A protocol for analysing the effects on health and greenhouse gas emissions of implemented climate change mitigation actions.

Background: It is crucial to understand the benefits to human health from decarbonisation to galvanise action among decision makers. Most of our existing evidence comes from modelling studies and little is known about the extent to which the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation actions are realised upon implementation. We aim to analyse evidence from mitigation actions that have been implemented across a range of sectors and scales, to identify those that can improve and sustain health, while accelerating progress towards a zero-carbon economy.Objectives: To understand the implementation process of actions and the role of key actors; explain the contextual elements influencing these actions; summarise what effects, both positive and negative, planned and unplanned they may have on emissions of greenhouse gases and health; and to summarise environmental, social, or economic co-benefits.Data: We will review evidence collected through partnership with existing data holders and an open call for evidence. We will also conduct a hand search of reference lists from systematic reviews and websites of organisations relevant to climate change mitigation.Screening: Screening will be done by two reviewers according to a pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria.Analysis: We will identify gaps where implementation or evaluation of implementation of mitigation actions is lacking. We will synthesise the findings to describe how actions were implemented and how they achieved results in different contexts, identifying potential barriers and facilitators to their design, implementation, and uptake. We will also synthesise their effect on health outcomes and other co-benefits. Quantitative synthesis will depend on the heterogeneity of outcomes and metrics.Conclusions: Findings will be used to identify lessons that can be learned from successful and unsuccessful mitigation actions, to make inferences on replicability, scalability, and transferability and will contribute to the development of frameworks that can be used by policy makers.

Background: It is crucial to understand the benefits to human health from decarbonisation to galvanise action among decision makers. Most of our existing evidence comes from modelling studies and little is known about the extent to which the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation actions are realised upon implementation. We aim to analyse evidence from mitigation actions that have been implemented across a range of sectors and scales, to identify those that can improve and sustain health, while accelerating progress towards a zero-carbon economy. Objectives: To understand the implementation process of actions and the role of key actors; explain the contextual elements influencing these actions; summarise what effects, both positive and negative, planned and unplanned they may have on emissions of greenhouse gases and health; and to summarise environmental, social, or economic co-benefits. Data: We will review evidence collected through partnership with existing data holders and an open call for evidence. We will also conduct a hand search of reference lists from systematic reviews and websites of organisations relevant to climate change mitigation. Screening: Screening will be done by two reviewers according to a pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Analysis: We will identify gaps where implementation or evaluation of implementation of mitigation actions is lacking. We will synthesise the findings to describe how actions were implemented and how they achieved results in different contexts, identifying potential barriers and facilitators to their design, implementation, and uptake. We will also synthesise their effect on health outcomes and other co-benefits. Quantitative synthesis will depend on the heterogeneity of outcomes and metrics. Conclusions: Findings will be used to identify lessons that can be learned from successful and unsuccessful mitigation actions, to make inferences on replicability, scalability, and transferability and will contribute to the development of frameworks that can be used by policy makers.

Urban planning policy must do more to integrate climate change adaptation and mitigation actions

This article presents and discusses the main findings of a study focusing on climate change mitigation actions (MAs) in Brazil. Brazilian government presented to the 15th Conference of the Parties of the Climate Change Convention held in Copenhagen in 2009 (UNFCCC COP15) voluntary mitigation goals: a reduction in between 36.1 and 38.9% of the country's green house gases (GHG) emissions projected to 2020. If Brazil meets its voluntary goals, its GHG emissions in 2020 will be 6–10% lower than in 2005. The main research question addressed in this study is what conditions should Brazil meet to achieve its pledge? It discusses how MAs are approached, conceptualized and planned in Brazil. It describes how the country identifies MAs and the contextual framework used to define them. It also maps the initiatives underway in the country, and analyses the issues faced for its successful implementation, as well as for future approaches. The main conclusion is that Brazil seems to be in a good position to meet its voluntary mitigation goals up to 2020, as avoiding deforestation will take up the bulk of the emission reduction. After 2020, Brazil will face a new challenge: combine economic development with low GHG energy-related emissions.

In 2021, Zimbabwe updated its Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction target from a 33% reduction in per capita energy sector GHG emissions to a 40% reduction from all sectors, compared to 2030 baseline emission scenarios. This work aims to demonstrate how the actions identified in Zimbabwe's Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) can achieve this updated target, and what development benefits could occur in Zimbabwe through the implementation of these actions. The magnitude of GHG emissions in Zimbabwe are modelled historically and to 2030 to quantify GHG emission reduction potentials, and contributions to selected sustainable development goal targets, from implementation of 28 mitigation measures. The estimated ∼37 million tonnes CO2-equivalent emissions emitted by Zimbabwe in 2017 are projected to increase by 109% to ∼77 million tonnes without implementation of any mitigation measures. The mitigation measures included in the updated NDC could reduce GHG emissions by 40% in 2030 compared to the baseline, while additional measures included in other plans and strategies in Zimbabwe could achieve a further 23% reduction. Implementing Zimbabwe's NDC could also lead to substantial development benefits locally, including to public health, biodiversity, and sustainable energy use. This assessment therefore provides a clear pathway to achieve Zimbabwe's updated climate change mitigation commitment, as the target is linked to the implementation of specific, concrete mitigation actions. It provides a practical example as to how methods to assess climate mitigation and development priorities can be integrated within climate change mitigation target-setting assessments. The more widespread adoption of prospective, quantitative assessment of development benefits from climate change mitigation actions could provide further motivation for more ambitious climate change action.

