May 25, 2022 The Climate Initiatives Platform: Towards Greater Transparency in International Cooperative

If the Paris Agreement is to be implemented successfully, it is crucial that all actors step up their actions, including non-state actors such as businesses, cities, regions and investors. Transpar ...


Foreword
Responding to climate change must happen through actions on the ground. International cooperation enhances such action to mitigate, adapt and achieve climate resilient development, as we are required to do under the Paris agreement. International Cooperative Initiatives (ICIs) in the Climate Initiatives Platform (CIP) provides examples of mitigation and in some cases adaptation in transport, cities, agriculture, forestry and industry. Almost 250 initiatives driven mainly by non-state actors, including cities, regions and businesses, are currently displayed by the CIPsome of them also involving national governments. Documentation of cooperative initiatives through CIP, operated by UN Environment, gives valuable overview and recognition of action and facilitate replication. The CIP also feeds information into the wider NAZCA portal operated by the UN Climate Change secretariat.
In order to improve transparency in this area, CIP was developed from 2014 as an online platform. The development of CIP was originally funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers through its Working Group on Climate Change Negotiations (NOAK) and contributions have also been given by the Government of the Netherlands. Currently, CIP is hosted by UN Environment through the Danish Technical University (DTU) at UNEP DTU Partnership. Over the last two years work has been undertaken to improve CIP's functionalities and carry out an analysis of the initiatives in order to promote further action under the UNFCCC Action Agenda. UN Environment and DTU as responsible for maintaining and updating CIP were assigned the task. The report The Climate Initiatives Platform: Towards Greater Transparency in International Cooperative Climate Initiatives (ICIs) introduces an impact-monitoring framework for measuring progress with the different types of initiatives and CIP's strategy for going forward. The report also examines the progress and impact of initiatives to date, using the developed impact-monitoring framework. Finally, it also outlines the current coverage of ICIs on CIP in the different sectors against potential GHG emissions reductions in the specific sectors.
The aim of NOAK is to contribute to an ambitious and effective implementation of the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement, with a Nordic perspective. To this end, the group prepares studies and reports, conducts meetings, and organizes conferences supporting Nordic and international negotiators in the climate negotiations. I hope the information on ICIs through the CIP provides inspiration to stakeholders that will result in intensified efforts and thus contribute to developing low emissions climate resilient societies.
Oslo, October 2018, Peer Stiansen Chair of the Nordic Working Group for Global Climate Negotiations (NOAK)

Summary
If the Paris Agreement is to be implemented successfully, it is necessary that all actors step up their actions, including non-state actors such as businesses, cities, regions and investors. Enhanced transparency of non-state actors' actions and their impacts will be a key to harvesting additional potential and catalysing further climate action by all actors in order to ratchet up the overall ambition, in line with the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement.
In response, the Climate Initiatives Platform 1 was initiated by the Nordic Council of Ministers 2 with the aim of providing open-source data on a category of non-state climate action with a substantial potential to reduce climate emissions: the so-called international cooperative initiatives (ICIs). CIP has since then been transferred to UN Environment and has grown into a vital transparency tool. More than 50 data points for each of around 250 ICIs are provided. It has also become the exclusive data provider for ICIs to the UNFCCC Global Climate Action portal NAZCA. In addition, CIP data are used for several climate assessments, including UN Environment's Emissions Gap Report.
In line with the trend towards enhanced transparency shown by non-state actors, the Nordic Council of Ministers has funded the work presented in this report with the overall aim of further strengthening CIP in becoming the main space for tracking progress of ICIs.
Chapter 2-4 in this report present three salient topics for non-state actors' climate actions, providing different perspectives on their progress and impact. Chapter 2 introduces an impact-monitoring framework for measuring progress with the different types of initiatives and CIP's strategy going forward. The framework makes it possible to compare the progress and impact across the whole range of very diverse ICIs, going beyond merely mitigation. The strategy will enable CIP to maintain its relevance in the plethora of databases for non-state actors' actions, as well as facilitating and strengthening initiatives' monitoring and reporting practices with the aim of enhancing their accountability. Regular self-reporting by ICIs to CIP is crucial, but is not yet a broadly implemented practice.
Chapter 3 examines the progress and impact of initiatives to date, using the developed impact-monitoring framework. An important conclusion from this exercise is that it is too early and difficult to establish whether the goals of the ICIs will be met as goals are not clearly defined or progress indicators are not (publicly) available. However, a considerable portion of a small sample of ICIs are in fact progressing towards their goals. 10 The Climate Initiatives Platform Chapter 4 compares the coverage of ICIs on CIP in the different sectors against the potential GHG emissions reductions in the specific sectors. Given the large potential of GHG emission reductions through ICIs, monitoring their actual impact and fulfilling their commitments will be crucial in building confidence and informing the Global Stocktake. A comparison of the ICIs with the IPCC sectors shows that they are well covered, but to various degrees, compared to the coverage needed to achieve the emission reductions in the respective sectors. Only with the assumption that all ICIs are equally ambitious in each sector, a preliminary conclusion can be drawn that agriculture, forestry, and land-use change (AFOLU) and energy are under-represented compared to the projected potential emissions reductions required from these sectors.

Introduction: The Proliferation of Climate Actions by Non-State Actors
The Paris Agreement presents a historical landmark in the global response to climate change and sets out the objective of limiting global warming to well below 2 °C and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. However, the national climate change efforts to which Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have committed themselves in the form of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are largely insufficient, and only cover one third of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions necessary to reach this temperature goal (UNEP 2017). There is still a significant gap between 2030 emission levels and a least-cost 2 °C pathway amounting to 11 GtCO2e or even as much as 13.5 GtCO2e, taking only unconditional NDCs into account (UNEP 2017). Global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, albeit at a slower rate, and even though the Parties must increase the goals of their NDCs over time, it is unlikely that the emissions reductions thus achieved will be sufficient (UNEP 2017). Action by non-state actors (or non-Party stakeholders in UNFCCC jargon), such as businesses, investors, civil society, cities and subnational governments, has proliferated outside the UNFCCC process as part of the response to climate change (Hsu, et al. 2018). Especially in the run-up to COP 21 in Paris and in conjunction with COP 22 in Marrakesh, the last decade has seen a strong increase in non-state actors' actions to move towards climate change mitigation and adaptation. The role of nonstate actors in the response to climate change is also acknowledged in the Paris Agreement, which makes specific reference "to the importance of the engagements of all levels of government and various actors […] in addressing climate change" and welcomes "the efforts of non-Party stakeholders to scale up their climate action".
In particular, so-called international cooperative initiatives (ICIs) have been emerging as important new actors in the climate change arena. ICIs are collaborative partnerships between non-state actors, often in cooperation with state and government actors, with the ambition to act on climate change. Alongside other nonstate actors, they are increasingly recognized for their potential in raising global ambitions in the face of climate change. In 2014, the Lima-Paris Action Agenda (LPAA), convened by the COP presidencies of Peru and France, as well as UNFCCC and the UN Secretary-General's Climate Change Support Team, endorsed over seventy international climate initiatives across twelve themes with a view to accelerating the groundswell of climate action and keeping up the momentum generated by non-state 12 The Climate Initiatives Platform actors. Most initiatives were launched in 2014 and 2015, since when the number of new initiatives has continuously increased, with eleven being launched in 2017.
Under the Paris Agreement, it was agreed to convene an annual high-level event from 2016 to 2020 in conjunction with the Conference of Parties (COP) in order to provide an opportunity for effective engagement by the dignitaries of Parties and international organizations, as well as those behind international cooperative initiatives and other non-Party stakeholders. In addition, two high-level champions were appointed to encourage the engagement of interested Parties and non-Party stakeholders and to further the initiatives launched as part of the Lima-Paris Action Agenda, among others. Building on the latter, the first two high-level champions to be appointed from the COP presidencies of France and Morocco launched the Global Climate Action Agenda (GCAA) and the Road Map for Global Climate Action, which led to the creation of the Marrakesh Partnership for Global Climate Action at COP 22 in 2016. The Marrakesh Partnership for Global Climate Action, focusing on immediate climate action until 2020, supports the implementation of the Paris Agreement by facilitating and catalysing collaboration between governments and non-state actors and by raising ambitions over time. The work programme of the Partnership for 2017-2018, which covers the seven thematic areas of Land Use, Oceans and Coastal Zones, Water, Human Settlements, Transport, Energy and Industry, includes a number of activities, including establishing a Climate Action Collaboration Forum and organizing high-level round tables on interaction between selected SDGs and climate action.
The importance of partnerships is further recognized by Agenda 2030 through Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 17, "Partnership for the Goals", and its 17.16 target: "Enhancing the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources". This is designed to support achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries.

