The MECCE Project follows a phased approach for indicator development. Currently, the Project offers nine indicators for exploration. More and updated indicators will follow shortly



  • Integration of climate change in national curriculum policy
  • Students’ self-declared knowledge on climate change


  • Extent of climate change focus in research publications


  • Integration of climate change in technical/vocational training policy


  • Perceived impact of climate change on future generations
  • Perception of climate change as a serious threat


  • Availability of information on climate change impacts
  • Public perception of frequency of exposure to climate change information


  • Adult willingness to participate in climate action

Please use the drop-down menu below to select the indicator you wish to look at. New features will come soon

Please note that the Interactive Data Platform is optimised for desktop and tablet use and data might not display correctly on mobile devices.


Disclaimer: The depiction and use of boundaries, geographic names and related data shown on maps and included in lists, tables, documents, and databases do not necessarily imply official endorsement or acceptance by the MECCE Project. Please report any errors to

The MECCE Project’s goal is to develop monitoring and evaluations tools for Climate Communication and Education (CCE). CCE is based on Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE), a term adopted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to denote work under Article 6 of the Convention (1992) and Article 12 of the Paris Agreement (2015). The overarching goal of ACE is to empower all members of society to engage in climate action, through education, training, public awareness, public access to information, public participation, and international cooperation on these issues. The MECCE Project uses those definitions to develop indicators for CCE, with the exception of international cooperation and education split into different levels. These six terms are defined further below as informed by UNFCCC contexts.


Education that is institutionalized, intentional, and planned through public organizations and recognized private bodies which–in their totality–constitute the formal education system of a country. Formal education programmes are recognized by the relevant national or sub-national education authorities. Formal education consists mostly of initial education (e.g., pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary education). 

  • Primary Education – Education designed to provide students with fundamental skills in reading, writing and mathematics and establish a solid foundation for learning and understanding core areas of knowledge and personal development.
  • Secondary Education – Education designed to prepare students for further education at post-secondary and tertiary levels and for entry into the labour market. It includes both general and vocational education. 


Education designed to provide learning activities in specialised fields of education. It aims at learning at a high level of complexity and specialisation. It includes what is commonly 

understood as academic education but also covers advanced vocational and professional education. Also known as higher or post-secondary education


Programmes or activities designed to teach specific practical skills to individuals, communities, and organizations, often that have a practical application. Typically delivered in formal and non-formal Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) settings targeting older adolescents and young adults and/or reskilling and upskilling the existing (adult) workforce. Can sometimes overlap with upper secondary and tertiary education. 


Outreach programmes or activities that use targeted, systematic communications to the public. This type of activity may be developed by governments, non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, or other entities.


Programmes or activities that make information, data, and statistics available to the public. Technology such as databases and the internet, often including accessibility in multiple languages, help to facilitate this provision of information.


Efforts to mobilize the general public in climate mitigation and adaptation activities and to integrate public perspectives in policy decision-making, community action, or policy advocacy. 

The overall aim of Axis 2 is to develop indicators based on robust global data sets (existing ones as well as new ones) climate change communication and education (CCE). The MECCE Project engages with all elements of the UNFCCC’s Action for Climate Empowerment or ACE (i.e., formal education, training, public awareness, public access to information, public participation) and also in conjunction with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets and global indicators pertaining to climate change education (e.g., 4.7, 13.3). For our internal working purposes, we have divided the ACE Elements into two categories: one pertaining to all types of formal and non-formal education and training (‘education’) and the other to public awareness, public access to information, and public participation (‘communication’). 

As per our envisioned lifecycle approach to indicator development (see Figure 1), our aim is to develop indicators that meet as many of the defined selection criteria as possible. Key targets for our indicator development work are to provide indicators and datasets for benchmarking and target-setting in intergovernmental processes of the UNFCCC (as per Article 6, and Article 12 of the Paris Agreement), as well as supplementing the SDG indicator set (both thematic and global indicators), the latter of which currently includes only input and output sustainability education indicators, non-specific to CCE/ACE.

