A methodology to estimate co-benefits from UF initiatives in India is designed to provide a standardised approach for estimating GHG removals (mitigation domain) and four adaptation-related parameters: urban heat island reduction, improved groundwater recharge, flood and stormwater management, and improved biodiversity.

The process for the mitigation domain builds on international good practices (e.g., CDM, Verra, Gold Standard), adapting them wherever feasible to align with India’s data, institutional, and policy environment. The methodology focuses on quantifying carbon removals in above-ground and below-ground biomass. The estimation is based on a planting unit (PU) approach, with CO2 removals calculated annually. Two pathways are offered, dependent on data availability:

• Pathway I relies on field measurements of tree diameter at breast height (DBH) and species-specific volumetric equations (as provided by FSI and ICFRE), while Pathway II applies default sequestration factors from the literature, requiring minimal field data (e.g., area planted, species mix, planting date and area affected with natural disturbance, if any).
• Both approaches account for carbon sequestration and carbon losses from harvest, fuelwood collection, and natural disturbances. It is essential to emphasise that the two pathways were designed to accommodate different data availability levels without placing an additional burden on stakeholders. However, the application of the methodology requires a certain minimum of data inputs (light MRV is necessary).

Baseline conditions—whether grassland, barren land, or shrubland—are conservatively defined, and leakage risks are considered negligible. For stakeholders, the methodology enables transparent, data-driven estimates of mitigation co-benefits, thereby strengthening the integration of urban forestry into planning, financing, and reporting systems.

The adaptation assessment framework for UF initiatives is designed to evaluate how increased tree and vegetation cover contributes to enhanced climate resilience in urban systems. Drawing on international best practices (e.g., the UNEP and IPCC AR6 frameworks, as well as urban resilience assessment tools) and aligned with India’s national and state climate priorities, the methodology identifies and quantifies adaptation co-benefits through measurable physical and socio-environmental indicators. After conducting a comprehensive literature review which is (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2020), (Behera, et al., 2022), (Saha, 2017) (Cheung and Jim 2018) and (Safford, Larry, McPherson, Nowak, & Westphal, 2023), it was determined that four distinct parameters would be evaluated to gauge the climate co-benefits of urban forestry.

These parameters include Urban heat island reduction (cooling effect around the plantation site); improvement in groundwater recharge and quality (redirecting water across the land surface or injecting it directly into the subsurface); flood and stormwater management (the practice of managing the quality and quantity of water to prevent flooding, protect the environment, and preserve infrastructure); and Improved biodiversity of the region (establish green corridors to connect green areas and build an ecological network that connects two or more green spaces, creating a continuous network of habitat while providing benefits to locale), all viewed from the climate change adaptation perspective.

For stakeholders, the framework provides a structured means to integrate adaptation benefits into urban planning, climate risk assessments, and monitoring systems, thereby strengthening evidence-based decisionmaking. Table 1, presented below, summarises the parameters selected and the reasoning for their inclusion in assessing the climate co-benefits associated with promoting urban forestry.

Table 1: List of parameters considered to measure adaptation-related climate co-benefits of Urban Forestry

Source: Authors’ compilation

Overall, by aligning with India’s NDC and state climate missions, the methodology serves as a credible framework for quantifying the contribution of urban forestry to national/ sub-national climate actions. The data metrics to measure each parameter are added in Annexure 1.

Approach to the development of the methodology

The methodology was developed through a systematic, step-by-step process that combined evidence, practice, and stakeholder validation. First, an extensive literature review of global and national approaches helped identify relevant frameworks and data parameters for assessing the co-benefits of mitigation and adaptation. This was followed by targeted stakeholder consultations in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu with government agencies, research institutions, corporates, and non-government organisations (NGOs) to contextualise and refine the framework. Semi-structured interviews and field visits enriched the contextual understanding and practical relevance of the methodology. Next, regional workshops with Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs), across Goa, New Delhi, Kolkata, and Bengaluru, and facilitated by SCOPE, gathered practical feedback. The methodology was also presented to the MoEFCC to seek their feedback and insights. Subsequently, state-level validation workshops were conducted with forest officials, municipal authorities, and other key stakeholders, including representatives of PSEs, to present the final methodology and assessment tool. Finally, insights were synthesised through thematic analysis, ensuring that the methodology is scientifically robust, operationally feasible, and consistent with national and state-level climate policy objectives.

Figure 2: Approach to the development of the Methodology

Need for assessing the climate-co-benefits of UF in Maharashtra

It is crucial to evaluate the CCoB of UF for climate change mitigation and adaptation in order to shape effective policies and attract financial support. Impacts such as carbon sequestration, urban heat reduction, flood and stormwater management, groundwater recharge, and biodiversity enhancement, when quantified, not only aid in ensuring that the climate-positive outcomes of the UF do not go unrecorded, are accounted for, and reported but also enable policymakers to make informed decisions and justify investments in UF initiatives. Measuring climate co-benefits from ongoing urban afforestation projects and programmes helps strengthen implementation and reporting within the State Climate Action Plans and national climate missions. Thus, the methodology can be used by the state to build the capacity of relevant stakeholders to undertake such an assessment and the data required for the same. Governments can also consider climate co-benefit accounting to support reporting under the nationally determined contributions (NDCs). This also helps attract funding from multiple sources, including government schemes, philanthropic organisations, corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes, and carbon markets.

