Topics on this page
This page focuses on specific tree planting practices that sequester carbon in tree biomass for habitat, water quality and the potential for long-lived forest products.
Summary of Tree Planting Mitigation Opportunities
(IPCC 2019 Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Use, AFOLU section 3B – Land Use)
Tree planting can sequester 1.71 MMT CO2e year by 2050. This opportunity represents planting native tree species on former agricultural land, which sequesters carbon in the tree biomass. Reforestation is one of three opportunities that include tree planting. The second is Silvopasture, which involves planting trees on pastureland to provide shade for livestock and to allow continued forage production while sequestering carbon in tree biomass. The third opportunity is Riparian Buffer planting which is planting trees and shrubs on farmland adjacent to waterways. This practice improves water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment loading to streams. It also provides cooling shade for streams. The GHG benefit is carbon sequestration in tree biomass. Together, these mitigation opportunities represent one-fifth of the total GHG mitigation potential (See Mitigation Report). The total potential of all three practices is -2.42 MMT CO2e/yr by year 2050 (See Table below). However, this value continues to increase after 2050 to a maximum of -3.3 MMT CO2e by 2070. Thus, this activity both increases over time and continues well into the future. The total area planted for each of these three practices is shown in the Table below. Also included is the area of land projected to be needed to meet state renewable energy goals (see Koch et al. 2025). These values are shown together because reforestation will compete for land with other activities such as solar and wind energy generation.
Maximum Feasible Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential from Land Use Change^
^Increased carbon sequestration in above and below ground biomass and soils gained by converting non-forest (<25% tree cover) to forest (>25% tree cover) in areas where forests are the native cover type.
Reforestation – tree planting on former agricultural land
Definition: Conversion of former agricultural land to long-term forest.
Services: Services include a broad range of co-benefits: Community Relations (e.g. improved recreation), Adaptation to extreme weather, Profitability (potential long-term income from long lived building materials), Biodiversity, and potential for Energy production from forest management residues. However, biodiversity could have a disservice if reforestation reduces habitat for ground nesting grassland birds and other grass-dwelling species. Reforestation also makes a return to most types of agricultural production difficult.
Achievable: Upfront and middle term costs can be found in Fargione et al. (2018). Long term financial gain is possible if managed properly and wood markets are available in the future.
Realistic: While reforestation provides a significant and real opportunity for short-and-long term mitigation benefits, the scale of this opportunity assumes a very large area of former agricultural land is converted to forest. Research is needed to assess land suitability for competing uses to identify areas especially suitable for reforestation versus other land-uses such as increased pasture or hay production, bird nesting habitat, solar energy siting, etc. (Richardson et al. 2023, Cook-Patton et al. 2020, Koch et al. 2025). This potential also depends on landowner adoption to actively establish forest on former agricultural land and multi-generational landowner maintenance for long periods such as 100 years. However, at this time, only 18% of forest landowners are moderately or strongly interested in reforestation on their lands, and only with substantial technical and financial support (derived from Stedman et al. 2024). Achieving reforestation over a large area involves many landowners being willing to plant trees on their land. Additionally, there are a myriad of competing land uses such as increased agricultural production, amenity value, renewable energy production, wildlife habitat, viewsheds, etc. Reforestation at this scale is Ambitious because it requires a very large pipeline of supplies, seedings, and skilled workers. This mitigation strategy depends on the ability to establish native species, including the “reforestation pipeline” of obtaining plants and/or seed, planting, managing weeds, diseases, pests and herbivores, particularly deer (Fargione et al. 2021). If forest growth rates on former agricultural lands in NYS are limited by availability of materials and skilled labor, establishment costs, herbivory, or other factors, it may be difficult or costly to achieve the mitigation potential by 2050 as estimated herein. However, this is a proven approach to carbon sequestration, and the technical potential is much higher than the value presented in this section because there is a larger land base of former agricultural land that could technically be planted with trees.
Time Frame: The GHG benefit is predicated on a commitment to long-term forest growth/management. If this land is properly managed as forest for 100 years, it should be considered a Permanent mitigation opportunity. However, agreements need to be drawn up about the terms of the investment. Without sustained support through stand development, this mitigation is Conditional.
Silvopasture – tree planting on current pasture land
Definition: Plant trees in pasture areas for shaded livestock grazing.
Services: Services include a broad range of co-benefits: Soil Health, Adaptation to Climate Change (providing shade to livestock impacted by high temperatures), Profitability (fencing materials, building materials), Biodiversity. Wildlife can benefit from habitat, fruits and nuts created by trees. However, loss of grass and shrub habitat may also reduce habitat for species that depend on such land cover, such as grassland nesting birds.
Achievable: There is potential for profitability from trees in both short term (fenceposts, etc.) and long-term (long-lived wood products, nuts, fruits, etc.). When trees can provide winter livestock shelter in place of a barn there can be large cost savings.
Realistic: While technically feasible, this Ambitious activity requires widespread interest and development of a large pipeline of materials, labor, and training. Silvopasture is not currently a common practice in NYS and requires skills in tree management that are very rare among livestock graziers. For example, young trees must be protected from livestock at vulnerable times.
Time Frame: Once established, many tree species live for more than 100 years. However, farm management personnel and practices and possibly ownership will change many times in a century, so there will be challenges to managing for Permanence of trees.
Riparian Buffers – tree planting along waterways
Definition: Plant trees and shrubs along riparian corridors.
Services: Riparian buffers are currently supported in NYS for significant water quality benefits. For example, placed in sensitive locations in the landscape, buffers can help manage nutrients from a much larger uphill area of farmland. They also provide shade which keeps streams cool and can benefit cold water fish and other fauna. They can stabilize stream banks to reduce erosion and sediment loading to streams. They can also provide wildlife corridors in farmland and amenities such as improved fishing opportunities. However, if riparian buffers are established on productive agricultural lands, farmers may be less willing to forego the crop production to create a riparian buffer.
Measurable: While forested riparian buffers are Verifiable, the scale of the opportunity is estimated to be relatively small.
Achievable: Currently there are initiatives to support planting riparian buffers (e.g. Trees for Tribs).
Realistic: This Feasible GHG mitigation potential was estimated on a per-area basis, but it is not clear how much additional area could be brought into buffers to provide new GHG mitigation.
Time Frame: If trees are planted and maintained properly, they are very likely to last for many decades or longer. However, agreements need to be drawn up about the terms of the investment to assure trees are not cut down. Thus, without sustained support through riparian buffer development and changing land management and ownership that could remove them, this mitigation is Conditional.
Other Opportunities
There are many forest activities (on current forest land) not included here.
Of existing forest land, farm-owners often have a variety of woodlands (agroforestry systems, forest systems) that could be managed to increase their carbon sequestration capacity. According to the NYS Office of the Comptroller (2019) 21% of agricultural land (6,866,171 acres) is woodland (1.4 million acres). Changes in management practices to increase net forest carbon sequestration could alter species composition, stand structure, and stand density.
