A global review of methane policies reveals that only 13% of emissions are covered with unclear effectiveness

Abstract

Achieving the Paris Agreement 1.5°C target requires a reversal of the growing atmospheric concentrations of methane, which is about 80 times more potent than CO2 on a 20-year timescale. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report stated that methane is underregulated, but little is known about the effectiveness of existing methane policies. In this review, we systematically examine existing methane policies across the energy, waste, and agriculture sectors. We find that currently only about 13% of methane emissions are covered by methane mitigation policies. Moreover, the effectiveness of these policies is far from clear, mainly because methane emissions are largely calculated using potentially unrepresentative estimates instead of direct measurements. Coverage and stringency are two major blind spots in global methane policies. These findings suggest that significant and underexplored mitigation opportunities exist, but unlocking them requires policymakers to identify a consistent approach for accurate quantification of methane emission sources alongside greater policy stringency. Achieving the Paris Agreement 1.5°C target requires a reversal of the growing atmospheric concentrations of methane, which is about 80 times more potent than CO2 on a 20-year timescale. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report stated that methane is underregulated, but little is known about the effectiveness of existing methane policies. In this review, we systematically examine existing methane policies across the energy, waste, and agriculture sectors. We find that currently only about 13% of methane emissions are covered by methane mitigation policies. Moreover, the effectiveness of these policies is far from clear, mainly because methane emissions are largely calculated using potentially unrepresentative estimates instead of direct measurements. Coverage and stringency are two major blind spots in global methane policies. These findings suggest that significant and underexplored mitigation opportunities exist, but unlocking them requires policymakers to identify a consistent approach for accurate quantification of methane emission sources alongside greater policy stringency. The Paris Agreement 1.5°C objective cannot be met without reducing man-made methane emissions by at least 40%–45% by 2030 compared with the 2020 levels according to the Global Methane Assessment.1UNEPGlobal Methane Assessment: Benefits and Costs of Mitigating Methane Emissions. UNEP - UN Environment Programme, 2021http://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-methane-assessment-benefits-and-costs-mitigating-methane-emissionsGoogle Scholar The Assessment shows that mitigation of man-made methane emissions is one of the most cost-effective strategies to reduce the rate of warming, while also having a positive impact on air quality. The need for comprehensive CO2 and targeted non-CO2 mitigation strategies (e.g., addressing methane emissions) is highlighted by a growing body of literature because combating climate change necessitates tackling short-term (<2050) and long-term (>2050) warming.2Dreyfus G.B. Xu Y. Shindell D.T. Zaelke D. Ramanathan V. Mitigating climate disruption in time: a self-consistent approach for avoiding both near-term and long-term global warming.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2022; 119 (e2123536119)https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2123536119Crossref PubMed Scopus (16) Google Scholar But instead, methane emissions are increasing faster than at any time since the 1980s3Dlugokencky E.J. Trends in atmospheric methane: global CH4 monthly means.2022https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_ch4/Google Scholar,4Nisbet E.G. Manning M.R. Dlugokencky E.J. Fisher R.E. Lowry D. Michel S.E. Myhre C.L. Platt S.M. Allen G. Bousquet P. et al.Very strong atmospheric methane growth in the 4 Years 2014–2017: implications for the Paris agreement.Global Biogeochem. Cycles. 2019; 33: 318-342https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GB006009Crossref Scopus (263) Google Scholar While our understanding of the reasons behind this increase and the global methane budget5Basu S. Lan X. Dlugokencky E. Michel S. Schwietzke S. Miller J.B. Bruhwiler L. Oh Y. Tans P.P. Apadula F. et al.Estimating emissions of methane consistent with atmospheric measurements of methane and δ13C of methane.Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2022; 22: 15351-15377https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-15351-2022Crossref Scopus (4) Google Scholar is improving, significant uncertainties exist; e.g., regarding the contribution of processes such as wetlands and sinks6Lan X. Nisbet E.G. Dlugokencky E.J. Michel S.E. What do we know about the global methane budget? Results from four decades of atmospheric CH4 observations and the way forward.Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2021; 379: 20200440https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2020.0440Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar and fossil methane7Petrenko V.V. Smith A.M. Schaefer H. Riedel K. Brook E. Baggenstos D. Harth C. Hua Q. Buizert C. Schilt A. et al.Minimal geological methane emissions during the Younger Dryas-Preboreal abrupt warming event.Nature. 2017; 548: 443-446https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23316Crossref PubMed Scopus (62) Google Scholar,8Hmiel B. Petrenko V.V. Dyonisius M.N. Buizert C. Smith A.M. Place P.F. Harth C. Beaudette R. Hua Q. Yang B. et al.Preindustrial 14CH4 indicates greater anthropogenic fossil CH4 emissions.Nature. 2020; 578: 409-412https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-1991-8Crossref PubMed Scopus (139) Google Scholar,9Howarth R.W. Methane Emissions from the Production and Use of Natural Gas.2022Google Scholar sources. Man-made methane emissions originate from three sectors: agriculture (enteric fermentation, manure management, rice cultivation, and crop waste burning), fossil fuels (extraction, transport, and use), and waste (solid and liquid), with substantial regional variations. There are significant differences in mitigation potential across the sectors and regions, but full deployment of available mitigation measures would decrease projected 2030 methane emissions by half, with a quarter of cumulative emissions reduction at no net cost.10Ocko I.B. Sun T. Shindell D. Oppenheimer M. Hristov A.N. Pacala S.W. Mauzerall D.L. Xu Y. Hamburg S.P. Acting rapidly to deploy readily available methane mitigation measures by sector can immediately slow global warming.Environ. Res. Lett. 2021; 16: 054042https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf9c8Crossref Scopus (72) Google Scholar This change would prevent about 0.25°C of additional global-mean warming in 2050 and 0.5°C in 2100. It would require elimination of some sources and minimization of others; e.g., ending fossil fuel emissions, reducing biomass burning, improving landfills, and alternating cattle farming practice.11Nisbet E.G. Fisher R.E. Lowry D. France J.L. Allen G. Bakkaloglu S. Broderick T.J. Cain M. Coleman M. Fernandez J. et al.Methane mitigation: methods to reduce emissions, on the path to the Paris agreement.Rev. Geophys. 2020; 58 (e2019RG000675)https://doi.org/10.1029/2019rg000675Crossref Google Scholar Methane mitigation has moved from the shadow into the spotlight in 2021 because of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) and the launch of the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) at the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow (COP26).12IPCCSummary for Policymakers (IPCC).2021Google Scholar,13Climate & Clean Air CoalitionGlobal methane Pledge.2021https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/#aboutGoogle Scholar Although there is a strong case for methane mitigation, accurate emission identification, attribution, measurement and verification is challenging. Global, sectoral, and regional emission estimates remain uncertain, with substantial differences between ambient methane concentration measurements (top-down methods) and emission estimates from individual sources widely used in national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories (bottom-up) and between independent top-down inventories; e.g., inverse fluxes derived from different satellite observations.14Saunois M. Stavert A.R. Poulter B. Bousquet P. Canadell J.G. Jackson R.B. Raymond P.A. Dlugokencky E.J. Houweling S. Patra P.K. et al.The global methane budget 2000–2017.Earth Syst. Sci. Data. 2020; 12: 1561-1623https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-1561-2020Crossref Scopus (789) Google Scholar,15Janssens-Maenhout G. Crippa M. Guizzardi D. Muntean M. Schaaf E. Dentener F. Bergamaschi P. Pagliari V. Olivier J.G.J. Peters J.A.H.W. et al.EDGAR v4.3.2 Global Atlas of the three major greenhouse gas emissions for the period 1970–2012.Earth Syst. Sci. Data. 2019; 11: 959-1002https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-959-2019Crossref Scopus (267) Google Scholar,16Cusworth D.H. Bloom A.A. Ma S. Miller C.E. Bowman K. Yin Y. Maasakkers J.D. Zhang Y. Scarpelli T.R. Qu Z. et al.A Bayesian framework for deriving sector-based methane emissions from top-down fluxes.Commun. Earth Environ. 