Theory of Change (ToC)

A Theory of Change (ToC) articulates the causal pathway through which an intervention is expected to achieve its objectives. It links what is put in place to what is done, what is produced, how behaviour or systems change, and the longer-term effects, while making explicit the assumptions and risks that must hold for the pathway to work. ToC starts from the problem statement and evolves further into these elements:

Inputs – resources and enablers secured at the outset (e.g., policies, partnerships, tools, roles, budget codes).

Activities – actions undertaken using those inputs (e.g., deployment, training, piloting, dissemination).

Outputs – immediate, tangible products of the activities (e.g., operational tools, signed MoUs, issued guidance, published rosters).

Outcomes – short- to medium-term changes in behaviour, practice, or system performance (e.g., routine, on-time reporting; improved data quality; method referenced in guidance).

Impact – the durable, higher-level results attributable to the intervention (e.g., consistent, auditable estimates that inform planning, budgeting, and public reporting).

The particular ToC for UF is described in more detail below and presented with a diagram.

Problem Statement

Urban forestry (UF) schemes in Maharashtra, such as Majhi Vasundhara and state missions, generate real co-benefits in mitigation and adaptation, but these programmes were not designed with climate accounting in mind. As a result, co-benefits are not measured consistently or comparably across owners and years, limiting their use in planning, budgeting, and national aggregation. Implementers face data and capacity gaps (e.g., missing baselines, uneven collection frequency, limited QA/QC), and most programmes have no dedicated MRV resources, which nudges practice toward ad-hoc or purely narrative reporting. At the same time, there is demand for a simple, standard method and tool that can work with light inputs (including defaults) and scale across diverse UF typologies (NVY blocks, avenues, campuses/CSR). The roadmap, therefore, addresses a clear “missing middle”: a robust yet practical methodology, versioned calculator, and operating model (roles, SOPs, helpdesk, training) that enable routine, auditable estimates of mitigation and adaptation CCoBs and their integration into sectoral policies.

Theory of Change for mainstreaming UF methodology

Inputs

The approach is anchored by the state nodal climate department (Maharashtra State Climate Action Cell (SCAC)) as the beneficiary and custodian of the methodology and the web-based tool/calculator (with an Excel equivalent). The methodology already defines parameters for mitigation and adaptation. Around these technical assets sit the enabling conditions:

Recognition of the method via Tamil Nadu state nodal climate department (Tamil Nadu Green Climate Company/Green Tamil Nadu Mission) circular and hosting of the tool;

Programme owners across sectors (e.g., NVY, highways/roads, utilities/CSR, campuses/industrial estates) willing to participate;

Light legal/data-sharing instruments (MoUs/letters) that authorise minimum-dataset sharing and routine submission;

A one-page SOP template that names roles, timing and quality checks;

A helpdesk contact and a compact knowledge base;

Training assets—a MOOC for everyone and a small Train-the-Trainer (TtT) kit to seed local trainers; and

Existing M&E/Admin heads in programmes to host the small, recurring effort needed for light MRV (defaults), without seeking new funds.

Activities

Based on the challenges and barriers for adopting the proposed climate co-benefit methodology, identified through stakeholder consultations conducted within this project, the following activities are proposed to facilitate its successful integration and should serve as a guiding framework. These interventions will require f inancial and infrastructure resources, as well as political will and coordination among various stakeholders. Some interventions can be implemented in the short term, while others may require a medium- to long term commitment. Please note that the list of proposed activities is not exhaustive and can be further refined based on the local context.

Maharashtra State Climate Action Cell (SCAC), the state nodal climate department, issues a circular (recognition and hosting).

MH SCAC issues a formal circular recognising the methodology and identifying the Government-hosted calculator as the reference platform for reporting mitigation and adaptation co-benefits. The circular announces the reporting window, provides the tool URL, and references the methodology document, relevant MOOC, and support channels, establishing a common standard and predictable cadence.

The state executes MoUs/letters for data sharing

The state and programme owners/data providers execute MoUs or letters that authorise the sharing of the minimum dataset, define its purpose and permitted use, specify roles and contacts, and set its validity/renewal—enabling routine annual submissions.

State nodal department activates the help desk.

A state-level helpdesk (internal or contracted) that can provide relevant information on the submissions, tool, MOOC, etc, is being established and set up by the state nodal department.

Programme owners nominate Programme Administrators.

Each participating programme nominates a Programme Administrator responsible for preparing files, conducting internal checks, submitting them within the reporting window, and retaining receipts. The state nodal department provides accounts, provides a brief onboarding note, and publishes a roster to ensure accountability.