Figure 1. MECCE Project indicator development lifecycle approach

What is the rationale behind the indicators?

The MECCE Project was established to address the lack of quality data and indicators to track global CCE progress. CCE has historically remained a marginal focus in intergovernmental negotiations, and for many countries it is still underdeveloped. Historically, data on CCE have largely been based on country self-reports and lack validation and rigor. 


These challenges have been discussed by the UN Inter-agency & Expert Group on SDG Indicators and in working groups associated with the Technical Cooperation Group on the SDG 4 on Education (to which some MECCE Project members, such as UNESCO, contribute). The addition of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting, or MER, in the Glasgow Work Programme's priorities demonstrates Party recognition of the important role data can play in progressing CCE. 


However, capacity has been lacking to address this dearth of quality data for CCE-related indicators. The MECCE Project tackles this through a global collaborative partnership approach. Our indicator development process is multi-step and iterative, with the aim to create ethically and theoretically robust indicators. The MECCE Project’s indicator development work also engages with a diversity of stakeholders across regions and sectors, including member Parties, youth, and Indigenous peoples, to offer tools and supports such as: Collating existing and new, accessible, high-quality, non-self-reported global datasets, and developing indicators based on those data; as well as honing in on data coverage gaps in some regions and CCE/ACE elements.


The Project’s data is available on an Interactive Data Platform on our website,, which supports analyses of CCE activities and progress, and deepened understandings of how CCE relates to variables such as country emissions, climate, and economic characteristics. 


What is the MECCE Project looking for?

In the area of education policy making, indicators can serve multiple purposes. For example, they can help governments (and international entities) set policy targets and measurable markers of progress, and establish benchmarks for policy or reform efforts. Indicators provide a legitimate platform to assess the impact of reforms over time as well as a basis for engaging in discussions with interested local and national stakeholders (e.g., parents, teachers, media, students, civil society groups, companies). Indicators can help authorities gauge the pace of CCE progress or policy implementation over time and help determine whether to hold responsible jurisdictions to account where progress is slow and interventions are needed. Indicators can also highlight what is possible and feasible to achieve from reform efforts and which policy levers within (or outside) the education and communication sectors are most effective in bringing about desired outcomes. 


There is also the need to avoid developing indicators solely based on already existing data or CCE approaches, rather than what the MECCE Project specifically, and global stakeholders of CCE generally, think should be measured. This reflects a tension between measuring progress toward the implementation of CCE and improving its quality, quantity, and efficacy, and measuring progress to hold governments and stakeholders accountable to fill any critical gaps.  


The MECCE Project aims to measure the quantity and quality of CCE on the following levels:

Inputs: Regarding the strength of national legal and institutional frameworks surrounding CCE (e.g., policy documents, funding, curriculum, strategic plans, commitments). 

Processes: Measuring activity dynamics (e.g., the inclusion of marginalized groups in knowledge production or decision making).

Outputs: Concerning the level of implementation of CCE policies or strategies (e.g., educational and training offer, teacher training, application of curriculum, actions organized at the school or institution, research production, media production, availability of information), measuring provision and uptake aspects when possible.

Outcomes: Focusing on CC-related public knowledge, skills, perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors (e.g., objective and perceived knowledge, CC and CC risk awareness, emotional concern, interest in cooperating, trust in information, satisfaction with national efforts, personal adoption of behaviors, participation in collective action).  


As dataset identification and indicator development processes unfold, some indicators will be more feasible in the interim or the short-term, while others will need to be socialized or developed over the long-term for adoption and/or contextualization. Such a threshold of feasibility will help us to refine our definition of what we want to measure moving forward. Therefore, the MECCE Project utilizes a phased approach. The first set of data, indicators, and guidelines will be released on our Interactive Data Platform at COP27, with ongoing releases until at least 2026.