This study aims to understand the relationship between the Climate Village Program (ProKlim) success rate and climate change adaptation and mitigation actions in Paser Regency. The results of the analysis showed that simultaneously climate change adaptation actions had a real effect on the success rate of ProKlim in Paser Regency by 81.45% with a significance level of 0.00054 (less than α = 0.05), while climate change mitigation actions have a real effect on the success rate of ProKlim in Paser Regency by 83.66% with a significance level of 0.0052 (less than α = 0.05). Meanwhile, the relationship of adaptation actions to the success rate of the ProKlim in Paser Regency is partially influenced by the efforts of control of climate change-related diseases with a significant level of 0.0305 (less than α=0.05). Meanwhile, climate change mitigation actions, it is partially influenced by low-emission agricultural cultivation efforts with a significant level of 0.0305 (less than α=0.05). Thus, the efforts to achieve the success of ProKlim cannot be done partially but must be carried out comprehensively because the impact of climate change has been felt in all aspects so it is necessary to apply all variables of climate change adaptation and mitigation sustainably.

The Ministry of Transportation Republic of Indonesia adopted several co-benefits activities related to climate change mitigation action through 2010-2014. In order to claim these activities results as climate change mitigation action, Ministry of Environment and Forestry need to verify them. The verification covers data accuracy, consistency, transparency and completeness of data quality and information. The author also verify the other parameters such as the calculation method, managerial system, monitoring system and funding support. In this program, several mitigation actions were implemented such as Area Traffic Control System (ATCS), traffic impact control, parking management, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, smart driving, non-motorized transport, shifting from private vehicles to rail transport, rejuvenating of navigation facilities, aircraft fleet rejuvenation, renewal of the operation and maintenance system of airplane and improvement of flight navigation system during take-off and landing. The absolute difference results between claim and verification for all climate change mitigation actions based on Government Regulation (PP) No. 61/2011 were 13.44% - 43.5%. While for mitigation action beyond PP 61/2011, the absolute difference were 0% - 67.31%. There are no mitigation action satisfying all verification criteria. Based on these verification activities, The Ministry of Transportation should refine the method of mitigation action.

Currently, multidisciplinary integrated and quantitative methodologies are necessary for policymakers in deciding a reasonable and acceptable target of greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction as well as realization of mitigation actions. Therefore, this study aims to develop an integrated methodology to harmonize the top-down and bottom-up approaches to support the development of low carbon actions at the regional or city level based on their energy-saving programs and technology status. This integrated approach is necessary to bridge the theoretical and empirical frontiers of modeling in quantifying and analyzing the feasibility of the local police framework and international cooperation in terms of climate mitigation projects. The top-down approach uses the Extended Snapshot (ExSS) tool to estimate GHG emissions and reduction potential based on macro socioeconomic information. Meanwhile, the technology-based bottom-up approach is a method to estimate the reduction potential of GHG emissions by accumulating specific energy-saving projects. Parameters related to energy service demand, energy efficiency, energy share, and dispersed power generation are harmonized in the integration process via a set of equations. Under the assumption of socioeconomic growth of Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), which is a 1.37 times increase for population and a 4.41 times increase for GDP growth in 2030 compared to 2013, the total energy consumption will increase 3.73 times compared to 2013, which is nearly 26 million toe (Mtoe) in 2030. The total GHG emissions will also increase 4.02 times, reaching nearly 117.2 MtCO2eq if HCMC does not consider any climate change mitigation actions. However, if HCMC successfully implements the mitigation projects discussed and quantified in this study, the total GHG emissions might be lower, approximately 85.6 MtCO2eq. Analysis of the results from the two scenarios (BaU and CCAP) shows that the energy saving potential is approximately 15.0% and that the total GHG emissions reduction potential of HCMC (excluding the potential from grid power, which is outside the effort of HCMC) is 20.7% of BaU’s emissions, which is between the 8-25% reduction target of Vietnam intended nationally determined contribution. By looking at the disaggregation of reduction potential by each sector and project, policymakers can prioritize mitigation measures to meet the GHG emissions reduction target or to maximize GHG emissions reduction potential. The integrated approach requires the consistency between classifications in top-down (driving force based) and bottom-up (technology based) approaches as well as the modification and bridging of the top-down sectors and the bottom-up categories with detailed data. This method is very applicable for cities or regions that are developing climate change action plans with precise technological information.

