As the planet barrels toward 2°C of warming, every tonne of carbon saved or stored has never mattered more. The focus is often on distant rainforests or melting Arctic ice. But a new Belgian study brings the issue startlingly close to home: the landscapes we manage — forests, farms, grasslands — may be some of the most powerful climate tools we already have.
The study compares forest and non-forest ecosystems in Belgium, and delivers a clear message: forests are smart, stable and effective at removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
A Carbon Balancing Act
Using data from nine years of field research and modelling across Flanders and Wallonia, the authors quantified carbon sequestration and total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a range of land types: managed forests, pastures, arable farmland, and natural grasslands.
The results were stark. Forests removed an average of 5 to 9 tonnes of CO₂ per hectare per year, depending on management intensity. In contrast, agricultural lands were often net emitters — due primarily to fertiliser use and soil disturbance.
Even when accounting for methane and nitrous oxide — potent non-CO₂ greenhouse gases — forests remained strong net carbon sinks. Pastures and croplands, by contrast, showed a worrying trend: GHG emissions were not only positive but rising year-on-year, despite improvements in practices.
Why Forests Work
The study goes beyond simple comparisons. It dissects why forests outperform:
- Deep, undisturbed soils store carbon reliably over decades.
- Perennial vegetation captures carbon throughout the year.
- Low nitrogen input limits nitrous oxide emissions.
- High microbial stability supports long-term ecological function.
Interestingly, mixed or “semi-natural” forests — often dismissed as less valuable — performed nearly as well as old-growth stands in carbon terms. This suggests that reforestation and woodland restoration, even in previously farmed areas, can deliver climate benefits within a decade, not centuries.
The Hidden Cost of Agricultural Land
While forests got most of the praise, the real warning comes from non-forest land. Agricultural land — especially intensively farmed arable fields — were found to emit up to 2.5 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent per hectare annually, after accounting for all greenhouse gases.
Fertiliser use emerged as a major culprit. Nitrogen fertilisers, even when precisely applied, lead to nitrous oxide emissions, a gas nearly 300 times more potent than CO₂. Grasslands did better, particularly when grazed lightly and without chemical inputs, but still underperformed compared to forested land.
For a country like Belgium — with more than 40% of its surface devoted to agriculture — this presents a profound challenge. Climate policy cannot afford to treat rural land simply as food infrastructure; it must also be understood as part of the climate system.
What This Means for Europe — and Beyond
Belgium is not an outlier. Its landscapes and land-use choices are emblematic of much of temperate Europe and southern Canada. As net-zero deadlines approach, and carbon budgets tighten, the real-world implications of this study are clear:
- Reforestation and afforestation are essential, not optional.
- Agri-environment schemes must prioritise emissions, not just biodiversity.
- Land use should be treated as climate policy.
The study’s authors stop short of advocating wholesale land conversion, but they are unequivocal: in a warming world, forests deliver unmatched climate value. Even small parcels of woodland, when scaled nationally, can help tip the balance.
A Forest Future?
Policymakers across the EU have begun to recognise this. Under the Green Deal, the EU has committed to planting 3 billion trees by 2030. But real progress will require more than saplings — it will demand systemic land-use reform, fair incentives for landowners, and public recognition that the most powerful climate technology we have is not new. It’s centuries old, and rooted in soil.
In the end, the choice may be as much philosophical as political: Do we continue to treat land as an economic commodity, or do we begin to treat it as a partner in planetary healing?
Source
Global alternatives of natural vegetation cover, Nature Communications, 2025-07-16
Boˆreal 