The Climate Initiatives Platform
Responding to the proliferation of international cooperative initiatives, Ecofys, CIP, alongside other data providers, such as the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and UN Global Compact, serves as a core data partner of the Non-State Actor Zone for Climate Change (NAZCA) portal. The NAZCA portal was launched at COP20 in Peru to collect and showcase commitments to undertake climate actions from a wide range of actors. The portal currently hosts 12,549 commitments to undertake climate actions from cities, regions, companies, investors and civil-society organizations. The more than seventy cooperative initiatives of the LPAA mentioned above are also included in the database. The role of NAZCA has been significantly strengthened under the Paris Agreement, and it encourages non-state actors to register their efforts on the NAZCA portal. As a data partner for the cooperative initiatives, it is crucial that CIP includes them all, even though this might require the criteria for inclusion to be interpreted generously.

Global Climate Action Summit
While countries worked diligently on finalizing the Paris Rulebook to be concluded by COP24 in Katowice, Poland, the year 2018 was also pivotal for non-state actors both to showcase and to scale up their climate actions. The Global Climate Action Summit (GCAS), which took place in September in San Francisco at the initiative of California's governor, Jerry Brown, brought together over 4,000 participants from around the world to "take ambition to the next level" and to praise the achievements of states, regions, cities, businesses, investors and citizens alike. To increase the ambitions of non-state actors further, participants from organizations were required to make a major climate commitment in five focus areas or accept a challenge to attend the summit. For example, companies could commit themselves to one of the twelve initiatives of the We Mean Business Take Action Platform, while investors could take the Green Bond Pledge. Cities were also encouraged to increase their climate actions by developing an inclusive climate action by 2020 or by joining different declarations such as the Fossil Fuel Free Street Declaration or the Net Zero Carbon Buildings Declaration. Cities are also encouraged to join existing initiatives, for example, the Powering Past Coal Alliance or the Global 100% RE initiative. Similar to the proliferation of initiatives in the run-up to COP21, the Global Climate Action Summit also spurred the launching of new initiatives and the strengthening and expansion of existing ones, such as the five-year Nature4Climate initiative and the 30X30 Forests, Food and Land Challenge, both launched in June 2018. A new Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Challenge, led by the Climate Group and C40 Cities to increase the adoption of electric vehicles by states, regions and cities, was launched in July, building on the EV100 initiative and a ZEV project of the Under2Coalition. The US Climate Alliance, a coalition of governors committed to reducing GHG emissions in line with the Paris Agreement and representing 40% of the American population, also announced new initiatives to which governors are encouraged to commit, including the reduction of short-lived climate pollutants and the introduction of clean transportation. The Science Based Targets initiative has seen a rapid increase in membership with 130 companies, among them companies from heavy emitting sectors such as cement, committing to science based targets in 2018 alone.
As an outcome of the GCAS, more than 60 national and subnational governments as well as multinational businesses committed to the ZEV Challenge. The C40 driven initiative Deadline 2020 was reaffirmed by mayors from over 70 cities. In addition, a number of new initiatives were formed, among other the Sign Up Declaration, a new alliance of companies to harness the power of emerging technologies, which was signed by twenty-one companies at GCAS. The Global Climate Action Summit concluded with a "Call to Action" urging national governments to join forces with nonstate actors and to increase their climate ambition.
Prior to the GCAS, UNFCCC's NAZCA portal was relaunched, having undergone a transformation so as to provide deeper insights into the progress and impact of nonstate actors' actions and to show tangible evidence of the acceleration of Global Climate Actions. The more than 500 commitments of the GCAS will be registered on the new Climate Action Portal.

Talanoa Dialogue
Another major step taken in 2018 by non-state actors and state actors alike was the socalled Facilitative Dialogue, called the Talanoa Dialogue by the UNFCCC, which is led by the two high-level champions of the current and incoming COP presidencies. Launched at COP23, the aim of the Talanoa Dialogue was to take stock of collective progress towards the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement and to inform the next round of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) due by 2020. In line with the idea of Talanoa, a Fijian word describing an inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue, the two champions invited the active participation of non-Party stakeholders in the process and encouraged them to provide analytical and policy-relevant inputs through an online platform with a view to understanding the potential for stepping up climate actions. Before the 2018 May negotiations, 220 inputs were provided through the Talanoa Dialogue platform, of which 205 came from non-Party stakeholders. Inputs by mixed partnerships and coalitions amounted to 15% of total submissions, their inputs mainly highlighting initiatives and actions taken on the ground. Inputs on mitigation initiatives and actions by non-Party stakeholders often focus on specific sectors, especially energy (renewable and clean energy), transport (electric and urban transport), buildings and land-use. Partnerships and coalitions also seek to motivate large-scale changes in interaction with the rest of the economy and through their supply chains, among others. Large businesses, for example, often organize themselves in alliances and networks to utilize their purchasing power in fostering the introduction of renewable energy and electric vehicles, while alliances of investors seek to set new standards for climate risk reporting. Among the many cooperative initiatives to provide inputs were the Global Alliance for Building and Construction, Mobilise Your City, the Partnership on Sustainable Low Carbon Transport (SLoCaT), the Paris Process on Mobility and Climate (PPMC), the We Mean Business Coalition and the Climate Group through its RE100 initiative. Talanoa Dialogue events were also held at the Global Climate Action Summit in September.
The processes and events of 2018, which will culminate in COP24 from 3 to 14 December in Katowice, presented a significant opportunity to spur the momentum of non-state actors' climate actions and to determine how non-state actors can support and enhance the goals of climate actions of their national counterparts. Enhanced transparency of non-state actors' actions and their impacts will be a key to harvesting additional potential and catalysing further climate action by all actors in order to ratchet up the overall ambition, in line with the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement.