2021; 2: 242https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00312-6Crossref Scopus (8) Google Scholar While tackling methane emissions is critical to reduce the rate of global warming, surprisingly little is known about methane policies and their effectiveness. Until now, there has been no comprehensive review of global methane policies. In particular, the impact of methane policies ex post, instances of policies used in developing nations, and the interaction between (formal and informal) institutions and policies are topics that have not yet undergone a thorough assessment.17Dubash N.K. Mitchell C. Borbor-Cordova M.J. Fifita S. Haites E. Jaccard M. Jotzo F. Naidoo S. Romero-Lankao P. Shlapak M. et al.National and sub-national policies and institutions.in: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2022Google Scholar Because of the underreporting in official GHG inventories and the lack of publicly available and robust data, studies assessing policy impact are limited and, at times, offer diverging conclusions; e.g., whether the policies lead to a decline in methane emissions. The lack of robust methane data limits better design and evaluation of methane policies. In this review, we therefore explore the state of the art of methane policies to target the blind spots in our understanding and lay the foundation toward developing effective methane policies. By systematically examining existing methane policies and carrying out a further investigation on existing literature that has explored the effectiveness of methane polices, we found that, despite political declarations (e.g., nationally determined contributions [NDCs]), methane emission reduction remains a largely underexplored opportunity. Only ∼13% (minimum [min.] 10%, maximum [max.] 17%) of global methane emissions are covered by direct methane mitigation policies, while limited policy stringency and reliance on inaccurate emission estimates remain barriers to effective policy. These findings suggest that a consistent approach for accurate identification, quantification, and verification of methane emission sources alongside greater policy coverage and stringency (e.g. measurable objectives and enforcement) must be put into place to realize significant methane emission reduction opportunities. The starting point of our analysis was identification of relevant policy instruments and creation of the global methane policy database comprising 666 policies. After the initial screening, the number of policies was reduced to 281. Then, the content of policy instruments currently in force (n = 255) was examined to provide further details: (1) the policy aim (emission monitoring or mitigation), (2) policy instrument type and subtype, (3) scope of policies (type of emissions, facility, and part of the supply chain covered), and (4) comparison of policy coverage with methane emissions by region and by country (supplemental information, points 1 and 2). We define methane policies as actions by governments explicitly aiming to monitor, prevent, or reduce methane emissions from man-made sources. Policies that do not explicitly regulate methane emissions but have material impact on methane emission reduction (e.g., landfill regulations) are also included. On the contrary, policies whose impact on methane emissions is not immediate and material (e.g., land use change) are out of the scope of this analysis. Moreover, the GMP was not included because of its collective nature. Governments use various tools (policy instruments) to purse their policies. However, because the difference between “policy” and “policy instrument” is subtle, those terms will be used interchangeably. While different taxonomies of methane policy instruments exist,18IEADriving Down Methane Leaks from the Oil and Gas Industry – Analysis.2021Google Scholar,19Mohlin K. Lackner M. Nguyen H. Wolfe A. Policy instrument options for addressing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.SSRN Journal. 2022; https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4136535Crossref Google Scholar this study classifies methane policy instruments into four categories: regulatory, economic, information, and complementary (Table 1).Table 1Classification of methane policy instrumentsInstrumentAgricultureWasteEnergyRegulatoryanimal waste utilization, inducing new technologies and change in farming practices (e.g., to minimize agricultural residue burning), target settingsolid waste management regulations,landfill gas management, liquid waste management, target settingflaring and venting regulations, leak detection and repair (LDAR) regulations, coalbed methane (CBM) ownership and utilization, coal mine methane (CMM) capture, recovery, and utilization, ventilation air methane (VAM) regulations, facility abandonmentEconomicEmissions Trading System (ETS), offset credits, taxes and charges, fiscal and financial incentives, incentives for price-regulated entitiesInformationmeasurement, reporting, and verification (MRV), technical guidance, certification system, awareness-raising measuresComplementaryvoluntary programs, research and development (R&D) subsidies, green public procurement Open table in a new tab Through regulatory instruments, a policymaker mandates adoption of technologies and operational processes (prescriptive or command-and-control regulation) or specifies the outcomes (e.g., source-level or facility-level emission standards), leaving the choice of the compliance method to the operator (performance based or outcomes based).18IEADriving Down Methane Leaks from the Oil and Gas Industry – Analysis.2021Google Scholar In the case of performance-based regulations, the level of flexibility depends on whether it introduces an emission level or an emission rate obligation; e.g., emissions per unit of output or input.20US EPAChapter 4: regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to pollution control.in: Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. 