Leading universities worldwide are at the forefront of driving innovation to combat climate change and achieve net zero goals. Institutions like Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College London, the University of Edinburgh, and the University of Aberdeen are pioneering groundbreaking solutions in CCUS technologies, policy frameworks, and integration strategies in the United Kingdom.
Learn how these research initiatives are shaping the future of sustainable energy and environmental stewardship.
Oxford University’s Carbon Management Program
Launched in December 2022, the Carbon Management Program at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES) focuses on the in-depth examination of business strategies aimed at implementing groundbreaking low-carbon technologies essential for transitioning to a net zero world. Specifically, these technologies include carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) as well as carbon dioxide removal (CDR) solutions, spanning both technological and natural approaches.
The program scrutinizes the role of carbon markets, encompassing both voluntary and regulatory compliance mechanisms, in stimulating investments towards these transformative technologies. The Program’s research activities focus on 3 key thematic areas:
Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS):
The research segment examines the feasibility of CCUS in various sectors like oil & gas, steel, cement, and waste-to-energy. It provides insights into the economic, policy, and regulatory aspects of CCUS adoption.
Additionally, it assesses different policy support methods like tax incentives and carbon pricing to promote CCUS deployment. Comparative analyses with alternative decarbonization solutions in sectors like steel production (e.g., hydrogen adoption) and renewables are also conducted.
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR):
COP27 emphasized the importance of taking CO2 out of the air to meet the climate goals outlined in the Paris Agreement. Research in this area looks into various ways to do this, known as Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) solutions, to help us transition to cleaner energy and reach those targets.
CDR methods cover a wide range of techniques, so this research zeroes in on the most promising ones like direct air capture (DAC), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and biochar production. It also explores newer solutions to see how practical and scalable they are.
Carbon Markets:
The third research area of the Program focuses on integrating CCUS and CDR solutions into both voluntary and mandatory carbon markets. Specifically, it offers solutions to significant challenges that have slowed down the progress of CCUS and CDR in voluntary carbon markets and emissions trading systems.
These solutions address various issues, including the need for robust carbon accounting frameworks, methods to ensure the permanence of carbon removal and to manage the risk of leakage or reversal, and assessments of the types of claims companies can make by investing in these solutions.
The University aims to achieve its own net zero carbon goal and biodiversity net gain by 2035, with the following pathway:
“Oxford Net Zero” Initiative
Oxford Net Zero is an interdisciplinary research effort drawing on 15 years of climate neutrality research at the University of Oxford. It is dedicated to monitoring progress, establishing standards, and guiding effective solutions across various fields including climate science, law, policy, economics, clean energy, transportation, land use, food systems, and CDR.
Essential climate change questions that Oxford Net Zero addresses include:
- How will carbon dioxide be distributed between the atmosphere, oceans, biosphere and lithosphere?
- Where will it be stored, in what forms, how stable will these storage pools be, who will own them and be responsible for maintaining them over the short medium and long terms?
- How does net zero policy extend to other greenhouse gases?
- How will the social license to generate, emit, capture, transport, and store carbon dioxide evolve over the coming century?
READ MORE: Oxford Revises Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting
University of Cambridge Carbon Capture, Storage And Use Research
The University of Cambridge’s Carbon Capture, Storage, and Use (CCSU) research is part of the Energy Transitions@Cambridge initiative, an interdisciplinary research center dedicated to addressing current and future energy challenges. With over 250 academics from 30 departments and faculties, the initiative aims to develop solutions for energy transitions.
The CCSU research focuses on understanding and raising awareness of opportunities and risks associated with CCUS. Areas of focus include chemical looping of solid fuels to produce clean CO2, hydrogasification of coal to methane gas, reforming of methane to hydrogen, and seismological observations of active injection sites. On the use side, research covers manufacturing processes of CO2 and carbonate mineralization.
By bringing together academics and external partners, the university’s research program aims to explore cutting-edge technology themes in carbon capture for large-scale decarbonization.
Cambridge Zero, the University’s ambitious new climate initiative, will generate ideas and innovations to help shape a sustainable future – and equip future generations of leaders with the skills to navigate the global challenges of the coming decades.
The University made history by becoming the first university to adopt a science-based target for emissions reduction, aiming to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. It plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2038.
To achieve this, Cambridge is exploring the substitution of gas with alternative heat technologies on a large scale and is progressively transitioning to renewable sources for its power supply. Watch below to learn more about the university’s climate initiative.
University Of Edinburgh CCS Research
The University of Edinburgh’s School of Engineering hosts one of the UK’s largest carbon capture research groups, focusing on carbon dioxide capture through adsorption and membrane separations. This group is part of the Scottish Carbon Capture and Storage (SCCS) Centre, the UK’s largest CCS consortium, which includes over 75 researchers from the University of Edinburgh’s Schools of Geosciences, Engineering, and Chemistry, Heriot-Watt University, and the British Geological Survey.
The Adsorption & Membrane group at the University of Edinburgh specializes in:
- Adsorbent Testing and Ranking: Using zero-length column systems to evaluate adsorbents for CO2 capture.
- Membrane Testing: Assessing polymers for carbon capture membranes.
- Molecular Modelling: Simulating novel nanoporous materials.
