Browse by sub-sector
Open all 209 in the libraryClimate Change Mitigation
Reducing or avoiding greenhouse gas emissions through energy, transport, industry, forestry, and land-use action, measured against recognized inventory and accounting methods.
Output
Goal
Climate Change Adaptation
Reducing vulnerability and building adaptive capacity and resilience to climate hazards across households, communities, systems, and institutions.
Output
Goal
Environmental Management
Pollution control, waste and water management, environmental governance and compliance, and sustainable management of natural resources and land.
Output
Goal
Ecosystem & Biodiversity Conservation
Protected areas, habitat restoration, species and habitat status, and conservation of forests, wetlands, and other ecosystems.
Output
Outcome
Disaster Risk Reduction
Reducing disaster risk and exposure through early warning, preparedness, risk-informed planning, and resilient infrastructure, aligned to the Sendai Framework.
Output
Goal
Other Environment & Climate sub-sectors
Smaller measurement areas in Environment & Climate, with a sample indicator from each.
Methods by outcome type
Match the method to the outcome, not to what is easiest to collect.
| Outcome type | Primary method | Observation | Key instruments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation | Emissions inventory or project accounting against recognized methods | Activity data plus emission factors; not directly observable as a program effect | IPCC National GHG Inventory Guidelines, GHG Protocol, UNFCCC Enhanced Transparency Framework reporting |
| Adaptation and resilience | Mixed-methods assessment of adaptive capacity and vulnerability over time | Survey and qualitative measures; resilience is a latent construct, not directly observable | UNFCCC adaptation reporting, GIZ and IISD adaptation M&E approaches, vulnerability and capacity assessments |
| Ecosystem and biodiversity status | Ecological survey, species and habitat monitoring against established indices | Field survey or remote sensing required; trends interpreted against counterfactual where possible | IUCN Red List and Red List Index, CBD Global Biodiversity Framework monitoring indicators, Ramsar wetland assessment |
| Land and resource condition | Land cover and land condition monitoring, often remote sensing plus ground truthing | Satellite-derived metrics validated against field observation | UNCCD Land Degradation Neutrality indicators, Global Forest Watch, SDG 15.3.1 land degradation |
| Hazard exposure and risk reduction | Hazard, exposure, and loss tracking against the disaster risk reduction framework | Loss and damage records and exposure mapping; baselines required | Sendai Framework monitor indicators, SDG 13.1.1 and 1.5.1 disaster loss |
| Behavior and practice adoption | Structured survey and verification of management practices | Observation or verification preferred over self-report for practice adoption | Household and producer surveys, area-under-improved-management verification |
Common evaluation questions
The questions that anchor design and data-collection decisions, grouped by cluster.
Climate Change Mitigation
Did the program reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions relative to a credible baseline?
Evidence: Emissions estimated with IPCC inventory guidelines or GHG Protocol against a defined baseline scenario, with the method and boundaries stated. Design: Outcome evaluation with counterfactual or baseline-and-monitoring.
Were the emission reductions estimated with a transparent, recognized accounting method?
Evidence: Documented activity data, emission factors, and boundaries consistent with IPCC or GHG Protocol guidance. Design: Methods and data quality review.
Climate Change Adaptation
Did the program increase the adaptive capacity or resilience of the target population?
Evidence: Mixed-methods measurement of adaptive capacity and vulnerability at baseline and endline, defining the construct explicitly. Design: Outcome evaluation, before-and-after with comparison where feasible.
Are adaptation measures still functioning and used after support ends?
Evidence: Follow-up assessment of continued use and maintenance of adaptation measures. Design: Sustainability / ex-post evaluation.
Environmental Management
Did the program improve environmental management practices and compliance at the targeted sites?
Evidence: Verification of management practices and compliance against the applicable standard or regulation over time. Design: Implementation evaluation, before-and-after.
Was the intended area brought under improved or sustainable management?
Evidence: Verified area under improved management triangulated with monitoring records, not self-report alone. Design: Outcome evaluation.
Ecosystem & Biodiversity Conservation
Did conservation action change ecosystem or species status relative to what would otherwise have occurred?
Evidence: Species and habitat monitoring against established indices (such as the Red List Index) with a counterfactual or control sites where feasible. Design: Outcome evaluation with comparison.
Is the protected or restored area being maintained and effectively managed?
Evidence: Repeat management effectiveness assessment and habitat monitoring at follow-up. Design: Sustainability / ex-post evaluation.
Disaster Risk Reduction
Did the program reduce disaster risk, exposure, or loss for the target population?
Evidence: Hazard, exposure, and loss tracking against Sendai Framework monitor indicators with a defined baseline. Design: Outcome evaluation, before-and-after.
Were early warning and preparedness measures implemented with the intended coverage and fidelity?
Evidence: Coverage and functionality checks of early warning and preparedness measures against the program protocol. Design: Implementation evaluation.
