Key ideas: Giving Green’s approach to reducing terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity loss
Importance of land use change: Land use change is the most dominant driver of terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity loss. The habitat loss from land use change is the most common threat to endangered and vulnerable species on land and in freshwater. We think that biodiversity philanthropists should prioritize addressing land use change.Reducing agricultural expansion: Agricultural expansion is responsible for most land use change. Croplands to grow animal feed and food for humans are expanding, especially in biodiverse tropical regions. We can reduce future habitat loss by switching to plant-rich diets, closing yield gaps, and reducing food loss and waste.Advocating for alternative proteins: We think that advocating for alternative protein policy and research is the most promising strategy to reduce future habitat loss. Alternative proteins can reduce the expansion of croplands by 82% by 2050, but so far have gained relatively little support from governments and philanthropists.Protecting wetlands: Since reducing agricultural expansion will take time, it is promising to protect unique and biodiverse habitats in the short-term to steer future land use change away from these sites. Wetlands only cover about 10% of the Earth’s surface, but are exceptionally important for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Up to 40% of species live or breed on wetlands.Why Do We Focus on Land Use Change? Land use change, such as the conversion of natural habitats to agricultural land, is the most dominant direct driver of biodiversity loss on land and in freshwater ecosystems. Based on a meta-analysis of studies comparing the relative importance of drivers of biodiversity loss, land use change has a dominance score of 3.16 on a 0–4 score in terrestrial ecosystems, meaning it nearly consistently outranked other drivers in weighted comparisons.13 In freshwater ecosystems, the dominance score was 2.69/4.00, which still makes land use change the most dominant driver in this realm.14 We visualize the dominance of the direct drivers in the terrestrial and freshwater realms in Figure 3 .
Figure 3: Relative dominance of direct drivers of biodiversity loss in terrestrial (top) and freshwater (bottom) ecosystems, based on pairwise comparisons between drivers.(15)In addition, habitat destruction (the result of land use change) is by far the most common threat to terrestrial species at risk of extinction. 16 Based on our analysis of species on the IUCN Red List , 85% of endangered or vulnerable species that live on land are threatened by habitat destruction, making it by far the most common threat to terrestrial species.17 As shown in Figure 4, the next most common threats (overexploitation and pollution) each threaten only 18% of endangered or vulnerable terrestrial species. In freshwater ecosystems, habitat destruction is an equally common threat (84%), although pollution and invasive species are also highly relevant. This highlights the priority to address habitat destruction as a strategy to reduce terrestrial biodiversity loss.
Figure 4: Most common extinction threats for endangered and vulnerable terrestrial species (top) and freshwater species (bottom).(18)Addressing land use change offers a dual benefit: it reduces biodiversity loss and advances climate change mitigation. Solutions in the agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) sectors, such as shifting dietary patterns and improving agricultural yields, can deliver gains for both climate and ecosystems. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that AFOLU activities account for 22% of global greenhouse gas emissions.19 Climate change itself is a mid-level but growing driver of biodiversity loss, which underscores the urgency of tackling land use change as part of biodiversity conservation strategies.20 For further details on Giving Green’s analysis of land use change and emissions, refer to our philanthropic strategy report on food systems emissions .
Biodiversity loss from land use change can, to some extent, be tackled on a global scale because it is largely influenced by a small number of economic drivers. Agricultural expansion accounts for the largest share of global land use change between 1960 and 2019 (~7.6 million km2 ), approximately the size of Greece every year.21 Out of the 5 million hectares of forest that the world loses every year, 95% is lost in the tropics. Nearly half of all tropical forest loss happens in just two countries (Brazil and Indonesia) and because of three major products (beef, soy, and palm oil). Another considerable economic driver of forest loss, at 17.5% of deforestation, is the growth of agricultural land on the African continent because of increased demand for agricultural production.22 A summary of the causes of tree cover loss between 2001 and 2024 is seen in Figure 5 .
Figure 5: Tree cover loss by dominant driver, 2001-2024.(23)Global agricultural land use is going down, but is still increasing in some areas and for the creation of croplands. Land use continues to increase in some countries, especially in tropical regions, which are rich in biodiversity. Additionally, most of the decline in agricultural land is because of disused lands for pastures and grazing. The surface area of global croplands for animal feed and human consumption is still trending upwards at the expense of natural ecosystems.24
While land use change already receives considerable attention in biodiversity circles, we still think there is room for more funding to address this driver. While we are not aware of an overview of total biodiversity funding by impact strategy, there are multiple funding mechanisms to (among other strategies) protect land from conversion, the most well-known being REDD+.25 Philanthropy, too, is funding AFOLU solutions through initiatives such as the Climate and Land Use Alliance (CLUA) and the Protecting Our Planet (POP) pledge. However, a considerable amount of philanthropic funding is spent on location-specific projects and forest conservation,26 contrary to our view that biodiversity philanthropy is (usually) more impactful by catalyzing global or regional systems-change solutions in policy, innovation, and market shaping, or safeguarding neglected ecosystem types. We still think there is considerable room for more funding for some of the most promising land use change funding opportunities that we have identified.
