Coding the Transnational Climate Governance Database

ONLINE APPENDIX

Hale and Roger, “Orchestration and Transnational Climate Governance,” Review of International Organizations INSERT CITATION INFORMATION

Our database amalgamates and builds upon two others. The first (Bulkeley et al. 2012), developed by the Leverhulme Trust-sponsored Transnational Climate Change Governance Research Network, based at Durham University, identified a set of 60 transnational climate governance schemes and included observations on a number of their features, such as date of initiation, participants, issues addressed, regional scope, and so on. The second, created by Hoffmann (2011), is roughly similar in nature, identifying 58 climate governance “experiments” and quantifying their various features, but differs from the Leverhulme Trust dataset in that the initiatives are not necessarily “transnational” in nature; the main criteria for inclusion in Hoffmann’s dataset was the inventive or innovative character of various schemes rather than their geographical scope. Thus, a number are strictly local or domestic in nature.

We thank the creators of these databases for sharing them with us. Combining them, supplementing them with many of our own observations, and eliminating overlaps produced a total of over 130 “potential” TCG cases. We then developed and applied our own criteria for inclusion and exclusion to make the dataset useful for answering the various questions we were interested in.

To be included in our dataset, an initiative had to meet several criteria. First, initiatives needed to address climate change, a broad criterion. To be included, initiatives could be intended to govern a variety of different aspects of the problem, from mitigation to adaption, from deforestation to energy efficiency, from regulating carbon offsets to channeling funding to carbon offset projects, and so on. In most cases, determining whether a project is intended to address climate change is an easy test. But, occasionally, initiatives appear to address a variety of issues non-climate change related issues as well. For example, ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability was established in order to govern a broad range of sustainable development problems; climate change is only one of its main concerns. Therefore, to determine whether an initiative meets this criteria, we relied primarily on the mission statements frequently included on websites, or some similar statement of purpose. If an initiative included climate change among its main goals, it was considered a candidate for inclusion.

Second, an initiative needed to qualify as an instance of governance. We argue - along the lines set out by Andanova et al (2009) - that governance occurs when networks of actors explicitly seek to authoritatively steer constituents, be they individuals, firms, governments or otherwise, towards public goals. This may or may not occur through the explicit setting of regulations, standards or rules, whether voluntary or mandatory. A governance initiative may also seek to steer behavior by providing collective goods such as capacity building services, knowledge dissemination, technical assistance, financing or specific kinds of information provision. Its primary purpose in doing so must, however, be explicitly public in nature and intended to change behavior. Again, we examined mission statements to find language that suggested that being a participant involved making certain changes to non-state or sub-state actor behavior. Changing state behavior alone (as lobbying groups try to do) was not considered as an instance of governance, nor was the provision of information alone. Borderline cases exist, of course, and initiatives may or may not be effective in meeting their goals. Examples of potential candidates that we excluded as cases of “non-governance” were NGOs, private consulting firms, lobbying groups, specialized news services, networking forums, and memoranda of understanding.

Third, in keeping with the literature on transnational actors in world politics, an initiative needed to include at least one sub-state or non-state actor, either as a member, participant, user or partner. This was determined, typically, by analysis of the content (membership lists, participant registries, etc.) of initiative websites. The C40, whose membership list is found on its website and is comprised entirely of municipal governments, was therefore included in our database, for instance. The Climate Action Reserve, a carbon offset standard orchestrated by the State of California and adopted by a variety of non-state actors, was also included. Although sometimes unconventional, intergovernmental treaties and organizations that did not include such participants, such as several bilateral and multilateral climate change memorandums of understanding (for example, the US- China Memorandum of Understanding to Enhance Cooperation on Climate Change, Energy and the Environment), were excluded.

Fourth, to be included in our dataset, we required that initiatives be genuinely transborder in nature. Thus, an initiative needed to have members, participants, users or partners from at least two different states. Again, this was determined by analyzing the content of initiative websites. The Western Climate Initiative, which includes participants (provinces and states) from the United States and Canada, is transnational. Refrigerants, Naturally!, which includes participants such as Coca-Cola, an American multinational corporation (MNC), and Unilever, a British-Dutch MNC, among others, also qualified. By contrast, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the National Association of Counties’ Climate Protection Program, whose governance activities are entirely confined to the United States, were excluded.

Fifth, we removed single organizations and corporations. Although they may sometimes engage in governance-like activities (providing information, awareness-raising, etc.) and/or may be directly involved in a number of TCG initiatives, organizations such as PointCarbon, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre, which were included in other databases, were excluded. Similarly, although a case can be made for regarding corporate social responsibility schemes (CSR) as a powerful form of global governance, we did not include single MNC CSR schemes within our database. In each case, we did not consider these to be our primary unit of analysis, which is the “initiative,” “scheme” or “standard,” involving a network of actors.