Enhancing the Transparency of Non-State Actors and the Role of CIP
Responding to the call for greater transparency in respect of non-state actors' climate actions, different organizations and initiatives have developed ways of tracking and accounting for these actions. For instance, under the Initiative for Climate Action Transparency, a consortium of various organizations has developed guidelines to facilitate the integration of the impacts of non-state and specifically subnational actions into national GHG projections and mitigation assessments. The Marrakesh Partnership also strongly emphasises the tracking of progress and the impact of the commitments of its actors and initiatives. The first two Champions of the Partnership stated specifically that they intend "to help non-party stakeholders achieve the recognition they seek" while acknowledging that they "owe it to the integrity of the UNFCCC process to make sure that these initiatives and coalitions achieve the targets they set for themselves". As included in the partnership's work plan for 2017-2018, the impact of its initiatives will be tracked through the revised NAZCA Global Climate Action portal. The Partnership's second reporting and tracking vehicle is its annual Yearbook of Global Climate Action. The Yearbook for 2017 concluded, among other things, that reporting on global climate actions by non-state actors is improving and that climate actions under the Marrakesh Partnership are expanding and diversifying, with initiatives increasingly addressing adaptation, as well as a trend emerging towards broader geographical implementation, especially in low-income countries. The majority of initiatives engage in knowledge dissemination and production, followed by strengthening institutions and policy-planning. While the Partnership aims to support the transparency of the actions taken under its initiatives, the various coalitions and initiatives remain fully responsible for the development of road maps in order to increase their success and the reporting of progress on achieving their commitments and plans. CIP has the potential to play a central role in the process of increasing the transparency of collaborative initiatives. Currently, other databases for non-state actors such as CDP and the carbonn Climate Registry collect information on the commitments and actions of individual actors such as cities, businesses and investors. CIP, on the other hand, serves as a platform for partnerships, coalitions and other constellations consisting of various kinds of actors determined to achieve a common goal. While UNFCCC's NAZCA portal also contains initiatives, it only hosts a selection of those cooperative initiatives that show a clear commitment across sixteen thematic areas, including the LPAA initiatives. The total number of initiatives listed on NAZCA is 83, 4 compared currently to 244 on CIP. 5 Few initiatives are added to the NAZCA portal while CIP includes initiatives continuously. On CIP more than fifty data points are provided for each initiative, including information on goals, activities, geographical scope and participants. Moreover, CIP utilizes a wiki model that allows direct input by the initiatives, which means that they can edit and update their information at any time. The aim is to create a sense of ownership for the initiatives and thereby encourage selfreporting. Input provided undergoes a quality check by the hosts of CIP before it is published on the website. Given the continuing proliferation of new initiatives -as seen, for instance, in conjunction with the Global Climate Action Summit -and the need for transparency regarding the initiatives' actions, the importance of CIP as a platform for these initiatives becomes apparent. In line with the trend towards the enhanced transparency shown by non-state actors, the Nordic Council of Ministers has funded the work presented in this report with the overall aim of strengthening CIP in becoming the main space for tracking progress with international cooperative initiatives (ICIs).
Chapter 2-4 in this report present three salient topics for non-state actors' climate actions, providing different perspectives on their progress and impact. Chapter 2 introduces an impact-monitoring framework for measuring progress with the different types of initiatives and CIP's strategy going forward. The strategy will enable CIP to maintain its relevance in the plethora of databases for non-state actors' actions, as well as facilitating and strengthening initiatives' monitoring and reporting practices with the aim of enhancing their accountability.
Chapter 3 examines the progress and impact of initiatives to date, using the developed impact-monitoring framework. Chapter 4 compares the coverage of ICIs on CIP in the different sectors against the potential GHG emissions reductions in the specific sectors. Given the large potential of GHG emission reductions through cooperative initiatives in the order of a few GtCO2e (UNEP 2016;, monitoring their actual impact and fulfilling their commitments will be crucial in building confidence and informing the Global Stocktake.
All annexes of this report are available on the CIP webpage at www.climateinitiativesplatform.org.

Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to describe an impact-monitoring framework for the initiatives on CIP. The first section outlines the current monitoring system and describes the survey and literature review that has been conducted in order to explore the potential for improvement. The second section presents the new impact-monitoring framework and describes the factors taken into account in its development. To test the usability of the impact-monitoring framework, it is applied to the 77 cooperative initiatives on NAZCA. 6 The chapter closes with a discussion of the potential role of the indicator framework for CIP and outlines the measures needed to ensure its success.

Current Monitoring System and Exploration of Potential for Improvement
The current monitoring system on CIP consists of the Monitoring and Impact section, which covers ten different data points for textual input, including Roadmap and Work Plan and Progress made by the initiative, among others. This section was originally developed under Ecofys as part of the overall development of the platform and has been altered since. The majority of inputs in the Monitoring and Impact section were gathered through a questionnaire conducted in 2016. A few initiatives have also provided direct inputs on their respective pages on CIP. The text-based approach of the monitoring and impact section, together with the possibility of comprehensive descriptions, allows the specifics of each initiative to be captured, but it also makes it difficult to aggregate the impact of initiatives and thus obtain a clear picture of their progress.
A survey of self-reporting and a literature review preceded the development of the monitoring system and provided the necessary information for it.

20
The Climate Initiatives Platform

Review of Other Databases and their Monitoring Systems
A literature review of other existing databases to collect documentation on initiatives was conducted in order to identify potential methods and approaches applicable to CIP and the development of an impact-monitoring framework. Widerberg and Stipple's (2016) review of five different databases of cooperative initiatives became the point of departure. The five reviewed databases are UNFCCC's NAZCA database and UNFCCC's Portal on Cooperative Initiatives, the Transnational Climate Change Governance Initiatives (TCCGI), created by a group of researchers, the Global Aggregator for Climate Action (GAFCA), created by researchers at the London School of Economics and the German Development Institute, and finally CIP itself.
Since 2014, NAZCA has served as an online platform for commitments from both individual non-state actors and cooperative initiatives. With its goal of building momentum in support of a universal climate agreement at COP21 in 2015, NAZCA showcases the multiplicity and diversity of initiatives. The progress of the ICIs is not tracked, nor is there a system for doing so. The online database, Portal on Cooperative Initiatives (PCI), also launched by the UNFCCC in 2014, also hosted categorized data on initiatives but lacked progress-tracking functionality. However, PCI has since ended, and the database is no longer accessible. The Transnational Climate Change Governance Initiatives (TCCGI) database was an academic project initiated by a network of scholars to analyse the nature of non-state climate action, which resulted in a book in 2014. Being a one-off project, progress tracking of initiatives was also not included here.
The last database, the Global Aggregator for Climate Change (GAFCA), was also developed through academic research collaboration in 2015. This is an analytical tool with which to gather, organize and assess the effectiveness of initiatives. GAFCA uses a method called "Function-Output-Fit" with twelve identified functions of initiatives linked to 26 concrete, tangible outputs. If an initiative produces an output, the box is ticked and the output is considered fulfilled; however, neither the quantity nor the quality of the given output is assessed.
There are strong similarities between the GAFCA method and the monitoringimpact framework developed in this project, with several identical indicators. Upon development of the impact-monitoring framework, the GAFCA method was revisited to improve and inspire the framework and its related indicators further. Moreover, an important feature common to both frameworks is the aim to capture the impacts of initiatives beyond mere GHG mitigation. The GAFCA Function-Output-Fit method was also applied by the Marrakesh Partnership in analysing a number of initiatives, as covered in its Yearbook of Global Climate Action for 2017.