Strategies to Reduce Land Use Change The three largest levers to tackle the expansion of croplands (and therefore habitat loss) at scale are increasing agricultural yields, a transition to plant-rich diets, and reducing food waste. A modeling study by Williams et al. (2020) predicts that achieving 80% of the maximum yield on croplands, following plant-rich dietary guidelines, and halving food waste can reduce the need for cropland by 25% by 2050. The overall effect of plant-rich diets is larger, because it also avoids the expansion of pastures. Figure 6 shows the potential of these three approaches to reduce cropland expansion by 2050.
Figure 6: Potential of approaches to reduce the expansion of croplands by 2050.(27)Reducing demand for agricultural land should be combined with effective and inclusive conservation policies. Targeted conservation efforts should focus on areas with the highest conservation value that are likely to be converted before long-term solutions for reducing agricultural land exist. Conservation can be used to (a) steer agricultural development to areas with lower conservation priority and (b) prevent a situation where increases in yields locally provide a profit incentive to clear vulnerable land for agriculture, as discussed later in this chapter.
In the remainder of this chapter, we discuss the several strategies to reduce land use change based on scenarios modeled in Williams et al. (2020):
For plant-rich diets, we look at advocating for alternative protein policy and research . In our strategy report on reducing food system emissions , we landed on alternative proteins as the most promising way to reduce meat consumption. For closing yield gaps, we look at increasing yields in Sub-Saharan Africa . In this region, yields are lowest while population and consumption are increasing. We cover reducing food loss and waste holistically. In addition to the strategies based on the scenarios in Williams et al. (2020), we evaluate developing technical alternatives to soybean meal as a future solution that might be unlocked with technological progress. We also consider a qualitative argument for protecting vulnerable habitats, in order to steer land use change away from the most sensitive and biodiversity ecosystems.
Philanthropic sub-strategies that could reduce the biodiversity impacts of land use change: Advocating for alternative protein policy and research
Scale ⚫⚫⚫ High
Feasibility ⚫⚫⚪ Medium
Funding need ⚫⚫⚫ High
Alternative proteins are food products that are designed to replace conventional animal products. Animal agriculture is responsible for more than half of all global forest loss because of high pastureland and feed requirements. We see alternative proteins as a solution that can reduce the growth in global animal consumption.
Increasing agricultural yields in Sub-Saharan Africa
Scale ⚫⚫⚫ High
Feasibility ⚫⚫⚪ Medium
Funding need ⚫⚫⚪ Medium
Agricultural expansion is projected to lead to substantial habitat losses, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, where both agricultural yields and productivity growth are lowest. Increasing the yields per hectare of land reduces the amount of land needed to grow food, which allows other land to be spared from conversion to agriculture. Because of high heterogeneity in Sub-Saharan Africa, unsuccessful previous efforts, and interest from development funders, we rate both the feasibility and funding need as medium.
Reducing food loss and waste
Scale ⚫⚫⚫ High
Feasibility ⚫⚫⚪ Medium
Funding need ⚫⚪⚪ Low
About one-third of the world’s food production does not get consumed. This implies that approximately one third of agricultural land is used to grow food that gets lost or wasted. Halving food loss and waste could reduce cropland expansion by 18 percentage points by 2050. There is a strong financial and humanitarian incentive to reduce food loss and waste. We therefore rate the funding need as low. We rate the feasibility as medium because of supply chain and data complexity.
Developing technical alternatives to soybean meal
Scale ⚫⚫⚫ High
Feasibility ⚫⚪⚪ Low
Funding need ⚫⚫⚫ High
Feed alternatives like algae and single cell protein could reduce the need for soy plantation for animal feed. Fishmeal and fish oil alternatives are a more logical first market for feed alternatives, so this strategy is discussed in our fishing section.
Protecting select vulnerable habitats, such as wetlands
Scale ⚫⚫⚪ Medium
Feasibility ⚫⚫⚪ Medium
Funding need ⚫⚫⚫ High
The strategies above are intended to reduce total land use change, but are not specific as to which biomes and ecosystems are being halted from conversion. Since we expect that both accelerating alternative proteins and increasing agricultural productivity are long-term strategies, we think that coupling these strategies with a shorter-term strategy of protecting ecosystems that are exceptionally unique or valuable is a promising hedge against other strategies failing to yield results in time.