After disqualify cases that did not meet our criteria, the resulting database contains 75 TCG initiatives (see Table 1 for a complete list). Using an additional set of coding criteria we then determined: (a) The dates that initiatives started and ended on; (b) The different “kinds” of governance activities that TCG initiatives engage in; (c) The different “forms” of governance; (d) The different types of actors that schemes “targeted”; and, (e) The “country” locations of actual participants.

In some cases (see below), we did so by searching for relevant information about the nature of the schemes in online histories, news reports and academic papers. Most often we used the information contained in online “mission statements” or descriptions of an initiatives activities. Where additional information or clarification was needed, we contacted the relevant practitioners via email or telephone. In other cases, we applied the coding criteria discussed below to individual “member lists” for each initiative pulled from their respective websites or which were attained from relevant practitioners via email. PDFs of the relevant documents (e.g., member lists, etc.) are held by the authors.

Coding “Dates Started/Ended” The date that TCG scheme started on is the year that it first became “active.” By convention, we followed the self-reported dates of first activity on websites. Usually this was the date that scheme was “launched,” “started” or “initiated,” etc. If a self-reported date could not be found, the “date started” was the date of the earliest mention of the scheme being active, either on a scheme’s own website or in a news report. “Dates ended” have not been recorded as rigorously, and are sometimes more difficult to determine. Sometimes a website or news report is very specific about the date that an initiative was closed on. In other cases, where the date is less clear, we have used the year after the last year of known activity.

Coding Different “Kinds” of Governance Activities To get a sense of the different kinds of activities that these active TCG initiatives are engaged in, we also coded our dataset using a typology used in Abbott (2012). Abbott identifies four different kinds of transnational governance activities: information-sharing and networking (IN); standards and commitments (SC); financing related activities (F); and operational activities (O). SC schemes are those primarily involved in coding and implementing specific rules. These rules may be mandatory in some instances. Most often they are of a voluntary character. As Abbott notes, a large number of these are carbon offset standards designed to regulate the quality of carbon offset credits in voluntary carbon trading markets. Other SC schemes are designed to set standards for emissions accounting and reporting, or set various commitments for individuals, firms, local governments, and so on. SC schemes include schemes like the Gold Standard, the Voluntary Carbon Standard, the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.

IN schemes, by contrast, are those explicitly designed to build capacity by sharing knowledge, experiences and information, or which record emissions and commitments. IN schemes include the Carbon Disclosure Project, a CSR and emissions reporting scheme, and ICLEI, which seeks to support sustainability commitments in local governments by serving as conduit for information and technical services. Schemes engaged in operational activities are those, which perform certain governance-type services or provide collective goods. These services can include facilitating markets and market access (as does Methane to Markets), piloting demonstration projects and building capacity and expertise (REEEP), facilitating research and development (APP), supporting and helping to initiate other transnational partnerships (ecopartnerships.gov), and so on. Finally, financing initiatives are a specific class of operations schemes that help to facilitate, direct, and sometime provide funding directly to climate change related projects.

In our database we allowed for schemes be coded as more than one “kind.” If a scheme was determined to involve both SC and F, for instance, we coded it as being .5 SC and .5 F, and so on.

Coding Different “Forms” of TCG Next, we use the dataset to determine the different forms of TCG. Here, we identify four primary forms of transnational governance: entrepreneurial, partnered, transgovernmental and orchestrated. The first three forms of TCG are relatively straightforward. We code an initiative as “entrepreneurial” if non-state actors (NGOs or private firms) played the leading roles in initiating a TCG scheme. A TCG scheme was coded as “partnered” if both non-state and sub-state actors appeared to jointly create a TCG scheme, each playing an important role. An initiative is “transgovernmental” if only sub-state actors were responsible for its creation. A scheme represented a potential case of “orchestration” if at least one national government or an international organization (IO) was at least partially responsible for initiating a TCG scheme or provided support to an entrepreneurial, partnered, or transgovernmental scheme after its creation (see below for more details). Coding was done on the basis website “histories” or occasionally through emails or phone interviews with relevant practitioners in order to determine the composition of the actors involved in the creation of a scheme. Unfortunately, we were are unable to include instances of “delegation” into this dataset as a result of the fact that often the delegation takes a quite different form; it usually involves private or sub-national actors but is embedded within intergovernmental frameworks. In the arena of climate change, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is a compelling example (for discussion see Green 2008; also see Green 2010, which offers a quantitative estimate of the incidence of delegation to private actors in the global environmental arena). Such initiatives are, however, quite different in nature from the instances of TCG coded in the database and are therefore not incorporated into the dataset.

