Careful Land Allocation for Carbon Dioxide Removal Critical to Protect Biodiversity, New Study Finds

Introduction

A new spatial assessment published in Nature Climate Change warns that large-scale carbon dioxide removal (CDR) schemes—widely viewed as essential to meeting global climate targets—risk harming biodiversity if they are sited without careful ecological screening. The study, released on 5 February 2026, overlays global decarbonization scenarios with maps of biodiversity importance and finds substantial overlap, highlighting the need for integrated land-use planning that balances climate mitigation with conservation goals.

As nations race to scale up CDR to compensate for hard-to-abate emissions, demand for land is projected to soar. The research underscores that “where” and “how” these projects are deployed will determine whether they deliver net environmental benefits or simply shift the problem from climate change to biodiversity loss.

Understanding the Research

The study integrates three strands of evidence:

• Global land-use scenarios from integrated assessment models that meet the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 °C target
• High-resolution biodiversity data layers, including species richness, endemic species hotspots, and Key Biodiversity Areas
• Spatially explicit CDR pathways such as afforestation/reforestation, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and enhanced rock weathering

By quantifying spatial congruence under alternative mitigation portfolios, the authors identify regions where CDR expansion could imperil ecosystems that are already under pressure from agriculture, infrastructure, and climate change itself.

Key Findings and Results

1. Extensive Overlap Between CDR Land and Biodiversity Hotspots

Under middle-of-the-road policy assumptions, roughly 30 % of the land projected for CDR by mid-century falls within the top quartile of global biodiversity importance. Tropical moist forests, islands, and subtropical grasslands show the highest collision risk.

2. Location and Implementation Method Determine Outcomes

Afforestation using monoculture exotics in the tropics can reduce local species richness by up to 40 %, whereas restoring native mixed-species forests on degraded land can increase richness by 15–25 %. Similarly, BECCS using high-diversity perennial feedstocks delivers modest biodiversity gains compared with fossil fuels, while first-generation bioenergy crops can depress habitat quality.

3. Co-benefits Possible with Strategic Planning

When CDR is targeted toward previously cleared or heavily modified lands—such as abandoned pasture in Latin America or logged-over forest in Southeast Asia—biodiversity co-benefits emerge in >60 % of cases. The study calculates that redirecting just 20 % of projected CDR land away from biodiversity hotspots could cut species-loss risk by half.

Methodology and Approach

The research team combined two flagship biodiversity metrics:

1. Range-size rarity-weighted richness—capturing the concentration of small-range species whose loss would disproportionately erode global biodiversity
2. KBAs and Alliance for Zero Extinction sites—legally recognized conservation priorities

They then ran 300 land-use scenarios from the IMAGE and GCAM models through a spatial optimization algorithm that minimizes biodiversity impact while achieving net-negative emissions by 2100. Sensitivity tests varied carbon price, technological learning rates, and dietary transitions to bracket uncertainty.

Implications and Applications

For Policymakers

National climate strategies submitted under the Paris Agreement (NDCs) rarely mention biodiversity safeguards. The findings provide geospatial guidance that governments can integrate into:

• Environmental impact assessments for CDR projects
• Carbon credit certification standards (e.g., VCS, Gold Standard)
• Land tenure reforms that reward restoration on degraded lands

For the Private Sector

Corporations purchasing offsets or investing in direct air capture coupled with storage (DACCS) can use the overlap maps to avoid portfolios that could trigger reputational or legal risk from biodiversity harm.

For Conservation Practitioners

The data layers are downloadable under a Creative Commons license, allowing NGOs to pre-emptively identify regions where conservation acquisition or easements could safeguard biodiversity while still leaving room for climate mitigation.

What This Means for Climate and Conservation Communities

The study reframes the climate–biodiversity nexus from a zero-sum game to a potential win-win, provided decision-makers act on spatial intelligence. Early evidence from pilot projects in Indonesia and Mozambique shows that integrating local ecological knowledge and socio-economic co-benefits can raise both carbon and biodiversity outcomes by 15–20 % compared with top-down planning.

Conversely, ignoring these insights could undermine public support for CDR just as deployment needs to accelerate. Polls across the EU and North America indicate that climate policies lose up to 30 % approval when voters perceive them to damage local wildlife.

Looking Ahead: Research and Policy Priorities

Several knowledge gaps remain:

• Dynamic feedbacks between land-use change and regional climate—afforestation in the tropics, for example, can alter precipitation patterns
• Social equity implications of land-intensive CDR, especially for Indigenous and community lands
• Integration of emerging CDR methods (e.g., ocean alkalinity enhancement) into biodiversity assessments

The authors call for a new generation of integrated assessment models that couple carbon, biodiversity, and socio-economic modules at <1 km resolution, enabling real-time decision support for investors and regulators.

Conclusion

Carbon dioxide removal is poised to become one of the largest land-use sectors of the 21st century. Without careful siting, it could eclipse agriculture as the primary driver of biodiversity loss. The new spatial assessment offers a science-based roadmap to avoid this outcome by aligning climate mitigation with the conservation of the planet’s ecological heritage. Success will depend on rapid uptake by standards bodies, financiers, and land-use planners—before investment locks projects into ecologically harmful locations.

References

Nature Climate Change (2026). “Careful land allocation for carbon dioxide removal is critical for safeguarding biodiversity.” Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-026-02567-3