Advocating for Alternative Protein Policy and Research Scale ⚫⚫⚫ High
Feasibility ⚫⚫⚪ Medium
Funding need ⚫⚫⚫ High
Alternative proteins (alt proteins) are food products that are designed to replace conventional animal products while offering a similar nutritional value, taste, and mouthfeel. Partially replacing the consumption of beef, milk, and other animal proteins with nutritionally similar products made without animal proteins would reduce the land needed for animal agriculture and feed. Some alt protein products are:28
Plant-based meat, such as the Impossible Burger, is made of plant products and emulates conventional meat in terms of taste, smell, and preparation method. Cultivated meat is meat grown directly from animal cells in a bioreactor, a controlled environment similar to vessels used in beer brewing. Precision fermentation products use selected microorganisms to produce the flavor, texture, and other properties of conventional meat. This can be used to make substitutes or specific ingredients. Blended products combine different types of alt proteins, such as incorporating cultivated animal fats into plant-based meats. As part of this philanthropic strategy, we consider activities that enable a supportive policy environment for the development and market uptake of alt proteins, spur innovation in the taste, price, and convenience of these products, and shape a larger market. These activities can include:
Policy advocacy for increased research and development (R&D) funding, regulatory approval, meat-like labeling practices, and improved dietary guidelines. Corporate outreach to increase the availability of alt proteins in grocery stores and restaurants and to drive private investment in this space. Directly funding or working with researchers to identify and fill important research gaps. This is especially useful for research questions that get little interest from the private sector, or where open-source research leads to quicker and more equitable growth of technologies. Funding research can help to de-risk alt protein investments and inform more targeted policy support. We have previously evaluated alt protein policy advocacy and research as part of our research on food sector emissions. Our evaluation of this strategy leans on the findings presented in our food systems report .29
Scale: High The production and consumption of animal products is responsible for more than half of all global forest loss, in particular pasture expansion for beef and the cultivation of oilseeds for animal feed.30 Because animal agriculture requires a lot of land per calorie produced, the sector takes up a considerable amount of land. Out of all habitable land, nearly half (45%) is used for agriculture, of which 80% is used for animal agriculture or to grow animal feed (Figure 7 ). Besides being a driver of land use change, animal agriculture is a major cause of nutrient pollution because of animal manure and the use of fertilizer for growing crops,31 and a considerable driver of climate change.32
Figure 7: Global land use for food production. Agriculture takes up nearly half of all habitable land, of which 80% is used for animal agriculture, despite the sector only being responsible for a small part of global calorie and protein supply.(33)Alt protein products are a considerable improvement in terms of land use and environmental impact, as shown in Figures 8-10 . An analysis by the UK non-profit Green Alliance highlights the potential of high alt protein innovation to free up land in Europe for semi-natural habitats (from 13% to 30% of total domestic farming) and agroecological farming (from 17% to 36%), while only requiring a quarter of former overseas land requirements.34 Because alt protein products require much less land than conventional meat, its adoption would reduce deforestation and could free up land for restoration.35
Plant-based protein sources—which are the main ingredient for plant-based meat—have a land footprint that is several orders of magnitude lower than animal-based proteins, especially lamb and beef.36 A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of plant-based and conventional meat products reveals that the plant-based products with the highest environmental impacts still score 90%, 58%, and 4% better than beef, pork, and chicken, respectively, per kilogram. Plant-based meat products also have 88% less or even lower environmental impacts in terms of global warming, acidification, eutrophication, ecotoxicity, and water consumption than beef.37 A prospective LCA of cultivated meat predicts that cultivated meat production in 2030 will use 55% less land than beef from dairy herds and 90% less land than beef from beef herds, with their qualitative findings being broadly in line with previous research. Cultivated meat also has a lower carbon footprint than beef and pork, especially when the energy used for production comes from clean sources.38 Figure 8: Land use requirements of different animal-based and plant-based sources of proteins per 100 grams of protein(39)
Figure 9: Comparative LCAs of the environmental impacts of plant-based and fermentation-based alt proteins, including the differences in land use in column 4.(40)
Figure 10: Land use requirement per kg of cultivated meat (CM) and various conventional animal products.(41)Feasibility: Medium
In recent years, we have seen a number of significant wins for public investments into alt proteins from several layers of government. The US state of Illinois, the EU, Denmark and the Netherlands have announced over a billion dollars in public funding.42
Companies are scaling up cultivated meat and precision fermentation dairy, while advances in 3D printing and extrusion are enhancing alternative protein textures.43 However, there are still unresolved technical challenges to scaling up cultivated meat production.44 Additionally, while the first cultivated meat products have been allowed on the market in select countries (e.g., Singapore, US, Israel, Australia), other places have taken action to halt its commercialization (e.g., Italy, and some US states).45
It is our impression that consumer and regulatory acceptance show carefully optimistic trends, although we are uncertain about the future acceptance of alt proteins and how much meat consumption they will displace. Plant-based food sales are growing in European countries, while they’re falling in the United States.46 For alt proteins to displace conventional meat, products should not only match the price, taste, and convenience of conventional meat, but also address the social and psychological factors that determine food choices.47
We rate the feasibility of this strategy as medium because of uncertainty around consumer acceptance and challenges around scaling up the production of cultivated meat.