“ Orchestration,” as mentioned, could involve either “initiating” or “shaping.” Determining whether “initiating” took place was done by identifying all of those schemes that involved an IO or a national government as among the group of actors involved in creating the scheme. However, we required that the IO or government play a “leading” role. Signs of “leadership” at this early stage involved supplying crucial funding or expertise, playing a brokering role or offering high-level publicity in a process that resulted in the creation of a TCG scheme. An initiative was coded as having been “shaped” if it was originally established as a horizontal initiative (either entrepreneurial, partnered, or transgovernmental) but was actively shaped after it was created by a state or IO. This could take the form of providing funding or other resources, offering publicity, or by taking actions that had the aim of somehow regulating the quality of transnational rules by sanctioning some rather than others.

Coding “Target” Participants Finally, we examine the composition of the participants targeted by the various initiatives in our database. “Target” participants are the actors that TCG schemes aim to change the behavior. TCG schemes may be initiated in a variety of ways, as has been shown above, but the actors or participants that these schemes target – those whose behaviour they are intended to “steer” – are frequently not those responsible for creating a scheme. The Gold Standard, for example, was created by WWF in 2003, and is endorsed by numerous other NGOs, but it is utilized mainly by market actors. Based upon the main trends in the literature on TCG, we identify five different kinds of target participants: local governments, governments/sub-national governmental units (ministries, agencies, etc.), businesses, carbon market participants, and individual consumers. Local governments include townships, municipalities, provinces, states, and so on. Governmental/sub- national governmental units include the central government and its administrative apparatus. Businesses include small, medium and large size firms. We also include various non-profit organizations in this category. Carbon market participants are also mainly businesses of varying sizes, and can be regarded as a subcategory within the larger businesses category (i.e. they could be usefully considered a single category in certain circumstances). However, we separate them out from other business participants since they play a unique role in TCG. Finally, a number of schemes such as Carbon Reduction Action Groups (CRAGs) target individuals directly.

In order to code these in our database, we looked to the de jure statements on websites about the intended targets of the TCG schemes in our database as well as de facto participants, as evidenced by membership or participant records or registers. If at least one category of actor was found to be explicitly targeted or was a member, a TCG scheme was counted as “targeting” that type. Several categories and sub-categories of actors could have been used, and therefore the exact categorization method is somewhat arbitrary (as above, in the case of carbon market participants, for example). However, our categories reflected what we believed to be the most important participants that the broader literature on TCG has identified. Often, more than one target was identifiable. According to the website of the Climate Neutral Network, for example, its participants include regions, countries, cities, companies, and associations and organizations. In this case, we recorded it has having “target” participants in each category except individuals.

Coding Participant’s Country Locations The country-level dimension of our database makes use of “member lists” found on initiative websites, or which were acquired by phone interviews or email. Some academic sources were used as well. Each “member” or “participant” in an initiative was coded as being associated with or located in a single country. Often this was explicit on websites. However, where a participant’s “country” was not explicitly mentioned, we conducted Internet searches. In most cases, we used the location of a business’s or NGO’s headquarters to determine the country it was from, unless it was explicitly clear that only a regional office was involved. In the special case of carbon standards, we used the “project” or “country” location (as reported, for instance, on the Markit Environmental Registry) to determine the country. If an initiative was found to have at least one participant from a particular country, then the initiative was coded as being “active” in that country (coded as “1”; if not, it received a “0”). We coded for all countries that are members of the United Nations.

Works Cited Abbott, K. (2012). “The Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change.” Environment and Planning C: Government & Policy Andonova, L. B., M. M. Betsill, et al. (2009). "Transnational Climate Governance." Global Environmental Politics 9(2). Harriet Bulkeley, Liliana Andonova, Karen Bäckstrand, Michelle Betsill, Daniel Compagnon, Rosaleen Duffy, Ans Kolk, Matthew Hoffmann, David Levy, Peter Newell, Tori Milledge, Matthew Paterson, Philipp Pattberg and Stacy VanDeveer, (2012). ‘Governing climate change transnationally: assessing the evidence from a database of sixty initiatives’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 30(4). Green, J. (2008). “Delegation and accountability in the Clean Development Mechanism: The new authority of non-state actors.” Journal of International Law and International Relations 4(2). Green, J. (2010). “Private Authority on the Rise: A century of delegation in multilateral environmental agreements.” in C. Jönsson and J. Tallberg, eds. Transnational Actors in Global Governance. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. Hoffmann, M. (2011). Climate Governance at the Crossroads. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Risse-Kappen, T. (1995). Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-State Actors: Domestic Structures and International Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Table 1: List of Transnational Climate Governance Initiatives