Survey on Self-Reporting
In the beginning of 2018, as part of this project, a survey 7 containing 26 questions was conducted among all 224 initiatives, being registered on CIP from 15 January 2018. The aim of the survey was to identify the initiative's current monitoring and reporting practices and determine how self-reporting of the initiatives to CIP can be improved. In total, answers were received concerning 57 initiatives of different sizes and different sectoral focus areas, including the Science Based Targets Initiative, the Bonn Challenge and the Urban Electric Mobility Initiative. The survey showed that the majority of initiatives do track the progress of their work, mostly on an annual basis, and using both qualitative and quantitative indicators. However, quantitative indicators such as GHG emission reductions and the number of commitments and active members are in the majority. Most initiatives also already report their progress, mainly by publishing their reports on their websites or by distributing them to their members. Reasons for not tracking the progress made by some initiatives include, among others, a lack of human and financial resources, a lack of suitable progress indicators and the complexity of the tracking process, if, for instance, individual member have different goals.
Many of the fields in the Monitoring & Impact section on CIP were regarded as relevant or very relevant, though it was found that some fields could be reworded or refined. The Roadmap and Workplan field, for example, was regarded as overly detailed by one initiative. Another initiative stated that it is unclear what to include in the field Tracking adaptation progress (quantitative). Self-reporting to CIP was indicated as useful, as it allows those doing the reporting to administer their own information, but a number of initiatives indicated that a regular reminder to report would be beneficial. The purpose and benefits of reporting to CIP were questioned by one initiative, a view that may be shared by other initiatives as well. The first reason for this is that CIP's niche is not yet clearly established and its value added is not clear to them. Other reasons for this view may be that initiatives do not have an interest in reporting, as reporting was never part of the agreed framework in the initiative, that reporting may reveal a lack or absence of progress, or that reporting is difficult or impossible due to unclear targets and baselines. Hsu et al. 2018 state that just 48 out of 220 ICIs in CIP have quantifiable goals.
Overall the survey was felt to be a useful exercise in understanding the monitoring and reporting efforts of initiatives and in providing an entry point into the monitoring framework developed as part of this project.
While the survey demonstrated that most initiatives do have arrangements for monitoring and do track progress, it also affirmed that no standard way of monitoring exists and that accordingly progress indicators vary greatly. The use of various indicators by the initiatives, reflecting their very different nature and goals, impedes 22 The Climate Initiatives Platform aggregating their collective impact. In addition, while many initiatives 8 do report their progress, they mostly do so on their individual websites and/or internally, not on a central data depository, which also makes it difficult to determine the progress of the various initiatives. It was due to this insight that the impact-monitoring framework was developed.

Factors Considered in Developing the Impact-Monitoring Framework
The new impact-monitoring framework will monitor progress through a set of indicators. Each indicator is tied to an activity, which is in turn tied to a function of an initiative. The classification system of function and activity, and more specifically the main activities and side activities, of any given initiative, is already accessible on CIP and therefore provides an obvious entry point for the development of indicators. However, the lack of a clear definition of the different functions and activities on CIP so far, which allows for individual interpretation, has strongly hindered the development of a standardized categorization for the initiatives. As the user-friendliness of the platform, including a clear explanation of the different concepts, is a precondition to incite the self-reporting of initiatives, definitions have been developed for each function, activity and indicator, and they will be published on the website for easy accessibility. The definitions are made available in Annex II.
In developing the set of indicators, a number of factors have been taken into account:  Aggregability vs. individuality:  The indicators should be quantitative and thereby aggregable, allowing the impacts of different initiatives to be combined with the same indicator. Therefore, clear and precise indicators have been chosen to ensure that the different initiatives understand them in the same way;  Balancing aggregability with the very different types of initiatives, the chosen indicators are sufficiently broad to allow progress with a large variety of ICIs on the database to be monitored.
 User-friendliness:  For CIP as a wiki-based platform, the indicators have been developed under the assumption that self-reporting will be fundamental to the process of tracking progress. The data necessary to track the progress of initiatives according to the specific indicators is to be provided by the initiatives themselves. To facilitate progress monitoring, an important consideration has been the availability of data within the initiatives. In order to avoid onerous and cumbersome data collection and reporting by the initiatives, the userfriendliness of the monitoring system has been given a high priority;  Each initiative will only report on the indicators tied to its own chosen activities and functions. Thus, while the impact-monitoring framework presented below, with its five functions, thirteen activities and 48 indicators, may seem daunting, a reporting initiative would only see the indicators that are relevant to itself.
 Impact of initiatives:  The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is included as an indicator for only two of the five functions. As the type and activities of initiatives vary greatly, the initiative's impacts will also differ, not only being bound to GHG emissions reductions. While many initiatives might have an indirect impact on emissions reductions, only the actual implementation initiatives, as well as in some cases the political dialogue -policy impact, will lead directly to emissions reductions. With respect to implementation, the technical operational implementation initiatives have already achieved emissions reductions (ex-post) or are in the process of implementing measures to achieve them, while the goal-setting initiatives pledge to achieve emissions reductions in the future (ex-ante).

2.4
The Impact-Monitoring Framework

Technical Implementation of the Impact-Monitoring Framework on CIP
The new impact-monitoring framework will replace a large portion of the current Monitoring and Impact section on CIP, notably the fields for tracking progress with adaptation, mitigation and financing. Responding to the feedback from initiatives in the survey, some fields will be renamed or merged with other fields in order to enhance the clarity of the requested content: for example, Progress that has been made by your initiative will be renamed Progress towards the goals. The fields Roadmap and Work Plan and Short-and long-term objectives will be replaced by a new field, How will the goals be achieved? Other fields will be deleted or moved to different sections; for example, the field One or two success stories achieved will be moved upwards to the Description section. An additional field has been added called Have you changed or strengthened your goals? Its aim is to gather insights on whether initiatives have increased their ambitions, which is considered highly relevant. Definitions of the different functions, activities and indicators will be provided under the About section on CIP, and they will also appear when the cursor is placed on the respective text fields. In addition to the impact-monitoring framework, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will be integrated into the Monitoring and Impact section in order to gather data on the contribution of the initiatives to the different SDGs. Initiatives will be able to choose the relevant SDG(s), which will then appear at the bottom of the initiative's page. To avoid onerous reporting requirements, SDG targets and indicators will not be included in this section. This is in line with the results of the survey on self-reporting, where a few initiatives indicated that reporting on the indicator level would require too much detail.
The differences between the revised Monitoring and Impact section and the former version can be seen below.