Funding Need: High
Government R&D spending on alt proteins is still low in comparison to other environmental funding and not sufficient to unlock the full benefits of alt proteins.48 While EU countries and institutions have spent several hundred million euros on alternative protein innovation over the last few years, this amount is still dwarfed by the €112 billion in contributions to biodiversity in the current six-year EU budget, or even the €6.9 billion for biodiversity-related R&D.49 According to a funding need analysis by Climateworks, global spending on alternative protein R&D and commercialization needs to increase to $4.4 billion and $5.7 billion, respectively, per year.50 Alt protein progress cannot be funded through existing biodiversity funding mechanisms, such as REDD+ and the Global Environment Facility, because it is out-of-scope. While private funding for alt protein innovation exists, public or philanthropic funding for R&D can have a higher impact because the results and developed methods can be used by all researchers and companies. Progress on policies to reduce demand for conventional livestock products is challenged by incumbent interests of the meat and dairy sector. This sector delays, distracts, and derails action on food system transformation and has convinced policymakers to exempt them from climate action goals (agricultural exceptionalism).51 However, the incumbent interests from meat and dairy can also be seen as evidence of lower feasibility. Biodiversity and environmental philanthropy has the opportunity to counter the interests of the agricultural lobby. Philanthropists have made recent pledges for alternative proteins, including a $100 million pledge from the Bezos Earth Fund. Nonetheless, we think that the alternative protein ecosystem is able to effectively absorb additional philanthropic funding.52
Co-benefits: climate change and animal welfare
For climate change: livestock farming is the largest source of food system emissions. Giving Green’s strategy on food systems emissions recommends alternative protein policy advocacy and research as one of the most promising strategies to tackle climate change. For farmed animal welfare: Reducing the number of farmed animals also reduces the total amount of suffering. Increasing Agricultural Yields in Sub-Saharan Africa Scale ⚫⚫⚫ High
Feasibility ⚫⚫⚪ Medium
Funding need ⚫⚫⚪ Medium
Global food demand is projected to increase. An analysis of different modeling studies predicts an increase between 35% to 56% between 2010 and 2050, largely because of population and income growth.53 The increase in food demand is – to some extent – the result of global progress against early mortality, food insecurity, and poverty, but is also one of the leading causes of habitat loss. Agricultural expansion is projected to lead to substantial habitat losses, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa,54 where both agricultural yields and productivity growth are lowest (Figure 11 ). Increasing the yields per hectare of land reduces the amount of land needed to grow food, which allows other land to be spared from conversion to agriculture.
Figure 11: Cereal yields per hectare since 1961 per continent(55)Scale: High Under a business-as-usual scenario, Sub-Saharan Africa will see the largest relative expansion in cropland out of any world region. Assuming that population growth will be in line with medium UN estimates, crop yields continue to improve at historical rates, and dietary changes are in line with increases in income, most countries in Africa will see at least a doubling of cropland areas by 2050. As a result, Sub-Saharan Africa is expected to see an animal habitat decrease of 12.7% – the largest of any world region (Figure 12 ).56
Figure 12: Projected habitat loss for all species in 2050: business as usual(57)Closing agricultural yield gaps is one of the largest levers to reduce global habitat loss. If yields would increase to 80% of their maximum potential by 2050 with currently existing technologies, most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa would see a habitat gain of up to 5%, with some countries in West Africa seeing habitat losses substantially reduced (<5% loss of habitat by 2050).58
Feasibility: Medium
However, Sub-Saharan Africa may be a unique case where solutions that worked on other continents may not necessarily apply. No single constraint explains the stagnation of technology adoption and productivity increases in Sub-Saharan Africa. The region exhibits a large variance in soil types, moisture, and quality, altitude, temperatures, topography, solar energy access, and economic conditions. This affects where and when agricultural technologies are profitable and, by extension, which technologies get created and adopted. Such heterogeneity reduces the feasibility of addressing the yield gap by limiting the geographical scope of different strategies.59
One promising and more scalable strategy could be reducing the costs of agricultural inputs like fertilizer by encouraging local production or improving infrastructure for distribution. The costs of agricultural inputs like fertilizer in Sub-Saharan Africa are high, because of a lack of infrastructure and a dependency on imports.60
Funding Need: Medium 61
On the other hand, agricultural productivity benefits poverty alleviation and food security (as discussed below). This makes it an interesting strategy for donors and grantmakers who are interested in increasing food security and reducing poverty. For example, the Gates Foundation runs a major agricultural development program which includes a focus on farm productivity.62 According to OECD data, the sum of total agricultural philanthropic grants for African countries ($562 million in 2023, including North Africa) is seven times higher than the sum of environment-related grants in the same countries ($76 million in 2023), although not all of that funding will have gone to productivity increases.63 Because agricultural productivity is getting substantial funding from donors interested in global development, we expect that the value of additional environmental philanthropy for increasing yields is likely smaller than other land-sparing strategies. In addition, agricultural productivity is a point of focus for country governments and multilateral aid agencies, who typically have larger budgets than non-profits.
This, however, is not sufficient evidence to conclude that increasing agricultural productivity does not have room for more funding. It is possible that some approaches to increasing agricultural yields are effective but underfunded, even considering that donors focused on poverty alleviation and food security are interested in this impact strategy. In particular, improving access to widely applicable technologies like fertilizers could be a scalable solution that itself is underfunded.64 Agricultural productivity is a broad philanthropic field with many different approaches to fund. We are open to revising our rating of funding need if promising yet under-funded approaches to increasing agricultural productivity arise with future research.