The standards that matter
Environment and climate M&E draws on distinct standards by outcome type, and credibility depends on naming the method, not just the number. For mitigation, use the IPCC National GHG Inventory Guidelines and the GHG Protocol, and report consistent with the UNFCCC Enhanced Transparency Framework. For biodiversity and ecosystems, anchor to the CBD Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the IUCN Red List, and the Ramsar Convention. For land, use UNCCD Land Degradation Neutrality indicators and Global Forest Watch. For disaster risk, align to the Sendai Framework, and use SDG 13 and SDG 15 indicators for global comparability.
UNFCCC Enhanced Transparency Framework ↗
Paris Agreement (Article 13) reporting framework for greenhouse gas inventories, NDC progress, and support, via biennial transparency reports.
IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories ↗
The recognized methodology for estimating national and sector greenhouse gas emissions and removals using activity data and emission factors.
IPCC Assessment Reports ↗
The United Nations scientific assessments of climate change used for impact-level context and risk framing, not program attribution.
GHG Protocol ↗
The most widely used greenhouse gas accounting and reporting standards for organizations, projects, and the land sector.
CBD Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework ↗
Convention on Biological Diversity framework with goals, targets, and monitoring indicators for biodiversity outcomes.
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species ↗
Authoritative assessment of species extinction risk; the Red List Index is the standard measure of biodiversity status trends.
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands ↗
International framework for the conservation and wise use of wetlands, with assessment guidance for wetland sites.
UNCCD Land Degradation Neutrality ↗
Convention to Combat Desertification framework and indicators for monitoring land cover, productivity, and soil carbon.
Global Forest Watch ↗
Open platform for forest change monitoring using satellite data, deforestation alerts, and land cover datasets.
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction ↗
The global framework and monitor indicators for measuring disaster risk, exposure, and loss reduction.
SDG 13 and SDG 15 Indicators ↗
United Nations global indicators for climate action (SDG 13) and life on land (SDG 15), used for comparability across countries.
Common mistakes to avoid
Reporting emission reductions without naming the accounting method
A tonnes-of-CO2 figure is not credible on its own. IPCC inventory guidelines and the GHG Protocol expect the activity data, emission factors, boundaries, and baseline scenario to be stated.
Claiming biodiversity impact without a recognized monitoring method or counterfactual
Species and habitat outcomes are attribution-hard. IUCN Red List and CBD monitoring guidance expect status to be measured against established indices, with comparison sites where feasible, not asserted from activity counts.
Treating area placed under a program as area under improved management
UNCCD and SDG 15 land indicators distinguish coverage from verified condition. Area under improved management should be verified against the standard, not inferred from enrollment.
Using non-standard indicator wording for global commitments
Reworded climate, biodiversity, or disaster indicators break comparability. Use SDG 13 and SDG 15, Sendai Framework monitor, or CBD framework indicator definitions verbatim where the program reports against them.
Measuring adaptation as activities delivered rather than resilience or capacity
UNFCCC adaptation and adaptation M&E approaches (such as GIZ and IISD guidance) expect adaptive capacity or vulnerability to be defined and measured, not substituted with output counts.
Reporting disaster losses without baselines or Sendai indicator definitions
The Sendai Framework monitor specifies how deaths, affected persons, and economic loss are defined and counted. Loss figures without those definitions and a baseline are not comparable.
Frequently asked questions
How should I report greenhouse gas emission reductions in a proposal or evaluation?
Frame them as measurement against a recognized method, not as a standalone claim. Use the IPCC National GHG Inventory Guidelines or the GHG Protocol, state the activity data, emission factors, system boundaries, and the baseline scenario, and report consistent with the UNFCCC Enhanced Transparency Framework where relevant. The credibility of any tonnes-of-CO2 figure rests on the method and counterfactual behind it.
Can I attribute a change in species or ecosystem status to my program?
Be cautious. Biodiversity outcomes are attribution-hard and driven by many factors. Measure status against established methods such as the IUCN Red List Index or CBD framework monitoring indicators, use comparison or control sites where feasible, and report the measured trend with its method rather than asserting program impact. Distinguish what you monitored from what you can credibly attribute.
Which indicators give me comparability across countries and donors?
Use the SDG indicators (SDG 13 for climate action, SDG 15 for life on land), Sendai Framework monitor indicators for disaster risk, and CBD Global Biodiversity Framework indicators for biodiversity. For emissions, align to IPCC inventory categories and the GHG Protocol. Using these definitions verbatim lets your figures reconcile with national and global reporting.
How do I measure adaptation when resilience is not directly observable?
Define the construct first. Resilience and adaptive capacity are latent, so specify what you mean (for example, exposure, sensitivity, and capacity) and measure it with mixed methods at baseline and endline. UNFCCC adaptation reporting and adaptation M&E approaches such as GIZ and IISD guidance describe how to combine quantitative and qualitative measures rather than relying on activity counts.
When should I use remote sensing versus field monitoring for land and forest change?
Use both for what each does well. Platforms like Global Forest Watch and the SDG 15.3.1 land degradation methodology provide consistent satellite-derived metrics over large areas and time. Field monitoring validates and interprets those metrics on the ground. Many environment M&E plans monitor change through remote sensing and ground-truth it with periodic field assessment.