Monitoring matters – transparency makes land sector climate action effective

Everything goes in land monitoring: technologies, tools, transparency?

An unprecedent amount of data is currently generated globally and available for assessing how land use and land management change over time and what the implications for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals are. It is accompanied by the development of tools for data analysis for specific purposes, like GHG reporting. There are unmistakable signs that the scientific community working on the land sector has entered a ‘golden era’ of data.

For example, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Earth Observation Mission counts 14 operational satellites, 42 under development, and 19 in an early preparation phase. The Sentinel 2 satellites alone produce 1.5 terabytes of data every day. Temporal and spatial resolution of land-related data has been also increasing massively, allowing to track land management in great detail.

At the same time data policies advocating for full, free, and open-access satellite data are now becoming more widespread. New companies are increasingly contributing to Earth observation. Their satellites complement public sector missions, expanding coverage and capabilities.

This data richness can serve as a solid foundation for generating high-quality products and services for tracking carbon stock changes. However, while private sector initiatives enhance data availability and diversity, free access is not necessarily guaranteed.

Moreover, this large amount of information is also leading to confusion, competing definitions and misinterpretation. Since users rely on access to a diversity of interoperable approaches, datasets and initiatives, identifying the elements that contribute to greater transparency in monitoring are needed to detect, anticipate and resolve potential discrepancies and conflicts.

Transparency is relevant for climate policy.

Transparency regarding climate targets and progress in implementing them is one of the core principles of the Paris Agreement. The Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) for action and support was crafted to strengthen accountability among Parties and promote trust in climate targets and the actions taken to achieve them. Transparency under the Paris Agreement is also key for enhancing the ambition of climate targets over time.

For this framework to come to life, all Parties must regularly report information on GHG emissions and removals. Likewise, the quality of the information they provide matters; for example, it must be comparable and complete, otherwise it is unlikely that transparency will effectively contribute to improving climate action and ambition.

Criteria for identifying transparent monitoring approaches.

The Transparent Monitoring project identified a set of criteria designed to overcome challenges and strengthen the effectiveness of land sector GHG monitoring. These expand on the well-established monitoring principles under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to ensure monitoring systems are not only technically rigorous but also equitable, scalable, and able to foster collaboration across diverse stakeholders. The so-called TACCC principles are transparency, accuracy, consistency, completeness, and comparability.

Case studies illustrate successful implementation of transparent monitoring approaches.

The project summarises results from the application of transparent monitoring approaches in various case studies carried out in four countries: Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Papua New Guinea, and Peru. The transparent monitoring approaches presented there address specific needs identified by the countries, ranging from technical work on emission factors to improving community monitoring.

• Côte d’Ivoire is the largest producer of cocoa in the world but lacked a trusted data source for assessing the extent of cocoa plantations in the country and the related land-use change. A case study showed that the facilitation of discussions between government, private sector and civil society stakeholders helped to understand the implications of the EU Regulation on deforestation-free products by highlighting both how stakeholders may be affected by the regulation, but also how they could contribute to its compliance. Maps were made accessible in a dedicated interactive Transparent Monitoring platform, where users can compare them and identify agreement and contradictions. Where possible, maps are provided with meta-data describing their development and limitations.
• Ethiopia’s government has the ambition to start assessing the drivers of forest loss, thus contributing to improving information on national land-use change as well as REDD+ monitoring (international forest and climate protection programme on Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries) and reporting. A national-scale map of drivers of land-use changes in Ethiopia was therefore produced. Post-deforestation and deforestation drivers were identified in a collaborative process with local stakeholders. By employing a deep learning model to track drivers, information from the Ethiopian Forest Inventory and existing monitoring efforts was used.
• Ethiopia also demonstrated the role of participatory monitoring around restoration activities. The Ethiopian government places strong emphasis on restoring degraded lands and increasing forest cover. Research was conducted to understand how community participation in reporting data from restoration activities could be improved. The work considered communities’ perceptions, motivations and the potential costs and benefits associated with community-level reporting. Case study results allowed the development of recommendations for government stakeholders, on how to improve community participation in monitoring restoration activities and on how participatory monitoring can support Ethiopia's national forest monitoring system.
• Ethiopia is an active REDD+ country and is expecting results-based payments through several channels. To be eligible, Ethiopia needs to establish a Safeguards Information System. However, little is known around stakeholder capacity and the challenges faced by those involved in data generation and administration of such a system in Ethiopia. A case study identified and assessed perceptions, knowledge, capacity, and challenges faced by stakeholders involved in the generation, administration, and use of safeguard information in Ethiopia, at different levels of government.
• In recent years, Peru has seen an increase in palm oil plantations established in degraded secondary forests. In part, this has been promoted by industry stakeholders and the government to prevent encroachment of palm oil into primary forest. However, the impact of this conversion on GHG emissions has only been estimated using default emission factors, and Peru lacked country-specific emission factors. To accurately quantify changes in soil and biomass carbon stocks, and the fluxes of greenhouse gases resulting from the conversion of already degraded forest to oil palm plantations in the Peruvian Amazon, field studies and surveys were conducted. Case study results will help Peru improve the quality of its GHG inventory. The method can also be replicated by other countries with similar challenges.
• Peru has also implemented a unique programme of incentive payments to Indigenous communities for forest protection in the Amazon rainforest. Payments are conditional on communities maintaining the forest in their territory and carrying out specific activities, like forest patrolling. In one case study, the social impacts and community perceptions of this incentive mechanism were evaluated through interviews with communities, government officials, NGOs and Indigenous federations. Findings show that community members generally adopted the mechanism and see value in forest patrolling but struggle with reporting requirements and benefit distribution. Recommendations point to strategies that address the need for administrative support, data sharing, proactive inclusion strategies, and monitoring and evaluation that includes gender indicators.
• Peru established an alert-driven community-based monitoring programme. Satellite-based alerts of deforestation events are communicated to communities, which then carry out on-the-ground verification. The system was paper based, which led to delays in data collection and often ambiguity in the collected data regarding the causes of deforestation events. In another case study, transition to mobile-based monitoring for digital data collection and a system for data storage and data analysis procedures was supported. The new system has significantly reduced the time required to verify satellite-based deforestation alerts. Transparency was improved by using open-source data collection and analysis services and applying FAIR principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability.
• In Papua New Guinea, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) own 97 per cent of the land and play a critical role in biodiversity conservation through their customary land management practices. However, their engagement in any formal nature conservation, climate mitigation and adaptation efforts remains limited due to poor consultation, unresolved land rights issues, insufficient capacity and weak legal protections. A case study evaluated the impacts of different institutional arrangements and large project activities in relation to IPLC participation. One critical lesson is the importance of strong institutional frameworks and transparent governance to build trust among stakeholders. Although Papua New Guinea has been one of the leaders of the international negotiation and has undertaken many specific actions at national level, institutional arrangements remain insufficient and political influence on them is too prevalent.

Conclusion.

Transparent monitoring approaches are not merely a technical requirement but a powerful enabler of meaningful climate action. By addressing existing challenges and building on the successes outlined in this report, countries can establish monitoring systems that drive transformative change. The path forward requires commitment, collaboration, and innovation, but the outcome will be more effective land sector policies, with benefits including enhanced resilience and contributing to containing climate change.

This blogpost was written by Dr. Hannes Böttcher, Anke Benndorf, Cristina Urrutia, and Christopher Martius.

Further Information

Homepage on Transparent Monitoring