Co-Benefits: Food security and poverty alleviation 65 However, the social and political system around creating co-benefits needs to support its benefits for food security. In the United Kingdom, agricultural policies forced people of the land into industry-oriented cities when yields went up, resulting in an increase in poverty and food insecurity for several generations.66 Present-day efforts to increase agricultural productivity also face criticism because of seed laws that criminalize traditional seed-sharing practices and increase debt.67
Reducing Food Loss and Waste Scale ⚫⚫⚫ High
Feasibility ⚫⚫⚪ Medium
Funding need ⚫⚪⚪ Low
About one-third of the world’s food production does not get consumed. Globally, 13% of produced food is lost between harvest and sale because of poor stage and handling, lack of refrigeration, and spoilage in transport and processing. 17% of all produced food is wasted domestically or in food services.68 Reducing food loss and waste would reduce the amount of land needed per unit of consumed food, and could therefore reduce agricultural land use.
Scale: High
Feasibility: Medium strategy report on reducing food system emissions , we rate the feasibility of this strategy as medium. We believe there is a strong financial and humanitarian incentive to reduce food loss and waste (FLW), and these combined benefits could make the issue more prominent compared to initiatives focused solely on climate mitigation. Moreover, implementing FLW reduction strategies does not require additional technological innovation.69 Several countries and major corporations have already achieved significant reductions in FLW. For example, the United Kingdom achieved a 27% reduction in consumer food waste, and the Ingka Group, which owns IKEA, reduced FLW by 54% in its restaurants.70
Reducing food loss and waste is generally politically neutral or supported, as shown by its inclusion in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12.3, which aims to halve FLW from 2016 to 2030. However, substantial progress toward this goal has not yet been achieved.71 Annual reporting on SDG 12.3 indicates that rapid progress is possible when institutions are motivated to take coordinated action. In high-income countries with well-developed supply chains, nonprofits can play a key role by raising awareness, advocating for FLW initiatives, and supporting their implementation. There are likely some low-hanging fruit in reducing FLW, and achieving quick wins in certain contexts could be highly feasible.72
However, significant barriers remain to reducing food loss and waste (FLW) at scale, mainly because of missing data on (a) food loss and waste, (b) the benefits and costs of interventions and (c) interactions between supply chain stages.73
Funding Need: Low 74 Given that market actors and individuals already have strong incentives to reduce food waste, we think that additional opportunities for philanthropists are limited. Overall, we think other strategies to reduce land use change are even more neglected, especially because there is a financial and humanitarian incentive to reduce FWL.75
Developing Technical Alternatives to Soybean Meal Scale ⚫⚫⚫ High
Feasibility ⚫⚪⚪ Low
Funding need ⚫⚫⚫ High
In the long term, we think that novel feed sources such as single-cell proteins (SCPs) and algae might become viable alternatives to soybean meal, reducing the need for croplands. The most logical first market for novel feed sources, however, is replacements for fish meal and fish oil. Therefore, we discuss this substrategy in the next chapter .
Protecting Select Vulnerable Habitats, Such as Wetlands Scale ⚫⚫⚪ Medium
Feasibility ⚫⚫⚪ Medium
Funding need ⚫⚫⚫ High
While alternative proteins and agricultural productivity improvements address the dominant economic drivers of habitat loss, both strategies are not specific as to which biomes and ecosystems are being halted from conversion. As a result, these strategies can address large parts of land conversion for agriculture, but not per se those ecosystems that deliver very high ecosystem services or host unique biodiversity. Since we expect that both accelerating alternative proteins and increasing agricultural productivity are long-term strategies, we think that coupling these strategies with a shorter-term strategy of protecting ecosystems that are exceptionally unique or valuable is a promising hedge against the possibility of alternative proteins or yield increases failing to reduce land pressures.
Wetlands, such as peatlands and mangroves, are of considerable interest in this context. While wetlands account for approximately 10% of the total global land surface, up to 40% of the world’s species live and breed in wetlands.76 The relative rate of wetland cover loss is three times faster than that of forests. Freshwater wildlife populations, which are sustained by wetlands, have shrunk the most out of all three realms of biodiversity.77
Wetlands also provide valuable ecosystem services, such as water regulation, waste treatment, air quality, and bequest values. According to the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database, inland waters and inland wetlands provide the highest value of ecosystem services per hectare per year out of all major natural biomes (see Table below).78 Wetlands also store vast amounts of carbon: peatlands cover approximately 2.8% of global land, yet store around one-fifth of all the carbon in the terrestrial biosphere.79
Table: Comparison between different terrestrial and freshwater biomes.(80)Scale: Medium Table above. This is driven by both the relatively high rate of loss of inland wetlands (5.2 million ha per year) and the high value of wetlands per hectare ($108,841/ha).81 However, since wetlands cover only a small percentage of the Earth’s land surface, their total ecosystem services as compared to other ecosystem services are quite low as compared to, for example, forests. We therefore rate the scale of wetland protection as medium.