Testing of the Impact-Monitoring Framework
In order to assess the viability of the impact-monitoring framework and its indicators, the framework has been tested by applying it to the 77 cooperative initiatives included in the NAZCA portal. The necessary information for the application of the impactmonitoring framework has been extracted from the initiatives' websites and reports. The testing followed the impact-monitoring framework structure into Function, Activity and Indicators, whereby initiatives can fulfil several functions and activities, which in turn requires the application of more than one indicator per initiative. For numerous initiatives, it was not possible to extract sufficient and up-to-date information.
The results of the testing have been made available in Annex III. They will be presented in tables for the nine general sectors on CIP: Finance, Transport, Agriculture and Forestry, Cities and Regions, Waste, Industry, Non-CO2 Emissions, Energy, and Adaptation. For purposes of presenting these test results, the Energy sector was divided into "Energy Efficiency" and "Renewable Energy", while the Agriculture and Forestry sector was divided into "Agriculture" and "Forestry". The Industry sector was similarly divided into "Business" and "Innovation", and a separate sector for Buildings was created.

26
The Climate Initiatives Platform Testing the indicators proved a useful exercise in understanding the framework's functionality. Following this exercise, some indicators were adjusted or removed. Testing demonstrated the often limited availability of information regarding the respective indicators on the initiatives' websites and in reports, especially with regard to annual data. It also demonstrated that significantly more ICIs reported on activities such as awareness-raising, knowledge production, presentations and workshops (tied to the functions of Political dialogue, Technical dialogue and Capacity-building) than on implementation, and therefore few actual CO2e reduction estimates were reported. This might be because it is too soon for the initiatives to be able to generate these figures, the figures themselves are too uncertain to present, or the progress made simply cannot be measured in terms of CO2e reductions.
However, as described earlier, the impact-monitoring framework has been developed on the assumption that self-reporting by the initiatives will be increased, that is, that the information for the impact-monitoring framework will have to be provided annually by the initiatives themselves. This testing can therefore only provide limited evidence for its usefulness. Once completed by the ICIs themselves the diversity of activities might increase, and with it the number of CO2e reduction figures. In a next step, the impact-monitoring framework will have to be tested by a number of initiatives to collect direct feedback on the framework's usability in terms of measuring progress with them and making further adjustments, if necessary. It should also be pointed out that, as described here, the impact-monitoring framework is considered to be a dynamic framework that can be altered at any time. The goal of this framework is to improve progress monitoring by initiatives over time, and it is therefore considered a journey rather than a one-off exercise.

Conclusions and Steps Forward
Improvements to the monitoring system for tracking progress with ICIs, together with the new impact-monitoring framework, will be key in strengthening CIP as a database for ICIs. The impact-monitoring framework has been developed on the basis of a selfreporting survey conducted among the ICIs on CIP, a literature review and a number of specific considerations, and has subsequently been tested on 77 different ICIs. It has proved its functionality in capturing the nature and progress of the ICIs in a way that can be aggregated, applying functions, activities and indicators. As such, the new CIP strategy will be able not only to showcase ICIs, but also to deliver aggregable data on the nature and progress of their actions. The impact-monitoring framework has been implemented on the CIP website. This development responds to the overall call for greater transparency, in line with the Enhanced Transparency Framework of the Paris Agreement, and it will help fill the gaps in the limited evidence of the impact of ICIs so far, as repeatedly pointed out in UN Environment's Emissions Gap Reports (2016Reports ( , 2017. The Paris Agreement's emphasis on transparency is clear, and there is much focus on improving national capacities across the world, but non-state actors are also increasing their MRV capabilities. These will be captured, for the first time in total, as the progress of ICIs is registered in the framework. CIP can maintain its role by staying up to date, including adding new initiatives on a timely basis, continuously improving its monitoring system and substantially increasing its communication efforts, both to its initiatives themselves and to its wider audience. The survey clearly demonstrated that, while a few initiatives report to CIP regularly, a large number do not or only do so when asked, one of the reasons being that they were not aware of CIP. This problem is especially likely to arise when the initiative's contact person changes. The exercise of sending the survey to all initiatives on CIP showed that many initiatives' contact person(s) had changed. Approximately 60% of the 57 initiatives that participated in the survey indicated that their contact details on CIP were not up to date.
Given that the impact-monitoring framework relies on self-reporting, this issue is of great importance. An annual reminder to initiatives to update their information can mitigate this issue, and indeed it was specifically requested by a number of respondents to the survey. An annual reminder will therefore now be implemented in conjunction with the new impact-monitoring framework. A few initiatives also pointed out that the purpose and the value added of reporting to CIP is unclear, especially as it may duplicate other work. To incentivize regular reporting by the initiatives, it is crucial for CIP to explain and demonstrate the importance of this exercise, and in particular to make it clear what processes the information feeds in to.
CIP is aligned closely with developments under the UNFCCC, notably the NAZCA portal and the Marrakesh Partnership, as well as other developments for data on nonstate actors, for example, through CDP. While the Marrakesh Partnership called CIP a "well-established reporting platform" in its Yearbook of Global Climate Action 2017 under a section on Making action transparent, CIP must continually improve and develop its functionality and communication efforts to fulfil its role. Funding will therefore be key to CIP's further development and activities. In addition, continuous promotion of CIP at COPs and other relevant events on non-state climate action, such as the Global Climate Action Summit and the annual New York Climate Week, will be crucial in order to engage with initiatives, researchers and other stakeholders and to increase its visibility to the global audience. CIP receives two to three hundred visits a day on average, and it is expected that enhancing its visual identity and functionality will further increase the number of visitors.
CIP fulfils a unique position and addresses a knowledge gap in focusing on collaborative non-state actors' initiatives, and thus also by continuously tracking progress. Other databases keep track of the individual initiatives of, for example, cities or companies, but only CIP focuses on the circumstances in which these actors come together in different constellations determined to achieve commonly defined objectives. CIP provides an excellent platform for these actors to be transparent about their progress, maintaining its leading position through its implementation of the impact-monitoring framework. Introduction Nevertheless, there are examples of efforts to assess the level of achievement on the part of ICIs. In its Yearbook of Global Climate Action for 2017, the Marrakesh Partnership assessed 77 initiatives and concluded that initiatives are increasingly delivering on their goals and have moved beyond "simply being commitments on paper". The Marrakesh Partnership specifically encourages initiatives to set measurable and clearly defined targets and goals to facilitate progress-tracking. These quantitative targets include, for example, GHG emissions reductions, amount of funding raised, areas protected and number of people reached. It further reports that many initiatives are also strengthening their commitments or even declaring new ones, with an increasing focus on adaptation. However, initiatives also face a number of barriers to fully implementing these commitments, notably a lack of funding, of recognition and of organizational capacity. Despite enhanced and new pledges, the Yearbook also concludes that "many initiatives are simply too new to be able to contribute to problemsolving on a scale that is necessary to help achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement." In line with the findings of the survey conducted by CIP at the beginning of 2018, many initiatives under the Marrakesh Partnership are reporting on their progress or are committed to reporting.
An additional effort to collect information on the progress of the ICIs is the Talanoa Dialogue, which invited submissions from non-party stakeholders linked to three questions: "Where are we?", "Where do we want to go?" and "How do we get there?". A number of initiatives provided inputs on progress made so far in fulfilling their commitments (including success stories, case studies and gaps) and their quantitative impacts with respect to mitigation, adaptation, resilience and/or finance.
This chapter complements the above efforts by shedding light on the progress of eleven selected initiatives. The ICIs' progress is measured against their objectives with a view to determining whether initiatives are delivering on their commitments. The

30
The Climate Initiatives Platform impact-monitoring framework presented in the previous chapter is used as far as possible, coupled with an analysis of whether each ICI has reached its stated goal. The next section presents the methodology used in this assessment, which is based on case studies. This is followed by an account of the eleven selected case studies, which are summarized in a final section. A conclusion closes the chapter.