State (Maharashtra State Climate Action Cell (SCAC)) operates and maintains the tool/ methodology/MOOC.

State accepts the main role in operating, maintaining and promoting the methodology and the accompanying tool, as well as related MOOC.

The state nodal department and partners conduct operational piloting (readiness checks).

Operational piloting serves as a readiness check and aids in acceptance and scaling up the methodology for wider implementation across states. It entails short, end-to-end pilots in representative contexts (e.g., NVY blocks, roadside avenues, campuses/CSR) conducted by the department in collaboration with their partners. Lessons learned feed into SOPs.

Programme owners establish standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Developing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that outlines roles and responsibilities, quality control measures, and coordination protocols with all relevant bodies for measuring, monitoring, and reporting data according to the proposed methodology is a crucial activity. The latter will ensure consistent implementation, quality checks, and effective reporting.

There are some existing manuals or protocols developed by FSI/ICFRE comprising guidelines and instructions for data collection/ monitoring post plantation period, including suggested frequency, sampling guidelines for sample size and stratification,and data collection methods. The implementing agency/department can refer to existing data-collection guidelines for collecting tree growth parameters for mitigation calculations. Sample Resource: Measurement of Forest Carbon Stocks for Capacity Building of State Forest Departments2

Embed MOOC in onboarding.

The existing MOOC is included in onboarding for Programme Administrators and relevant staff. A short assessment/certificate is provided to evidence completion.

States and UF programmes run Train-the-Trainer (TtT) and clinics.

States/UF programmes nominate 1–2 trainers to complete a focused Train-the-Trainer (TtT) session. Certified trainers provide brief hands-on clinics and advice, resolving routine issues locally and reducing helpdesk load. The latter also ensures long-term sustainability of the methodology/tool/MOOC.

Programme owners leverage policy/programme synergies for resourcing.

The methodology is flexible, considering various data availability levels, and enables its use with minimal data input, relying on default factors in such cases. The minimum data input requires light MRV activities, and financial resources for the latter could potentially sit under existing programme budget provisions. The current budgets are hence reviewed to confirm the status of the available resources.

Programme owners identify new budget heads.

In case existing UF programmes’ budgets do not entail financial resources for obtaining the minimum data input, or the decision is to apply a more reliable, field-based approach as per the methodology, Programme owners search for additional funding outside of the existing budgets.

Outputs

The near-term products are concrete and ready to use. The circular has been published; MoUs/letters for data sharing have been signed, and the helpdesk has been activated. A Programme Admin roster is published per participating owner, with access enabled. The methodology and the accompanying tool are live and stable. Pilot briefs, per programme type, document readiness are fed into the final SOP. Developed MOOC is embedded in onboarding processes, and TtT is performed, resulting in 1-2 skilled trainers per programme to support future submissions with a trainer roster published. Financial resources are allocated and secured, either for the light MRV serving minimum data requirements as per the methodology or for the field-based methodological approach.

Outcomes

With these outputs in place, programme owners submit on schedule during the submission window using a common, conservative method. Because the inputs are small (defaults-friendly) and support is available, f irst-pass validation improves, and routine issues are solved locally by trainers, reducing dependency on central support. The method and tool are referenced in sector/state guidance and SOP, with named roles and cadence becoming part of the way programmes operate. Over successive cycles, reporting becomes predictable and comparable across owners, and managers begin to use the numbers—however conservative—to shape siting/species choices, maintenance priorities, and disclosures. For adaptation, regular parameter tracking (kept to a minimum) is displayed alongside mitigation results, allowing portfolios to communicate both climate values simultaneously.

Impact

Practice is institutionalised. Despite staff turnover, the combination of SOP, local trainers, and MOOC provides reliable, auditable, and comparable annual estimates of co-benefits from mitigation and adaptation. The state roll-up under state nodal agencies, such as MH SCAC, becomes timely and defensible, improving public reporting and planning credibility and making it easier to align UF investments with climate-relevant goals and finance. Over time, the steady visibility of co-benefits supports more evidence-informed budgets and protects essential maintenance and survival—without turning every UF programme into a climate project.

The ToC also includes 13 accompanying indicators, as shown in the diagram. Associated assumptions and risks are further elaborated in the next subchapter.

Assumptions

In implementing the proposed ToC, certain assumptions have been made to reflect external conditions and internal factors expected to support its adoption and implementation.

It is assumed that the political will to support the initiative will remain strong throughout the implementation process. This political backing is critical for the continued uptake of the methodology across states and at the national level.

Synergies between different entities (e.g. ULBs, state forest departments, ministries, private companies), both horizontal and vertical, will be crucial for securing necessary funds and fostering cross governmental collaboration. This coordination will ensure that both financial and personnel resources are available for the effective implementation of the methodology.

Continuous cooperation between the government, donors, public sector enterprises (PSEs) and the private sector will play an important role in ensuring the methodology’s successful adoption. Public and private sector involvement will be particularly important in scaling the methodology, disseminating its results, and ensuring its widespread use.