Feasibility: Medium restoring and protecting wetlands .82 Most of these findings translate to our work on biodiversity.
We think it is likely that donations to wetland conservation initiatives will result in at least some preservation. We expect the effectiveness of initiatives to differ. For example, projects that involve local stakeholders are more likely to result in conservation success.83 Additionally, because inland wetlands are important from a climate angle, too, we think that this builds additional political and social support for wetland conservation.
To address the conservation of wetlands at scale, however, we think that leveraged approaches are needed to improve wetlands governance and reduce the economic pressures on wetlands (such as agriculture and urbanization), while meeting the social and economic needs of local communities.84 Using philanthropic funding to advocate for policy change and resources to enforce wetland protection can reach a wider scale than by focusing on individual projects. Recent policy wins, such as the EU’s Nature Restoration Regulation ’s goals for wetland conservation, are an example of leveraging the powers of government for conservation.
Leakage risks are a challenge to the feasibility of wetland conservation. Efforts to protect specific sections of ecosystems can lead to development pressures to move to a different (section of) an ecosystem, resulting in a lower or no net conservation effect. To minimize leakage risks, we recommend funding peatland or wetland conservation programs that:
Undertake conservation activities at the scale of one entire ecosystem, or larger. Protect the most sensitive or important areas of a landscape, so that development is displaced to less important areas.85 Engage regional or national governments to set peatland protection goals. Funding Need: High 86 Given the relatively small surface area of (inland) wetlands, we expect that additional funding for policy advocacy for improved regulations or establishing protected areas can effectively be used to expand global protection for this biome. In addition, we think that wetland conservation has a higher need than forests, because the international financing mechanism REDD+ does not typically cover wetlands.
We expect that funding wetland and peatland conservation is especially a good option for donors who are constrained by funding the protection of specific ecosystems or biomes, or for donors who prefer funding conservation options that are lower-risk than other strategies covered in this report.
Strategies That We Prioritize Based on our evaluation of these approaches, we decide to focus our efforts to reduce land use change on alternative proteins and protecting vulnerable habitats such as wetlands. We think that advocating for alternative protein policy and research is a promising approach to reduce future agricultural expansion, and see protecting select vulnerable habitats, such as wetlands, as a promising and more short-term hedge until alternative proteins, high-yield agriculture, and reduced food waste become mainstream.
-----13 Point estimate of the dominance of land use change in the terrestrial realm: 3.16/4.00 (95% confidence interval: 2.77–3.40, n=87 studies) (Jaureguiberry et al., 2022, Fig. 1B ).Dominance scores are built from published studies that directly compared at least two drivers of biodiversity loss. Each study was converted into weighted head-to-head matchups: the more important driver received 1 point, the less important driver 0, and ties 0.5. Weights reflected study scale (local to global) and under-represented indicators. These weighted results were summed and converted into normalized David’s scores, which range from 0 (always lowest ranked) to 4 (always highest ranked), with 2 expected if all five drivers were equally important. A score of 3.16 for land-use change in terrestrial ecosystems shows it consistently outranked other drivers.
14 Point estimate of land use change in the freshwater realm: 2.69/4.00 (95% confidence interval: 2.42–3.51, n=38 studies). There is no significant (p>0.5) difference in the among-driver dominance hierarchy between the terrestrial and freshwater realms (Jaureguiberry et al., 2022, Fig. 1B ).
15 Data: Jaureguiberry et al., 2022, Fig. 1B, processing by Giving Green.
16 Land use change describes how people repurpose land. Habitat destruction describes how those changes (and other pressures) harm the living systems on that land. For the purposes of this report, they can be considered interchangeable.
17 We retrieved data from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species in October 2025 and filtered for species that are critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN), or vulnerable (VU) and live—at least partially—on land (n=41444 species). We then grouped IUCN’s categorization of threats to these species into the five groups included in the diagram in line with the method by Hogue and Breon (2022) :
Climate change: Threat codes starting with 11.
Invasive species: Threat codes starting with 8.
The sum of the percentages exceeds 100% because species may be affected by more than one extinction threat.
18 Data: IUCN , retrieved October 2025. Analysis and figure: Giving Green
19 IPCC (2023, §A.1.4 ). The data year is 2019.
20 Climate change as a mid-level driver: Jaureguiberry et al. (2022, Fig. 1A )
21 “We identify 12 major land use transitions and find that agricultural expansion accounted for the largest share of global land use change (~7.6 million km2), an area as large as Greece every year between 1960 and 2019. A major portion of this land is made up of pasture/rangeland expansion, mainly used for nomadic pastoralism. Areas of cropland expansion are mainly located in the Global South, particularly in South America (Argentina, Brazil), Africa (Ethiopia, Nigeria, Uganda), India and Thailand.” (Winkler et al., 2022 )