Methodology
The Climate Initiatives Platform currently hosts over 240 international cooperative initiatives, including the 77 NAZCA ICIs. As it is not possible to examine each initiative within the time available for this project, a case-study approach is used to assess the progress of initiatives towards their goals. To cover a wide spectrum of different initiatives, initiatives have been chosen for each of the ten sectors in CIP: Finance, Transport, Agriculture & Forestry, Cities, Waste, Industry, Non-CO2, Energy, and Adaptation. Due to their different focus, Agriculture and Forestry were treated as two separate sectors in this analysis, while the category "Other" was disregarded (it was only used by four ICIs). The diagram below shows how CIP's 22 thematic areas were aggregated into ten sectors.
The Climate Initiatives Platform To narrow the number of initiatives within each of these sectors, priority has been given to the Global Climate Action Agenda's initiatives (formerly LPAA initiatives) as being both influential and impactful. Another selection criterion was the size of initiatives in number of members. This is because larger ICIs usually have a greater capacity to monitor and report their progress, something essential when assessing that progress. Most initiatives do cover more than one thematic area or sector, with some initiatives even covering them all, such as the Caring for Climate initiative. Therefore initiatives with a narrower thematic coverage were chosen, the assumption being that they would represent the sector better. Applying this approach, the ten initiatives listed below (table 3) were selected.

32
The Climate Initiatives Platform In addition, it was considered useful to have a completed ICI as a benchmark. However, only a very few initiatives fall under this category, such as the PACMUN and REDD Partnership. The CEM Global Lighting Challenge, which was finalized in May 2018, was included in this analysis as a completed initiative. The sources of information used to describe the progress of the initiatives and how or if their original goals were achieved were the CIP database and the initiative's own websites and reports, when available. The template shown below (table 4) has been used to organize the information gathered for each ICI. Each filled-in template and in-depth analysis is found in Annex IV. The table below summarizes the findings regarding the progress of the ICIs, which forms the basis for the ensuing analysis. This is followed by an elaborated description of the ICI.
First, this table show each initiative's functions, activities and stated goals, and how these goals have been achieved: The following table 5 shows the main findings of the analysis: Refrigerants, Naturally! Non-CO2 100% of the procured cooling units to use natural refrigerants.

2020
Quantitative, defined, time-bound By 2017 three out of four members had reached their goal. The last is predicted to reach the goal in 2020. In total, they have avoided the emission of 43.5 million metric tons of CO2.

RE100 Energy
At least two hundred members in 2018, including a larger representation from heavy-duty industrial sectors, as they are large energy users.
To be a member means to commit to 100% renewable electricity.

Summary of the Case Studies
The table above summarizes the findings of the eleven case studies with regard to their original goals. As some ICIs have several goals, there are thirteen goals in total. It is worth highlighting several points which can be seen. All goals are quantitative, though one has a qualitative aspect as well. Most of these (twelve out of thirteen) are defined in the sense that there is a clear unit in which progress can be measured. Most (ten out of thirteen) are also time-bound. Most have 2020 as the current goal year, fewer having longer time horizons. In terms of goal fulfilment, the statuses are quite spread. Data with which to assess progress were not available for four out of the thirteen goals. Two goals had already been fulfilled: that of improving the capacity of at least eight million smallholders to access climate finance (Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Program), and CEM Global Lighting's goal of deploying ten billion high-efficiency light bulbs.
For three ICIs, there has been good progress towards their 2020 goals. These are the CCAC Municipal Solid Waste Initiative, which aims to have hundred cities signed up and has currently reached 73, as well as "Refrigerant, naturally", where three out of four member companies have already reached the goals for 2020 and the fourth is well under way. RE100, a renewable energy ICI, has the goal of having at least two hundred members of companies committed to 100% renewable energy sources by the end of 2018, the tally currently being 144 companies.
For three of the ICIs that have provided data and have defined time-bound goals, it is still difficult to assess progress. For Divest Invest Global Movement, the goal is to move USD 12 trillion away from fossil fuels. The number reported refers to organizations with more than USD 6 trillion in assets under management having been committed to being divested. It is not clear how many of the committed assets have been or actually will be moved, nor whether the funds committed to being divested will be invested in renewable energy. This is also the case for the Bonn Challenge -Landscape Restoration, with its goal of restoring 150 million ha of land by 2020. It has done impressive work by committing stakeholders to pledge to restore 160 million ha, though the available information shows that only 350,000 ha have actually been restored thus far. Lastly, the Public Transport Declaration on Climate Leadership has the goal of doubling the market share of public transport worldwide. It is possible to find information that, while the "public transport supply has nearly doubled compared to 1995, the growth of mobility demand is such that mode share gains in some regions are offset by increased demand for mobility". However, these data do not provide a clear indication of the level of progress, as the level of supply is not the same as market share. Moreover, comparison is made even more difficult because the base years are different (1995 compared to 2005 in the goal).
The last ICI to be studied is the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy, which has as its goal to encourage as many cities as possible to submit CO2e action plans for 2020 and 2030. As the goal is not defined, it is difficult to assess its level of progress. Nevertheless, a considerable number of cities and municipalities (9149) have committed themselves to it. The studies available on CIP should also be mentioned, indicating that the commitments by cities and municipalities could close the emissions gap considerably by several GtCO2e. However, the additionality of these commitments is not certain, as it is not clear to what degree they have been included in the NDCs put forward by nations and vice versa.