The Climate Village Program (PROKLIM) experienced development and positive responses from 2011 to 2022 from various stakeholders. From the start, PROKLIM has prioritized sustainability aspects in climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts at the grassroots level. With an effectiveness level reaching 80%, the implementation of PROKLIM can be seen from the active participation of the community in every stage of decision-making, from planning and implementation to monitoring activities in climate village locations, strengthening the sense of ownership of ongoing programs and activities. Even though it is considered adequate at 80%, according to SRN-PPI data, PROKLIM coordinators in each region must remain vigilant and strive to change the community's mindset and knowledge regarding climate change adaptation and mitigation actions. The success of PROKLIM activities depends on forming a sustainable community mindset in preserving and transforming the environment. The SIDIK, SPECTRUM, and SRNPPI platforms are expected to facilitate PROKLIM implementation and stakeholders, ensuring that community-based climate change adaptation and mitigation actions can be recorded, accounted for, and validated effectively. Keywords: PROKLIM, Effectiveness, Community Participation, Mitigation and Adaptation Actions, Gender Equality. Keywords: Proklim, Effectiveness, Community Participation, Mitigation and Adaptation Actions, Gender Equality.

In this perspective paper, we are concerned with the general problem of how to increase the probability of achieving the expected outcomes of climate change mitigation actions. Climate change mitigation actions prevent, limit, reduce, delay or slow the rate of environmental changes produced by greenhouse gas emissions. A mitigation action can fail to achieve its intended outcome or create an adverse outcome elsewhere, which means uncertainty about mitigation outcomes or risk. Thus, mitigation risk can be defined by the deviation from a given mitigation goal and the associated uncertainties. We observe a lack of take-up of crucial concepts associated with risk in the climate change mitigation literature. Next, the concepts of risk, risk perception, risk acceptance and agents’ concerns are sometimes used interchangeably. As discussed in this paper, this has resulted in a lack of research about, for example, critical causes of mitigation failure. This situation means that some crucial knowledge gaps remain unaddressed or little researched. In this paper, we strive to identify those research gaps that need to be addressed in managing mitigation actions. Based on literature on risk, clarifications and distinctions regarding the potential meaning, scope, roles and implications among key concepts, such as risk knowledge, mitigation risk, uncertainty, agents’ concerns, risk perception and risk acceptance are given. A key distinction is that the central concept of concerns is associated with agentsʼ objectives, interests, visions, needs, preferences, norms, criteria or values and is different from risk perception. Following this, the gaps this perspective paper discusses are identified and justified by the analysis of how specialised literature in mitigation of climate change reflects aspects linked to the risk concepts. The discussed gaps entail the identification and operationalisation of agents’ concerns, the lack of knowledge about the influence of risk perception and risk acceptance on the weighting of agents’ concerns, and the impacts of the disparity in power relations among agents involved in mitigation.

Globally, agriculture is directly responsible for 14% of annual greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions and induces an additional 17% through land use change, mostlyin developing countries (Vermeulen et al 2012). Agricultural intensification andexpansion in these regions is expected to catalyze the most significant relativeincreases in agricultural GHG emissions over the next decade (Smith et al 2008,Tilman et al 2011). Farms in the developing countries of sub-Saharan Africa andAsia are predominately managed by smallholders, with 80% of land holdingssmaller than ten hectares (FAO 2012). One can therefore posit that smallholderfarming significantly impacts the GHG balance of these regions today and willcontinue to do so in the near future.However, our understanding of the effect smallholder farming has on theEarth’s climate system is remarkably limited. Data quantifying existing andreduced GHG emissions and removals of smallholder production systems areavailable for only a handful of crops, livestock, and agroecosystems (Herrero et al2008, Verchot et al 2008, Palm et al 2010). For example, fewer than fifteenstudies of nitrous oxide emissions from soils have taken place in sub-SaharanAfrica, leaving the rate of emissions virtually undocumented. Due to a scarcity ofdata on GHG sources and sinks, most developing countries currently quantifyagricultural emissions and reductions using IPCC Tier 1 emissions factors.However, current Tier 1 emissions factors are either calibrated to data primarilyderived from developed countries, where agricultural production conditions aredissimilar to that in which the majority of smallholders operate, or from data thatare sparse or of mixed quality in developing countries (IPCC 2006). For the mostpart, there are insufficient emissions data characterizing smallholder agricultureto evaluate the level of accuracy or inaccuracy of current emissions estimates.Consequentially, there is no reliable information on the agricultural GHG budgetsfor developing economies. This dearth of information constrains the capacity totransition to low-carbon agricultural development, opportunities for smallholdersto capitalize on carbon markets, and the negotiating position of developingcountries in global climate policy discourse.Concerns over the poor state of information, in terms of data availability andrepresentation, have fueled appeals for new approaches to quantifying GHGemissions and removals from smallholder agriculture, for both existing conditionsand mitigation interventions (Berry and Ryan 2013, Olander et al 2013).Considering the dependence of quantification approaches on data and the currentdata deficit for smallholder systems, it is clear that in situ measurements must bea core part of initial and future strategies to improve GHG inventories and