- Dynamic Process Modelling: Simulating adsorption and membrane-based capture technologies.
- Process Integration and Optimization: Enhancing efficiency of capture processes.
- Circulating Fluidised Beds: Studying fluid dynamics for improved carbon capture.
- Mixed-Matrix Membranes and Carbon Nanotubes: Developing advanced materials for capture applications.
This extensive expertise positions the University of Edinburgh as a leading institution in the research and development of carbon capture technologies.
Zero by 2040
The University has also committed to becoming zero carbon by 2040 as outlined in its Climate Strategy 2016. This strategy employs a comprehensive whole-institution approach to climate change mitigation and adaptation to achieve ambitious targets.
In alignment with the 2016 Paris Agreement, which aims to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, the University is committed to supporting Scotland’s and the world’s transition to a low-carbon economy.
Key goals include reducing carbon emissions by 50% per £ million turnover from a 2007/08 baseline and achieving net zero carbon status by 2040. The University plans to achieve these objectives through initiatives in research, learning and teaching, operational changes, responsible investment, and exploring renewable energy opportunities.
Furthermore, the University will use its 5 campuses as “living laboratories” to experiment with and demonstrate innovative ideas that can be implemented elsewhere, fostering a culture of sustainability and practical application in the fight against climate change.
This year, the University is undertaking a major project to achieve carbon neutrality, which is considered the largest of its kind in the UK. This multimillion-pound initiative involves planting more than 2 million trees and restoring at least 855 hectares of peatlands. The project is a crucial part of the University’s goal of 2040 net zero.
Initial regeneration efforts will focus on a 431-hectare site overlooking the Ochil Hills in Stirlingshire and 26 hectares at Rullion Green in the Pentland Hills Regional Park near Edinburgh. Over the next 50 years, the project aims to remove 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, equivalent to the emissions from over 9 million car journeys between Edinburgh and London.
Imperial College London – CCS Research Program
Imperial College’s carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) research program is the largest in the UK, involving over 30 professionals across various departments. They focus on engineering, industrial CCS, subsurface CO2 behavior, and legal and regulatory aspects. The university collaborates with the UK CCS Research Centre, CO2 GeoNet, and the European Energy Research Alliance.
The program has refurbished a pilot carbon capture plant to provide hands-on experience for students and professionals. Built to industry standards, it captures flue gas from a power station and supports research conducted by leading industrial organizations.
Imperial College London is also employing various means to directly curb its GHG emissions. The school’s long-term goal is to be a sustainable and net zero carbon institution by 2040.
ICL’s Transition to Zero Pollution
The Transition to Zero Pollution initiative is structured around 5 focus themes, each addressing a significant challenge that demands exploration, innovation, and interdisciplinary collaboration:
- Emerging Environmental Hazards and Health
- Resilient, Regenerative, and Restorative Systems
- Sustainable Resources and Zero Waste
- Urban Ecosystems: People and Planet
- Zero Pollution Mobility
Know more about ICL’s TZP initiative here.
University of Aberdeen’s Carbon Capture Machine
The University of Aberdeen is at the forefront of carbon capture and utilization research, with experts developing processes and products that not only sequester emissions but also add economic value.
In 2017, the university’s patented CO2 capture and conversion technology led to the establishment of Carbon Capture Machine Ltd (CCM), which became a finalist in the NRG COSIA Carbon XPrize competition, offering a $20 million prize to the winner.
CCM’s technology involves dissolving CO2 flue gas into slightly alkaline water, which is then mixed with a brine source containing dissolved calcium and magnesium ions. This process generates Precipitated Calcium Carbonate (PCC) and Precipitated Magnesium Carbonate (PMC), both of which are nearly insoluble and have various industrial applications.
PCCs are used in industries such as papermaking, plastics, paints, adhesives, and in the development of cement and concrete.
Additionally, sodium chloride (NaCl) is extracted from the final products. These carbon conversion products are carbon negative and in high demand across multiple industries, offering companies opportunities to reduce emissions and create new revenue streams through carbon capture and utilization technology.
Aberdeen’s Net Zero Goal
Same with the other top universities, the University of Aberdeen aims to reach net zero by 2040. As part of this climate commitment, the university became a member of the Global Climate Letter and the One Planet Pledge.
At a glance, here is the university’s carbon emissions, total and by scope, accessible through an online tool.
In addition to enhancing emissions reporting, the university is actively developing a comprehensive net zero strategy. This strategy includes setting targets and exploring pathways across various business functions to achieve carbon neutrality. The publication of this strategy will be available this year.
Conclusion
Leading universities in the UK are advancing carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies, essential for achieving net zero goals. Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College London, the University of Edinburgh, and the University of Aberdeen are driving research and implementation strategies that address the technical and economic challenges of CCUS.
Their interdisciplinary programs and climate initiatives integrate these solutions into broader carbon markets and regulatory systems. These universities’ efforts are crucial in transitioning to a sustainable energy future, demonstrating the critical role of academic institutions in global climate action. Through collaboration with industry and government, UK universities are setting the standard for climate action and paving the way for a net zero future.
The post How Top UK Universities Reduce Their Carbon Footprint to Reach Net Zero appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.