Conclusion
From the above case studies of eleven ICIs, it is possible to draw some tentative conclusions. First, the goals of the ICIs are diverse in both content and form. Hence, if one compares these goals with the indicators specified in the impact-monitoring framework presented above, it quickly becomes clear that the framework would not capture the specifics of every ICI. For example, for Divest-Invest Global Movement, which is classified as a Funding and Political Dialogue initiative, the relevant indicators for its activities are the following: funds raised, number of donors, media-tracking, website visits and campaigns held. The level of divestment from fossil fuels is not really captured by these indicators. While these indicators allow impacts across ICIs to be aggregated, many of the ICIs' own respective characteristics would be lost if they were used on their own. It is therefore important to allow ICIs to report on additional goals, such as in the Monitoring and Impacts section, where textboxes (e.g. Progress towards the goals) allow elaborations and other indicators to be provided beyond those specified in the impactmonitoring framework.
Many of the ICIs did have quantitative, defined, time-bound goals. However, there are two things to bear in mind here. First, as the study only looked at eleven cases, it is difficult to generalize from them to the other 233 ICIs currently on CIP. Secondly, the selection criteria were not necessarily representative, as larger and presumably more organized ICIs were chosen. Indeed, in an analysis carried out for UN Environment's Emissions Gap Report for 2018, it is shown that only 20% of the ICIs on CIP have quantitative targets. In the current sample, the share is much higher.
Generally, it is too early and difficult to say whether the goals of the various ICIs will be met, as in many instances the goals are not clearly defined or the progress indicators are not publically available. Nonetheless, the data that was available for this study showed that a considerable proportion of the eleven chosen ICIs are progressing towards their goals, two having already completed them and three others being well on their way. More data will presumably become available once self-reporting to the impact-monitoring framework commences, which will permit better assessments to be made of progress.

Coverage of the ICIs on CIP versus the potential GHG reductions by sector 4.1 Introduction
The potential of non-state actors (NSAs) to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions has been a matter of interest for several years. As pointed out in the general introduction to these three reports, this follows a trend for nation states to fail to combat climate change at all convincingly, and so NSAs have the potential to fill a significant part of the remaining emissions gap (Hsu, et al. 2018).
Assessing potential GHG emissions reductions requires detailed data on both baseline scenarios, as well as on the potential impact of the proposed actions. As pointed out in Chapter 2, a comprehensive and standardized system for ICIs to report their commitments and progress with them has been lacking. Chapter 2 accordingly presents the impact-monitoring system, which has just been implemented on CIP, though being brand new, it is difficult as yet to assess its progress. However, Chapter 3 attempts to do this by investigating how the goals of eleven selected ICIs have been met and their fulfilment recorded on the impact-monitoring system. The conclusion is that this is both too early to say, and also difficult, as for a large proportion their goals are not well-defined or they lack accessible data on progress.
With this as its point of departure, this chapter explores the coverage of ICIs in CIP in relation to the potential sectorial GHG reductions. This is illustrated using several methods. First, the coverage of ICIs under different themes is described. Secondly, this image is fleshed out by displaying the size of the initiatives in each of the IPCC sectors. Thirdly, the number of ICIs working in a sector is compared to the sectorial reduction potential that is needed in order to stay below the 2 °C increase threshold. These three views on the topic of coverage versus potential give a good indication of where CIP currently stands. It also underlines the future potential of the platform in providing more detailed answers to the questions posed in these reports.

CIP and the Coverage of LPAA Themes
Overall, the ICIs in CIP cover 22 of the 23 themes which originally existed in LPAA, the sole missing one being waste-water treatment. It should be noted that an ICI usually covers more than one theme. Below is a description of the coverage of the LPAA themes, organized under the groupings in which they are found on CIP.

38
The Climate Initiatives Platform

Description of Coverage within the LPAA Themes
Finance is covered by 33 ICIs, including those aiming to raise funds for activities within a range of different actions. They include ICIs that aim to finance renewable energy and energy efficiency actions, to foster divestment from fossil energy and to work with green procurement processes, as well as covering climate risk insurance, carbon pricing and financial reporting. All kinds of Transport are covered by 66 ICIs: urban, road, freight, efficiency, electric mobility, cycling and aviation.
Agriculture and Forestry are covered by 98 ICIs focused on stopping deforestation, REDD+, climate-smart agriculture, sustainable agriculture and biomass, rural resilience, food security and aquaculture.
Cities and Regions are also well covered by 51 initiatives: C40, Carbon Neutral Cities Allianceand 100% Renewable Cities, the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, regional disclosures, local sustainable governance and resilient cites. Buildings has 28 initiatives, including various building efficiency initiatives, global alliances for construction-performance-green buildings.
Waste is covered by twenty ICIs: municipal solid waste (MSW), recycling, zero flaring. However, waste water is not covered.
Industry is well covered on all kinds of adaptation, low carbon technologies and innovations by many collaborations among businesses.
Non-CO2 emissions reduction is covered for all supply-chain emissions, short-term pollutants, fluorinated gases, various reduction targets, cook stoves and vehicle emissions, flaring reduction, carbon capture and reporting of emissions. For emissions, the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) covers a large area.
Energy: all forms of renewable energy, such as wind, solar, geothermal and bioenergy, are covered. Energy efficiency and better energy access are covered by several ICIs. Hydro and wave are not covered specifically, but are included in some ICIs like SIDS Lighthouse.
There are 38 Adaptation and 31 Resilience ICIs on the CIP platform, covering cities, coastal areas, agriculture, water supply, food security, and climate risks and disasters.
Summarizing, there is good coverage of the LPAA themes. However, coverage itself becomes more meaningful when one considers the size of the different ICIs. This is explored in the next section.

The Size of ICIs
Theoretically assessing the size of ICIs can be done in several ways. The approach chosen here is to measure size by the number of participants (in all the 244 ICIs currently on CIP). This provides an indication of how many actors are engaged with the ICI.

Figure 2: Number of members per sector in all the ICIs in CIP
Starting with how many actors are engaged with ICIs within each of the IPCC sectoral divisions, one can see that the largest group of actors are in electricity generation. The sectors of transport, industry and AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry, and Land-Use change) have around the same number of total members, whereas buildings and non-CO2 have fewer. It is interesting to see the division of members between the individual initiatives within each sector.
The following six figures (Fig.3) show the distributions of members across the ICIs within the different sectors. It is evident that the pattern of having a few ICIs with many members and then a number of considerably smaller ICIs is repeated throughout each sector. This effect becomes even stronger when considering that it is often the same ICI that is the largest one in each of the tables.
A note on the data used is warranted. The figures for members are taken from the data on CIP. However, a number of ICIs list no members. In addition, there is the issue mentioned in Chapter 2 of many ICIs not actively reporting to CIP. There might therefore be errors in the data.

IPCCs Sectorial Division
As noted already, in order to assess the extent of the coverage, a benchmark is necessary. This report has chosen IPCC's Assessment Report 5 (AR5) to use as a benchmark, as it provides an excellent overview of GHG scenarios and is a well-trusted source. However, adjustments must be made in using the IPCC report in order to align the sectoral breakdown on CIP with the IPCC breakdown. The IPCC sectoral breakdown, for which sectoral emission pathways are available, includes the following sectors: transport, buildings, industry, electricity, AFOLU (Agriculture, Forestry, and Land-Use change), and non-CO2. Figure 4 shows how the different LPAA themes relate to the IPCC emission reduction sectors.

