable land reach finance and planting.
The completion scenario covers only the 62.5 million hectares already financially viable without methane income. In the central scenario, added income increases the land covered by projects expected to secure finance, reach planting, and complete delivery. The increase is 0.8 million hectares under GWP100 and 2.8 million hectares under GWP*.
The calculation treats the path from finance through planting and delivery as one combined probability. It does not show how much of the increase comes from projects starting or from fewer projects failing later. We do not yet have enough reforestation project data to measure that split.
Across the tested completion scenarios, the increase ranges from 0.64 to 0.84 Mha under GWP100 and 2.43 to 2.85 Mha under GWP*. The scenarios apply only to land already financially viable without methane income.
The scenario starts with 62.5 Mha already financially viable.
- GWP100
- +0.8 Mha
- GWP*
- +2.8 Mha
Fewer projects fail after work starts.
Some projects fail after planting begins because they run short of money for later planting, maintenance, or monitoring. Additional methane income could reduce that financial pressure and help some projects continue.
The completion estimate above does not identify how much additional area results from fewer failures. The study does not separately estimate the number of failures prevented or the forest area retained. Such an estimate would require records from many reforestation projects showing when work stopped, why it stopped, and how project finances changed beforehand.
The current study reports no separate project-failure or area estimate.
The study has no separate estimate.
Project records must show why work stopped and what happened to financing before the study can estimate this route.
Projects need less financing before credit revenue arrives.
Reforestation projects spend money before carbon-credit payments arrive. On the 62.5 million hectares already financially viable at $50/tCO₂e, the model estimates an average peak financing need of $1,116/ha without methane income.
Methane income reduces that need by $18/ha, or 1.6%, under GWP100 and by $61/ha, or 5.4%, under GWP*. The calculation assumes payment one year after each year's forest growth and methane uptake. It also assumes mature methane uptake from year one. Advance payments would require a separate calculation.
The model reports the largest cumulative cash shortfall before credit payments catch up with costs.
The average peak financing need starts at $1,116/ha.
GWP100$18/ha lower
GWP*$61/ha lower
Projects break even sooner, which may let developers reuse capital sooner.
In one 9,000 ha project example, cumulative revenue catches up with costs in year 8 without methane and in year 8 under GWP100. It catches up in year 7 under GWP*. Reaching that point sooner could allow a developer to commit funds to another project.
The example uses one cost and payment schedule, a $20/tCO₂e carbon price, no land opportunity cost, and no discounting. The study does not estimate how quickly a developer could reuse that capital across a portfolio or how much additional land the capital could finance.
This result comes from one illustrative project and does not represent the spatial model.
The no-methane and GWP100 cases both reach break-even in year 8. The GWP* case reaches break-even in year 7.
No methane and GWP100year 8
GWP*year 7, about 1 year sooner
Modeled annual capacity
Modeled Annual Capacity for the Two Reforestation Cases
These are two separate estimates of annual CO₂ and methane uptake once forest growth reaches the full modeled rate. Each reports full-rate capacity on the study's central creditable basis, which applies an 18% permanence buffer and a 10% leakage deduction. They are not observed uptake or forecasts of project delivery. Methane is converted under GWP100.
The completion scenario covers land already financially viable.
43.4 MtCO₂e/yrAnnual CO₂ and methane uptake at the full modeled rate, on the study's central creditable basis
This capacity applies to the 2.84 Mha GWP* central completion scenario.
- Tree growth
- 42.5 MtCO₂/yr
- Bark methane
- 0.96 MtCO₂e/yr
The model uses GWP* values to select the land. It reports the annual result in CO₂-equivalent units, using GWP100 for methane.
The market-potential case covers land made financially viable by methane.
87.0 MtCO₂e/yrAnnual CO₂ and methane uptake at the full modeled rate, on the study's central creditable basis
This capacity applies if all 6.1 Mha made financially viable under GWP* at $50/tCO₂e were built.
The model does not predict that all of this land will be financed or planted.
The 43.4 MtCO₂e/yr case covers land already viable without methane. The 87.0 MtCO₂e/yr case covers land made newly viable by methane. Adding them would mix separate cases.
Forest conservation
Methane Income Adds Little Financially Viable Forest Protection Area
Credits for protecting carbon stored in existing forests provide most of the modeled project revenue. At $50/tCO₂e, the model estimates that methane income adds about 0.05 Mha of financially viable forest protection under GWP100 and about 0.10 Mha under GWP*. The analysis does not estimate the other project-finance effects for forest conservation.
- GWP100
- 0.05 Mha
- GWP*
- 0.10 Mha
Methods and sources
See the Models and Source Studies
The spatial model page explains how the study estimates financial viability across tropical land. The science page covers the field measurements and the methane mechanism.
Open the spatial bankability modelThe model page includes the supply curve and map.Open the methane science pageThe science page explains the measurements and published work.
View the nine references used on this page
- Gauci, V. et al. (2024). Global atmospheric methane uptake by upland tree woody surfaces. Nature 631. doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07592-w
- Allen, M. R. et al. (2018). A solution to the misrepresentations of CO₂-equivalent emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science 1. doi:10.1038/s41612-018-0026-8
- Cain, M. et al. (2019). Improved calculation of warming-equivalent emissions for short-lived climate pollutants. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science 2. doi:10.1038/s41612-019-0086-4
- Cook-Patton, S. C. et al. (2020). Mapping carbon accumulation potential from global natural forest regrowth. Nature 585. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2686-x
- Busch, J. et al. (2019). Potential for low-cost carbon dioxide removal through tropical reforestation. Nature Climate Change 9. doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0485-x
- Busch, J. et al. (2024). Cost-effectiveness of natural forest regeneration and plantations for climate mitigation. Nature Climate Change 14. doi:10.1038/s41558-024-02068-1
- Fesenmyer, K. A. et al. (2025). Addressing critiques refines global estimates of reforestation potential for climate change mitigation. Nature Communications. doi:10.1038/s41467-025-59799-8
- Favero, A. and Austin, K. G. (2026). Charting our forest future: national supply curves for forest-based CO₂ mitigation. npj Climate Action 5. doi:10.1038/s44168-026-00335-9
- IPCC (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 7. Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/