MECCE Project dataset selection criteria



Geographical coverage/ representativeness  

Satisfactory: The dataset has a global scope - At least 40% of countries, i.e., 79/197 or more countries, with each SDG region represented.

Less than satisfactory: Fewer than 40% of countries, i.e., fewer than 79/197 countries, and not all SDG regions represented.

Temporal scope

Satisfactory: There are data available for 2 or more time intervals.

Less than satisfactory: Data are available only during project period (i.e., one-off).


Satisfactory: The dataset can be disaggregated (e.g., gender, ethnicity, age).

Less than satisfactory: The dataset cannot be disaggregated.


Satisfactory: The disaggregated dataset is openly accessible.

Less than satisfactory: Access is only possible to aggregated data, limited access to data, or with permissions or payment.


Satisfactory: No cost to the MECCE Project, partners, and countries.

Less than satisfactory: Costs to access the dataset are able to be covered by the MECCE Project and/or partner budgets.


Satisfactory: Transparent process of data gathering and analysis. Data can be replicated by other persons/groups (intersubjectivity); any qualitative analysis in creation of the dataset went through intercoder reliability tests; any scales used are internally consistent. No conflicts of interest between data collectors and data sources.

Less than satisfactory: Data collection process is opaque; potential conflicts of interests; data cannot be replicated by other groups; intercoder reliability is low; scales have low or little internal consistency.


Satisfactory: The dataset is an appropriate proxy measure of the indicator AND the dataset has been used in peer-reviewed studies or is based on other reliable sources.

Less than satisfactory: The dataset is a proxy for concepts that are marginally related to the indicator area (e.g., the measure is related to sustainability generally, not climate change specifically) and/or has not been used in peer-reviewed studies/based on other reliable data.

Dataset impact

Satisfactory: Dataset can be seen by policy-makers, NGOs, and other stakeholders as impactful (e.g., related to political actions, transparent process of data gathering and analysis, no conflicts of interest between data collectors and data sources, etc.) and the data can be categorized as input, output, outcome, or progress indicator.

Less than satisfactory: Dataset is not used or not suitable for use in government or other monitoring / reporting organizations (e.g., one-time opinion survey; unclear how it can be relevant for policy-makers; data collection process is opaque; potential conflicts of interests etc.).

The process of exploring, evaluating and constructing climate communication and education (CCE) indicators would not have been possible without the leadership of Aaron Benavot and Marcia McKenzie, and the organization and coordination of Nicola Chopin, Aaron Redman, and Stefanie Mallow. Many thanks to the experts who reviewed the indicators, including Priyadarshani Joshi, Deep Basu Ray, Ralph Carstens, and Paul Howard-Jones, and the many colleagues who helped translate CCE keywords.


We are particularly grateful to the dedicated effort of the following research assistants and associates, who have contributed to the indicator development process:


  • Jessica Abonizio, Monash University
  • Antje Brock, Freie Universität Berlin
  • Diego Calvo Bonilla, University of Saskatchewan
  • Mariana Campos Rivera, University of Saskatchewan
  • Brenda Lia Chavez Cosamalon, University of Saskatchewan
  • Polina Denisova, University at Albany – State University of New York
  • Kristen Hargis, University of Saskatchewan
  • Hajar Idrissi, University of Saskatchewan
  • Julia Muench, University of Education, Freiburg
  • Kağan Porsuk, Freie Universität Berlin
  • Diego Posada, University at Albany – State University of New York
  • Darren Rabinowitz, University at Albany – State University of New York
  • Leonie Ströbele, Freie Universität Berlin
  • Esteban Villalobos-Araya, University at Albany – State University of New York
  • Julian Vrekaj, Freie Universität Berlin
  • Eva-Maria Waltner, University of Education, Freiburg


Special thanks to UNESCO and its regional offices and affiliated institutes, for their early and continuous support of work in this area and for comments provided on indicator development and other aspects of the MECCE Project. 


We also wish to acknowledge different partners and third parties who kindly made their data available for the construction of several global CCE indicators.