Potential Greenhouse Gas Reductions within Relevant Sectors
Another good indicator of the coverage of ICIs on CIP is to what degree initiatives targeting the different sectors are represented. This proportion is compared with the potential and necessary mitigation within that sector as a proportion of total emissions reductions. IPCCs Working Group 3's Chapter 6 assesses the transformation pathways necessary to keep the CO2eq concentration at 450 ppm in 2100. This level of concentration is compatible with the 2.6 RCP scenario, the only of the four scenarios which is likely to prevent temperature increases above 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. The group combines outputs from numerous models and comes up with two overarching scenarios, one relying on large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, the other assuming that these will not be implemented. There is still much uncertainty surrounding the CCS technology's feasibility to scale to the extent needed. Thus, in the table below, only the scenario without CCS is included.
This gives the figures in the first columns in Table 6 below, which is an indicative number of the GHG reductions necessary until 2030 in each sector.
The second set of columns display the number of ICIs on CIP which focus on these sectors, with the percentages showing the proportion of total themes related to mitigation selected in CIP. Comparing the two figures in each sector, they are seen to match reasonably well. This indicates that the spread of ICIs on CIP, and presumably in the world, reflects the GHG emissions reductions needed in each sector. Looking more closely at the figures, the transport, buildings, industry and non-CO2 sectors are over-represented, while the AFOLU sector in particular is underrepresented, along with the electricity sector. On the other hand, the electricity sector had the largest number of actors involved in the initiatives. Given the importance of non-state actors in the four first-mentioned sectors, this is not so surprising. Non-state actors that choose to launch an initiative are often actors driven by values, but business opportunities are also a factor in making such decisions. As the industry and transportation sectors are populated by many non-state actors in leading positions, it seems plausible that these could and would form the ICIs.
An example from the transport sector is the Partnership on Sustainable, Low Carbon Transport (SLoCat). SLoCat attempts to cover the whole of the transport sector and coordinates the collection of information from 21 transport collaborative initiatives 9 in the Paris Process on Mobility and Climate (PPMC). The PPMC produced detailed reports up to the 2016 and 2017 COPs covering all these initiatives.
The assumptions made in respect of the above analysis are many. The relationship between the number of ICIs in a sector and its reduction potential assumes that all initiatives are of equal size, equally ambitious within each sector, and that all will be successful.
Moreover, it should be noted that the ICIs included here cover all sorts of functions and activities. In Chapter 2, where the impact-monitoring framework is introduced, it is stated that only the implementation ICIs are measured for their mitigation impact, as these ICIs contribute directly to such impacts.
Given the previous analysis in Chapter 3 regarding the extent to which the initiatives' respective goals are being fulfilled, making a robust assessment of the reduction potential of the ICIs must be considered difficult. The analysis in Chapter 3 demonstrated a lack of clarity in the goals formulated by ICIs, as well as the limited availability of their progress reports. Nevertheless, Figure 6 below, taken from Table  4.2 in the 2016 Emissions Gap Report, summarizes the results of numerous other studies of the emissions potential of various NSA climate initiatives. However, the evidence base remains fragmented.

Conclusion
Our assessment of the coverage of LPAA themes has shown that there is excellent coverage by initiatives on the CIP, with 22 out of 23 themes being covered by several initiatives. The only theme with no coverage by initiatives was waste-water treatment. It should be noted that most initiatives cover several themes.
Our comparison of the ICIs on CIP with the IPCC sectors showed that these are well covered, but to various degrees, compared to the coverage needed to achieve the emission reductions in the respective sectors. AFOLU and energy, despite being well represented on CIP, are under-represented compared to the projected potential emissions reductions needed from these sectors. Conversely, the other sectors were over-represented by the ICIs on CIP. However, the assessment builds on the assumption that all initiatives are of equal size, equally ambitious within each sector, and that all will be successful. Thus, evidence of actual impacts within these sectors is still limited.
The limited data availability of the different ICIs seriously hampers the ability to assess and aggregate the impact of the ICIs. This highlights the importance of a robust monitoring framework, such as the impact-monitoring framework described in this report. Its implementation will greatly facilitate future analysis of progress on the mitigation side, as well as more broadly, as it is not limited to measuring greenhouse gas emissions alone.

Conclusion and next steps
Climate action by non-state actors such as businesses, investors, civil society, cities and subnational governments, has proliferated outside the UNFCCC process as part of the response to climate change and 2018 has been particularly busy. The present report documents, through three independent chapters, the importance of transparency in non-state climate action, as called for by the Paris Agreement, the UN Environment's Emissions Gap Reports and the recent Climate Action Summit in San Francisco.
Responding to these demands, the Climate Initiatives Platform, which gathers information on international cooperative initiatives (ICIs), has developed a strategy for tracking progress, including an impact-monitoring framework resented in Chapter 2. The framework consists of five functions, that each has a set of activities, tied to a set of indicators. Initiatives are invited to select applicable functions and respective activities, and report on indictors annually, in order to measure progress. This framework allows data to be aggregated and compared across various sectors and types of initiatives. The framework was tested on 77 initiatives, and in conclusion, it has proven its functionality in capturing the nature and progress of the ICIs, where data was publicly available. Another finding is that a large number of ICIs undertake activities such as awarenessraising, knowledge production and dissemination in contrast to actual implementation, and thus few CO2e reduction estimates were available. It might be too soon for the initiatives to be able to generate these figures, or the progress made simply cannot be measured in CO2e reductions.
Chapter 3 examines the progress and impact of initiatives to date, using the developed impact-monitoring framework to analyse in depth eleven selected initiatives across different sectors as case studies. An important conclusion from this exercise is that it is generally too early and difficult to say whether the goals of the ICIs will be met. Most initiatives do have clearly defined, quantitative, time-bound goals, but not all have progress indicators available. Ex-post data is difficult to find on the initiatives' websites and in reports, especially regarding annual data. Nonetheless, the data that was available for this study showed that a considerable proportion of the chosen ICIs are progressing towards their goals, two having already achieved them and three others being well on their way. More data will presumably become available once selfreporting to the impact-monitoring framework commences, which will permit better assessments of progress.
Given the large potential of GHG emission reductions through ICIs, monitoring their actual impact in terms of emissions reduction and fulfilling their commitments will be crucial in building confidence and informing the Global Stocktake. Chapter 4 compares the coverage of ICIs on CIP in the different sectors against the potential GHG emissions reductions in the specific sectors. A comparison of the ICIs with the IPCC sectors shows that they are well covered (22 out of 23), but to various degrees, compared to the coverage needed to achieve the emission reductions in the respective sectors. Only with the assumption that all ICIs are equally ambitious in each sector, a preliminary conclusion can be drawn that agriculture, forestry, and land-use change (AFOLU) and energy are under-represented compared to the projected potential emissions reductions required from these sectors. Thus, this sector must step up its climate action. Conversely, the other sectors were over-represented by the ICIs on CIP.
CIP fulfils a unique position and addresses a knowledge gap in focusing on collaborative non-state actors' initiatives, and henceforth also by tracking progress of the ICIs. CIP can maintain its role by staying up to date, including adding new initiatives on a timely basis, continuously improving its monitoring system and substantially increasing its communication efforts, both to its initiatives themselves and to its wider audience. In addition, continuous promotion of CIP at COPs and other relevant events on non-state climate action, such as the Global Climate Action Summit and the annual New York Climate Week, will be crucial in order to engage with initiatives, researchers and other stakeholders and to increase its visibility to the global audience. CIP receives two to three hundred visits a day on average, and it is expected that enhancing its visual identity and functionality will further increase the number of visitors.