The Global Aggregator for Climate Actions (GAFCA) aggregates data on initiatives by non-state and subnational actors (‘climate actions’) that address aspects of climate change, including mitigation and adaptation. GAFCA serves as a tool in the analyses of a large set of climate actions in global climate governance. GAFCA analyses can inform strategic interventions by international organizations, governments and other ‘orchestrators’ of climate action, for example to broker new collaborative initiatives where they do not yet exist, or to support initiatives that (comparatively) underperform. The initial sample of climate actions in GAFCA consists of 52 climate actions announced at the UN Climate Summit in September 2014, in New York. The immediate policy relevance of tracking and analyzing this set of climate actions relates to the question of how the UN should follow up with climate actions that have been announced and launched.
GAFCA gathers four types of data, namely on:
• Organizational characteristics and target setting
• Geography of implementation
• Functions, outputs and ‘Function-Output-Fits’
The collection of data on actors renders an aggregate view of patterns of participation in climate actions, for instance ‘who participates in climate actions’; ‘which type of actors lead climate actions’; ‘how many and which types of businesses are involved in climate action’. Such data could be used to determine the extent to which climate actions engage underrepresented voices in the formal climate regime. Patterns of participation could also indicate to which extent climate actions are ‘northern driven’, or led by international organizations.
Organizational characteristics, for instance on ‘institutional openness’ (whether a climate action is open for new partners), monitoring arrangements, and staffing, indicate varying degrees of institutionalization. In several studies deeper institutionalization has been associated with greater effectiveness. Organizational characteristics could therefore indicate the likelihood of an action’s effectiveness, even when it has only been launched recently. Target-setting, moreover, indicates the potential of a climate action.
Geography of implementation
GAFCA gathers data on the countries of implementation, of climate actions that allow for a better understanding of the geographic focus of climate actions. In the context of global climate governance, this question is extremely relevant because the greatest financial and policy deficits to abate, and to adapt to, climate change are found in developing countries, in particular the least developed and low-lying ones. Based on data on geography of implementation, international organizations, governments and other orchestrators could strategically steer towards undoing imbalances.
GAFCA’s main dependent variable is the Function-Output-Fit (FOF). The computing of FOF requires (1) an explicit and well-defined range of functions; (2) explicit and well-defined categories of outputs; and (3) a theoretical linking between functions and necessary outputs. The underlying logic is that a climate action’s declared aim (or function) should be consistent with its outputs. For instance, a climate initiative declaring training as its function should be expected to produce a curricular programme and to organize seminars. Conversely, a training initiative that produces knowledge (and nothing else) may be considered ‘active’, but its output would not fit its declared training function.
GAFCA distinguishes 12 functional categories, and 26 output categories.
GAFCA – stimulating orchestration and non-state ambitions
Through its approach to systematically match functions and outputs, large and varied samples of climate actions can to tracked and rendered in GAFCA. Subsequent analyses could inform more strategic efforts to orchestrate non-state actions in a fundamentally fragmented climate governance environment. Moreover, the publication of GAFCA effectiveness analyses could stimulate greater transparency and effectiveness among climate actions, eventually inspiring an upward cycle of non-state and subnational climate ambitions.
Dr Sander Chan, German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE)
Dr Robert Falkner, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)
Matthew Goldberg (LSE)
Dr Harro van Asselt, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and University of Eastern Finland
DIE, LSE, Climate Policy Innovation Fund by ESRC Center for Climate Change Economics & Policy