Global warming which causes climate change has a significant social economic impact. Indonesia’s commitment to protecting the global climate has been a concern since the 1990s. Through Presidential Regulation No.61 of 2011 concerning the National Action Plan (RAN) for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emission, each region needs to develop climate change mitigation actions through reducing emission or increasing the absorption of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) from various emission sources. The formulation of climate change mitigation actions needs to be supported by greenhouse gases inventory activities and measurement of emission. Measurement of GHG emission is a cross-sectoral activity. Therefore, an information system through an electronic GHG calculator platform is needed as an instrument for measuring GHG emission that can support districts/cities to formulate the most relevant mitigation actions. This study describes the sources of GHG emission based on energy use and its measurement using GHG calculator. GHG calculator is developed based on the theoretical context and designed in form of mobile application. Using Focus Group Discussion (FGD) technique and Spearman’s correlation analysis, this research aims to evaluate GHG assessment based on the use of mobile application in Surabaya City. The findings of this study are 1) there is positive feedbacks regarding the use of mobile platform to predict and calculate GHG emission. It shows that perception on easiness and usability level of mobile calculator are correlated significantly; 2) there are some opportunities and challenges in implementing mobile application for measuring GHG emission in Surabaya City.

The increasing population growth and changing consumption patterns of the people have resulted in an increase in the volume, type and characteristics of waste. The rate of waste production continues to increase, not only in line with the rate of population growth but also in line with the increasing consumption patterns of society and the level of people's income. The solid waste sector is one of the sources of greenhouse gas emissions that is important to address because the decomposition of waste is a significant source of CH4 whose addition to the atmosphere contributes to climate change, so regional and national mitigation actions in the waste sector are very important. the increase in greenhouse gases caused by human activities in producing greenhouse gases is greater than the ability of the environment to repair itself. The greenhouse gas produced exceeds the ability of the environment to recycle so that greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere. The increase in emissions of CO2, CH4 and N2O gases in the atmosphere causes various problems, including changes in the nature of the climate which have an impact on climate change. The problem of garbage in Denpasar City cannot be separated from various factors because Denpasar City is the capital of Bali Province, the center of education, the center of the economy and is one of the tourist destinations with a cultural perspective, resulting in a high population growth rate which has an impact on the volume of waste, one of which is household waste. Community behavior in managing household waste plays a role in causing greenhouse gas emissions, such as the act of burning garbage and littering. Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the City of Denpasar are carried out through composting, reuse, reduce and recicle activities both at the community level and in landfills. Achievement of reducing greenhouse gas emissions based on mitigation actions in the domestic solid waste sub-sector in Denpasar City for the period 2010 to 2019 was 17.2 Gg CO2e with weighting of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from composting by 15.1 Gg CO2e and the rest from 3R activities of 2.1 Gg CO2e.

The inherently global nature of climate change has led to a focus on international negotiations and the development of national commitments as dominant mitigation tools. However, there is a growing awareness that ultimate success depends upon involving subnational government, particularly cities, which are uniquely placed to address climate change in terms of both policy development and implementation of mitigation actions. In recent years the theory of multi-level governance has been used to analyse governments' roles as effective climate actors. This article uses this theory to examine legal and policy developments in New Zealand that have a direct influence on the ability of local government to contribute to climate change mitigation. New Zealand's former leadership in this area has been progressively eroded since 2004. As a result, local government is left with limited direct capacity to contribute to mitigation. Given the failure of New Zealand's national mitigation policies, the disempowerment of local government is an additional impediment to achieving emission reductions. While New Zealand may not be unique in its current lack of support for local government (and their communities), what is novel is the co-ordinated and deliberate trend away from multi-level governance.Policy relevanceThere is a growing awareness of the interdependence between international climate change obligations, national commitments and the role of sub-national government, cities in particular. States are being encouraged to empower subnational government to take a complementary role in climate change mitigation policy and action. This article demonstrates that the paradoxical trend in New Zealand is part of a co-ordinated policy approach favouring increased centralization and economic development over a commitment to sustainability. This deliberate disempowerment of local government leaves its most populous city with an aspirational action plan it will find difficult to deliver on. It also compounds New Zealand's current failure to undertake strong climate change mitigation action.

Major US electric utility climate pledges have the potential to collectively reduce power sector emissions by one-third