22 We base this on a summary by Ritchie (2021 ) of Pendrill et al. (2019 ).
23 Image: World Resources Institute (2025 ). Data: Sims et al. (2025 )
24 Ritchie et al. (2022 ).
25 “‘REDD’ stands for ‘Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. The ‘+’ stands for additional forest-related activities that protect the climate, namely sustainable management of forests and the conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.” (UNFCCC, n.d. )
26 “Critics of the POP challenge have said the plan risks entrenching ‘fortress conservation’ and may divert attention from the underlying causes of biodiversity loss, such as the expansion of plantation agriculture, overfishing, mining, logging and overconsumption.” (Pye, 2023 )
27 Data from Williams et al., 2020 with processing by Our World in Data and Giving Green. The combined effect of the strategies is less than their sum because of interaction effects. Values below -100% represent a decrease in cropland area in 2050 relative to 2020. The ‘close yield gaps’ line represents increasing yields to 80% of the maximum sustainable yield. The ‘plant-rich diets’ scenario is the global implementation of the EAT Lancet diet .
28 Food Frontier (n.d. )
29 Giving Green (2024 )
30 Pendrill et al., 2019
31 NOAA, n.d.
32 Giving Green, 2024
33 Ritchie and Roser, 2024
34 “With the right policy support, products created by precision fermentation or cultivated meat could replicate some cuts of meat and more complex cheeses. This could enable alternative proteins to displace two thirds of the animal products currently consumed across Europe. If this were the case, alternative proteins could displace Europe’s land crunch with an enormous land dividend. Reducing demand for meat and dairy by two thirds would mean 44 per cent of the farmland in the ten European countries we studied would no longer be needed for growing feed and grazing animals. Overseas land use would fall even further, by 57 per cent” Green Alliance, 2024
35 “Extensive land uses to meet dietary preferences incur a ‘carbon opportunity cost’ given the potential for carbon sequestration through ecosystem restoration.” (Hayek et al., 2021 )
36 Poore and Nemecek (2018 )
37 EarthShift (2024, Table 5-1 )
38 Sinke et al. (2023, Supplementary materials Table B.2 )
39 Our World in Data, n.d.
40 Several sources, compiled by GFI (n.d.)
41 Sinke el al, 2023
42 In 2021, Denmark announced an investment of 1 billion kroner ($196 million) to advance plant-based foods. GFI Europe, 2021 In 2022, the government of the Netherlands invested €60 million ($70 million) into education, research, and upscaling facilities for cellular agriculture, including cultivated meat and precision fermentation. Nationaal Groeifonds, 2022 In 2023, the European Union announced investments totalling €50 million ($59 million) in startups producing food using precision fermentation technology. FoodBev Media, 2023 In 2024, the US state of Illinois invested $680 million to create a hub for fermentation and agriculture biomanufacturing in the state. Vegconomist, 2024
43 For example, cultivated meat companies like UPSIDE Foods and Aleph Farms are expanding their pilot production, and precision fermentation companies like Perfect Day, Formo, New Culture and Imagindairy are producing or developing dairy products. Progress in 3D printing and extrusion technologies are improving the textures of alt proteins. ProVeg, 2025
44 “The identified challenges include a low cell growth rate, consistency, muscle satellite cell differentiation, completely defined medium components and their roles in myogenesis, effective fetal bovine serum replacement, and the inconsistencies of muscle formation in vitro.” Lee & Hur, 2025
45 Market approval: Coyne, 2025 ; Bans: BBC, 2023
46 Europe: Vegconomist, 2024 ; United States: GFI, 2025
47 “The PTC [price, taste, convenience] hypothesis and premise are both likely false. A majority of current consumers would continue eating primarily animal-based meat even if plant-based meats were PTC-competitive. PTC do not mainly determine food choices of current consumers; social and psychological factors also play important roles.” Peacock, 2023
48 As a comparison, governments worldwide have spent more than 63 times as much on electric car subsidies than on support for alt proteins in 2022. Von Koeller et al, 2024
49 Alt protein funding: GFI Europe, n.d. ; EU budget: European Commission, 2025
50 Climateworks, 2021
51 “Our investigation reveals that the industry has largely succeeded in convincing policymakers of agricultural exceptionalism, getting a number of concessions, exemptions and delays to climate action in the sector." Changing Markets Foundation, 2024
52 See our strategy report on reducing food system emissions for an overview of philanthropic pledges.
53 This is a 95% confidence interval from a meta-analysis (Van Dijk et al., 2021 ) of global scenarios and projects to assess long-term food security.
54 Modeled point estimates from Williams et al., 2020
55 Our World in Data, n.d.
56 Ritchie, 2021 ; Williams et al., 2021
57 Ritchie, 2021
58 Ritchie, 2021, Fig. 5, bottom left
59 Suri et al., 2024
60 Suri et al., 2024
61 For example, in 2023, twenty leading philanthropic funders announced an initiative to scale up agroecology and regenerative farming practices. GAFF, 2023 NB: These are not necessarily exclusive strategies. Agroecology and regenerative farming can also increase yields.