2010Google Scholar A standard specifying an emission level is usually more flexible because it can be met by a change in input mix or reducing the output. A clear distinction is not always possible because methane policies usually combine prescriptive and performance-based standards, imposing obligations at a component, facility, operator, or industry level. Hence, in this study, regulations are further categorized based on the type of emissions or behavioral change they are targeting. Methane regulations are common in the energy sector, especially with regard to flaring and venting, but significant differences in the regulatory approaches exist. While some jurisdictions concentrate on restricting the volume and situations when flaring and venting is allowed by introducing flaring and venting permits (e.g., Texas and Utah) or imposing restrictions/bans on routine flaring and venting (e.g., Colorado and New Mexico), others promote use of the associated gas; e.g., by setting associated gas use targets (e.g., Russia). More recently, jurisdictions have started to combine flaring and venting regulations with provisions mandating the operators to find and fix methane leaks through regular leak detection and repair programs (e.g., US, Canada, and Mexico). Some jurisdictions have introduced regulations specifying the operators’ obligations in relation to facility abandonment (e.g., Argentina and Alberta) and others on creating comprehensive remediation programs (e.g., Colorado’s Orphaned Well Program funded by oil and gas operators). The regulations adopted in China to reduce emissions in the coal sector mandate higher coal mine methane (CMM)/coalbed methane (CBM) capture, recovery, and use; e.g., through installation of CMM drainage systems and preferential treatment of CMM power generation projects. In the waste sector, the regulations focus primarily on landfills and landfill gas management (e.g., European Union [EU], Washington, British Columbia), introducing new monitoring and mitigation requirements for active and closed landfills (e.g., Oregon). There is a growing number of food waste regulations affecting methane emissions, especially in Europe (e.g., France and Italy) and parts of Asia-Pacific; e.g., South Korea introduced a ban on direct landfilling of food waste. In the agricultural sector, the regulations mandate better management and higher rates of animal waste (manure) utilization (South Korea and China) or incentivize biogas/biomethane production (e.g., Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, and China). Regulations can also play a role in inducing new technologies and changing farming practices (e.g., by endorsing the system of rice intensification in Vietnam), while the Indian government introduced a series of regulations to minimize agricultural residue burning. Economic instruments—emission trading systems (ETS), offset credits, taxes and charges, fiscal and financial incentives, and incentives for price-regulated entities—incentivize the private sector to include pollution abatement into their investment decisions.20US EPAChapter 4: regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to pollution control.in: Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. 2010Google Scholar An ETS limits an aggregate emission level, allowing polluters facing higher abatement costs to purchase allowances from those with lower marginal abatement costs.20US EPAChapter 4: regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to pollution control.in: Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. 2010Google Scholar Methane emissions are covered under seven domestic ETSs: four operating at subnational level (California [US], Chongqing province [China], Quebec [Canada], and Nova Scotia [Canada]) and three at the national level (New Zealand, South Korea, and Switzerland). Most systems include methane from energy and industrial processes, while South Korea and New Zealand also include emissions from the waste sector. Some ETSs include offset schemes allowing generation of transferrable instruments (credits) representing a reduction of emissions by given quantity (e.g., 1 metric ton) and are certified by a government or an independent certification body (e.g., in California’s and Quebec’s cap-and-trade system). An offset scheme can constitute a separate system (e.g., the Emissions Reduction Fund in Australia). Taxes and charges are specific payments for every unit of GHG, or methane specifically, released into the atmosphere. When a tax is established, the polluter weighs the cost of reducing emissions against the cost of emitting and paying the tax; as a result, the polluter is likely to implement only abatement measures that are cheaper than paying the tax. Hence, in contrast to ETSs, taxes specify the effective price of polluting but do not ensure a particular level of emissions.21Gupta S. Tirpak D.A. Burger N. Gupta J. Höhne N. Boncheva A.I. Kanoan G.M. Kolstad C. Kruger J.A. Michaelowa A. et al.Chapter 13: policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements.in: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, 2007Google Scholar Taxes are widely used in the waste sector; e.g., 23 of 27 EU member states introduced a landfill tax with a tax rate ranging from 5–100 €/ton.22CEWEPOverview of Landfill Taxes and Restrictions. Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants, 2021Google Scholar In late 2022, the government of New Zealand proposed a tax on livestock emissions of methane and nitrous oxide.23Corlett E. Nineteen Years after the ‘fart Tax’, New Zealand’s Farmers Are Fighting Emissions. The Guardian, 2022Google Scholar Governments also encourage emission reduction through fiscal and financial incentives, such as environmental subsidies, grants and loans, and fiscal incentives (royalty waivers and tax deductions). For instance, government-backed loans and more broadly improved access to credit and financing are key incentives the Brazilian Low-Carbon Agriculture Plan ABC Plan (2010–2020) and Plan for Adaptation and Low CarbonEmission in Agriculture (ABC+) Plan (2020–2030), promoting sustainable agriculture through, e.g., improved manure management.24MAPABrazilian Agricultural Policy for Climate Adaptation and Low Carbon 2020-2030 Execuive Summary (Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Food Supply).2022Google Scholar The last subcategory of economic instruments consists of incentives for price-regulated entities designed for specific groups of network operators that are active in the transmission and distribution parts of the gas supply chain, where revenue is subject to the national regulators’ decision. Examples of these instruments include the shrinkage incentive (with premiums for exceeding targets for reduction of gas lost in the gas network because of leakage, own use of gas, and theft of gas) and the Environmental Emissions Incentive (EEI) with additional payments for reducing methane emissions below their leakage targets, adopted in the UK.25Le Fevre C. Methane Emissions: From Blind Spot to Spotlight. Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, 2017https://doi.org/10.26889/9781784670887Crossref Google Scholar Information instruments improve awareness of emission and mitigation options among different stakeholders, including companies, consumers, and the general public. Examples of information instruments include measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV), technical guidance, public certification systems, and awareness-raising measures. An MRV system introduces transparent and consistent rules for monitoring, reporting, and verification of emissions. It potentially results in a greater understanding of emission sources and trends, allows tracking progress on emissions mitigation, and ensures greater credibility of regulatory and economic policy instruments. Dissemination of technical information through guidance documents is an example of information instruments aimed at setting standards and reducing the asymmetry of awareness among polluting companies. Technical guidance documents provide information on key emission sources, available emission quantification methodologies, and mitigation practices; e.g., the best available technologies for reducing emissions. Certification systems provide additional information concerning the emission footprint of a given product, which is independently verified, allowing consumers to make informed decisions. While there has been a substantial increase in private certification systems, there are also examples of schemes supported or developed in cooperation with public institutions; e.g., the Carbon-Neutral Brazilian Beef certification launched by the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) and Marfrig to differentiate Brazilian meat in domestic and export markets.26Lucchese-Cheung T. de Aguiar L.K. Lima L.C.d. Spers E.E. Quevedo-Silva F. Alves F.V. Giolo de Almeida R. Brazilian carbon neutral beef as an innovative product: consumption perspectives based on intentions’ framework.J. Food Prod. Market. 2022; 27: 384-398Crossref Scopus (3) Google Scholar Moreover, awareness-raising measures are used to support regulations in the waste sector; e.g., solid waste management rules in India. Regulatory, economic, and information instruments can be complemented by voluntary programs, research and development (R&D) subsidies, and public procurement. Voluntary programs usually take the form of voluntary agreements or private-public programs. The former is a result of negotiations between governments and industrial sectors that commit to achievement of specific goals. For instance, Dutch offshore oil and gas producers pledged to halve methane emissions in the period of 2019–2020 (reductions from 8,562 tons of methane per year in 2017 to 4,281 tons of methane by the end of 2020) based on a covenant signed by the Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy.27Mach10Offshore Methane Reduction Covenant 2019 - 2020 (Machinery Advice and Consultancy Hardeveld 2010).2021Google Scholar Another example is a letter of intent signed by the Norwegian government with agricultural organizations to reduce emissions and increase carbon uptake by a total of 5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2eq) between 2021 and 2030.28Ministry of Climate and EnvironmentNorway’s Comprehensive Climate Action Plan.2021https://www.regjeringen.no/en/historical-archive/solbergs-government/Ministries/kld/news/2021/heilskapeleg-plan-for-a-na-klimamalet/id2827600/Google Scholar Public voluntary programs involve a government regulator developing programs in which industry and firms may choose to participate on a voluntary basis. In some cases, voluntary programs help regulators gain insights ahead of implementation of regulatory standards; e.g., the proposed EU methane regulation builds on the voluntary Oil & Gas Methane Partnership 2.0 (OGMP2.0) reporting standard. Another complementary instrument is R&D subsidies, targeted funding for development of detection, quantification, and mitigation technologies, stimulating technology innovation and creation of markets for new technologies. In some cases, dedicated institutions are set up to administer such programs; e.g. the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa). Although the choice of a specific policy instrument is an important decision in policymaking, a distinction should be made between effective policy formation and how effectively policies are implemented (putting new rules into practice) and enforced (ensuring that policy violators are brought back into compliance via supportive or punishing actions).29Hawke N. Environmental Policy: Implementation and Enforcement.2017https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315188157Crossref Scopus (2) Google Scholar Implementation and enforcement of a well-designed regulation require broad and constant political commitment, an institutional capacity, independent verification, and the commitment of regulated entities to follow the rules, which may be hampered by a number of factors, including corruption. Hence, the effectiveness of the same policy instrument may be different depending on its design and stringency but also whether and how it is implemented and enforced and whether it leads to any unintended policy consequences. Before discussing these issues, the next section presents the major advancements in methane policies. 281 policies directly aimed at reducing methane adopted or expected to be adopted between 1974 and 2024 were included in the database (supplemental information). The database comprises policies adopted at international, regional (EU), national, and subnational levels. Almost half of them (n = 138 or 49%) target methane emissions arising from fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), where 42% (n = 117) of policies target biogenic methane originating from the agriculture and waste sectors. The remaining 9% (n = 26) cover fossil and biogenic methane emissions. 255 are currently in force; the remaining 26 policies include terminated policies (10), revoked policies (10), and six policies that have been proposed but are not yet finalized; e.g., the proposed EU methane regulation. 70% of revoked policies targeted emissions in the oil and gas sector, while economic instruments were the most frequently revoked, accounting for half of all repealed policies. Ninety percent of identified national policies have been adopted in three regions: North America (39%), Europe (30%), and Asia-Pacific (21%) (Figure 1). This contrasts with limited policy developments in Central and South America, Africa, the Middle East, Russia, and Central Asia accounting for the remaining 10%. In some regions (e.g., North America), policy adoption is driven by developments at the subnational level (US states and Canadian provinces), in contrast to other regions, where national and regional (EU) policies prevail. The Global Methane Initiative and the Kyoto Protocol’s market-based instruments Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation have been identified as the only policy instruments adopted at the international level, but the role of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) role has diminished since 2011.30Talkington C. Pilcher R.C. Ruiz F.A. Addressing barriers to global deployment of best practices to reduce methane emissions from coal mines.Carbon Manag. 2014; 5: 587-594https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2015.1058144Crossref Scopus (3) Google Scholar These findings suggest that new regional and national policies are necessary to unlock methane mitigation opportunities in Russia and Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Central and South America, and parts of Asia-Pacific. This is important because of the contribution of those regions to methane emissions globally (∼80% vs. 20% share of North America and Europe),31Worden