# Name Year Started Form of (and Ended) Governance 1 Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean 2006-2011 Orchestration Development and Climate 2 Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience 2008 Partnered Network 3 BioCarbon Fund 2004 Orchestration 4 C40 cities 2005 Orchestration 5 Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) 2001 Orchestration 6 Carbon Finance Capacity Building 2009 Orchestration Programme 7 Carbon Rationing Action Groups 2006 Entrepreneurial 8 Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum 2003 Transgovernmental 9 Carbon Trust Footprinting Certification 2007 Entrepreneurial 1 Carbon War Room 2010 Entrepreneurial 0 1 CarbonFix Standard 1999 Entrepreneurial 1 1 CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange Offset 2003-2011 Entrepreneurial 2 Program) 1 Clean Air Initiative 2001 Orchestration 3 1 Climate Action Initiative 2009 Entrepreneurial 4 1 Climate Action Researve 2009 Orchestration 5 1 Climate Alliance of European Cities with 1990 Partnered 6 Indigenous Peoples 1 Climate Champions 2008 Orchestration 7 1 Climate Disclosure Standards Board 2007 Entrepreneurial 8 1 Climate Neutral Network 2008 Orchestration 9 2 Climate Savers Computing Initiative 2007 Entrepreneurial 0 2 Climate Technology Initiative PFAN 2006 Orchestration 1 2 Climate, Community and Biodiversity 2005 Entrepreneurial 2 Alliance (Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Standard) 2 ClimateWise 2006 Entrepreneurial 3 2 Collaborative Labeling and Appliance 1999 Orchestration 4 Standards Program 2 Community Development Carbon Fund 2003 Orchestration 5 2 Connected Urban Development 2006 Partnered 6 2 Covenant of Mayors 2009 Transgovernmental 7 2 Delta Alliance 2010 Partnered 8 2 Global Sustainability Electricity Partnership 1992 Entrepreneurial 9 (formerly the E8) 3 Eco-Partnershios 2008 Orchestration 0 3 Edenbee 2008 Entrepreneurial 1 3 Energy Cities 1990 Transgovernmental 2 3 EUROCITIES Declaration on Climate 2008 Transgovernmental 3 Change 3 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility 2008 Orchestration 4 3 Forest Disclosure Initiative 2008 Entrepreneurial 5 3 Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership 2002 Orchestration 6 3 Global GHG Register 2005 Entrepreneurial 7 3 Global Methane Initiative (formerly the 2004 Orchestration 8 Methane to Markets Partnership) 3 Global Reporting Initiative 1997 Entrepreneurial 9 4 Green Power Market Development Group 2001 Entrepreneurial 0 4 Green-e (Climate Standards) 2008 Entrepreneurial 1 4 Greenhouse Gas Protocol 1998 Entrepreneurial 2 4 HSBC Climate Partnership 2007 Entrepreneurial 3 4 ICLEI - Local Governments for 1993 Transgovernmental 4 Sustainability 4 Institutional Investors Group on Climate 2005 Entrepreneurial 5 Change 4 International Climate Action Partnership 2007 Transgovernmental 6 4 International Emissions Trading Association 1999 Entrepreneurial 7 4 International Leadership Alliance for 2006 Partnered 8 Climate Stabilization 4 Investor Network on Climate Risk 2003 Entrepreneurial 9 5 ISO 14064/14065 2006 Entrepreneurial 0 5 Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2007 Transgovernmental 1 Accord 5 Pew Business Environmental Leadership 1998 Entrepreneurial 2 Council 5 Plan Vivo 2008 Entrepreneurial 3 5 Prototype Carbon Fund 2000 Orchestration 4 5 Quality Assurance Scheme for Carbon 2009-2011 Orchestration 5 Offsetting 5 R20 2010 Transgovernmental 6 5 Refrigerants, Naturally! 2004 Entrepreneurial 7 5 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency 2002 Orchestration 8 Partnership (REEEP) 5 SlimCity Initiative 2008 Partnered 9 6 SOCIALCARBON 2008 Entrepreneurial 0 6 Sustainable Energy Finance Initiative (and 2005 Orchestration 1 Alliance) 6 The Climate Group (Member Principles) 2004 Entrepreneurial 2 6 The Climate Group (The Climate Principles) 2008 Entrepreneurial 3 6 The Climate Registry 2007 Orchestration 4 6 The Gold Standard 2001 Entrepreneurial 5 6 The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels 2007 Entrepreneurial 6 (RSB Standard) 6 Transition Towns 2006 Transgovernmental 7 6 UN Global Compact Caring for Climate 2009 Orchestration 8 6 UNEP Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) 2000 Orchestration 9 7 VER+ 2007 Entrepreneurial 0 7 Verified Carbon Standard (formerly the 2007 Entrepreneurial 1 Voluntary Carbon Standard) 7 Western Climate Initiative 2007 Transgovernmental 2 7 William J. Clinton Foundation Climate 2006-2011 Entrepreneurial 3 Initiative (merged with C40) 7 World Mayors' Council on Climate Change 2005 Transgovernmental 4 7 WWF Climate Savers 2008 Entrepreneurial 5