62 Gates Foundation, n.d.
63 OECD, 2024
64 Suri et al., 2024
65 FAO et al., 2020
66 “However, any technology exists within a social and political system. The way that this British agricultural surplus was generated, controlled and distributed under the restrictive Enclosure Acts forced most of the rural population off the land to serve as industrial labour. The result was high food insecurity and a structural form of urban poverty [...] the costs paid in human suffering by three or four generations of impoverished families were considerable.” FAO, 2004
67 “From seed laws that criminalise traditional practices to corporate partnerships with agribusiness giants such as Monsanto and Syngenta, we explore how a well-funded green revolution has led to rising debt, loss of biodiversity and deepening food insecurity across the continent.” Tailor et al., 2025
68 “One-third of the world's food is disposed of, with 13 % lost between harvest and the supply chain and 17 % wasted domestically and in food services” Olabode, 2025
69 Snel, 2022
70 “Reductions in food loss and waste achieved by corporations: Ingka Group (IKEA) 54%; Tesco 45%; Kellogg's 42%; Campbells Soup Company 36%; Ahold Delhaize 33%.” "We have seen that it is possible to make meaningful, sustained reductions in FLW. For example: the Netherlands reduced its food waste by 23%; South Korea has achieved a 95% reduction in consumer food waste; Japan reduced its FLW 12%; and the United Kingdom has decreased edible FLW by 27% since 2007" Lipinski, 2023
71 2011 FLW was one-third: “The results of the study suggest that roughly one-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally” Gustavsson et al, 2011
72 “This report shows that efforts to reduce food loss and waste can produce results – and quickly.” Lipinski, 2023
73 “The five challenges identified are: (i) measuring and monitoring FLW, (ii) assessing benefits and costs of FLW reduction and the tradeoffs involved, (iii) designing FLW-related policies and interventions under limited information, (iv) understanding how interactions between stages along food value chain and across countries affect outcomes of FLW reduction efforts, (v) preparing for income transitions and the shifting relative importance of losses and waste as economies develop.” Cattaneo et al., 2020
74 “In total, at least $10B in direct private funding and $180M in philanthropic funding has gone to food waste solutions over the last 10 years – approximately $1B private and $20M philanthropic per year on average.” ReFED, 2023
75 Funding opportunities: "This issue is ripe for more funding, and this Roadmap outlines more than $300 million in philanthropic investments ready today to reduce FLW in a set of priority countries and across geographies." Susan Bell & Associates, 2023 ;“As discussed in our 2022 progress report, very few countries are implementing targets, measuring food loss and waste, or taking systematic action to address the issue” Lipinski, 2023 .
76 Wetland cover percentage: We took the area estimates of (semi-)terrestrial and (semi-)freshwater wetland categories from the Global Wetland Outlook, 2025, Table 1 : estuarine waters, salt marshes, mangroves, tidal flats, lakes, rivers and streams, inland marshes and swamps, and peatlands. This amounts to 14 million km2 of wetlands. We divided this by the total surface of Earth’s land (141 million km2 ). 14 Mkm2 / 141 Mkm2 ≈ 10%. Species percentage: “Up to 40% of the world’s species live and breed in wetlands” UN Climate Change News, 2018
77 Rate of loss: “Wetlands, amongst the world’s most economically valuable ecosystems and essential regulators of the global climate, are disappearing three times faster than forests.” UN Climate Change News, 2018 Population decline since 1970: “Freshwater populations have suffered the heaviest declines, falling by 85%, followed by terrestrial (69%) and marine populations (56%)” WWF Living Planet Report , 2024
78 Estimates in the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD ) as of June 2025.
79 Land cover: “We estimate total global peatland area to be 4.23 million km2, approximately 2.84% of the world land area” Xu et al. 2018 Carbon storage: Peatlands store more than 600 GtC (Yu et al., 2013 ) and total carbon in terrestrial ecosystems is estimated at around 3,170 GtC (EC JRC , n.d.). 600/3170≈0.19.
80 Ecosystem services: Estimates in the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database as of June 2025. Estimates of ecosystem services are compiled across multiple studies which differ in methods and scope, and therefore should only be seen as a rough indication of the monetary value of different biomes rather than an exact comparison.Rate of loss: Global Wetland Outlook, 2025 ; FAO, 2025 Unfortunately, we did not find sufficiently granular data for coastal wetlands, such as mangroves.Prices are in international dollars at 2020 price levels.
81 Latest estimates in the Ecosystem Services Valuation Database (ESVD ) as of June 2025.
82 Giving Green, 2025
83 Nabuurs et al., 2022 , as also cited in our previous report on Restoring and Protecting Wetlands .
84 ”Global results indicate that agriculture (25%), urbanization (16.8%), aquaculture (10.7%), and industry (7.6%) are incident factors that promote wetlands effective loss affecting continental wetlands more than coastal and marine ones.” Ballut-Dajud et al., 2022
85 Founders Pledge, 2024 . For example, protecting coasts against agricultural expansion can lead agriculture to expand more inland.
86 Reis et al. (2017 )
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
