NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Strengthening Clean Energy 

Technology Cooperation

under the UNFCCC: 

Steps toward Implementation

Ron Benioff (NREL), Heleen de Coninck (ECN), Subash Dhar (Risoe National Lab), Ulrich 

Hansen (Risoe National Lab), Joyce McLaren (NREL), and Jyoti Painuly (Risoe National Lab)

NREL/TP-6A0-48596

August 2010

osed NREL logo, June 15, 2009

White

Black

Blue
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their 

contributors, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the 

accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or 

represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial 

product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily 

constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any 

agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those 

of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
iii

List of Acronyms

APP Asia Pacific Partnership

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

COP Conference of the Parties

CTI Climate Technology Initiative

EGTT Expert Group on Technology Transfer

GEF Global Environment Facility

IEA International Energy Agency

IPEEC International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

IRENA International Renewable Energy Agency

LDCs Least Developed Countries

MEF Major Economies Forum

NAMA Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action

NEET Networks of Expertise on Energy Technologies

PFAN Private Financing Advisory Network

R&D

RD&D

Research & Development

Research, Development, and Demonstration

RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard

TAP Technology Action Plan

TNA Technology Needs Assessment

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

WEACT World-wide Energy Efficiency Action through Capacity Building and 

Training
iv

Executive Summary

Accelerating the transition to clean energy technologies is critical for addressing international 

climate stabilization goals and creating a foundation for sustained economic growth. Since the 

Copenhagen Accord has not led to a global target for greenhouse gas emissions and, as such,

gives little guidance to the private sector to deploy clean energy technology, bottom-up, national,

and technology-specific policies are gaining importance. Relying on such mechanisms rather 

than on a global carbon market calls for insights into their effectiveness, applicability, and 

expected impacts. This study discusses policies directed toward three areas relevant to the 

development of clean energy technology: the creation of enabling environments, furthering 

research and development, and the provision of financing.

Table ES-1. Selected International Clean Energy Technology Cooperation Options Evaluated in this 

Paper

Research and Development Enabling Environments Financing

R&D networks and road mapping National policies Investment matchmaking and 

advisory services

Multilateral R&D collaboration International cooperation on 

sectoral deployment programs Coordination of existing funds

Technology demonstration 

partnerships Intellectual property rights Investment risk mitigation

Programs to advance clean energy technology are likely to be most effective if they focus on 

well defined and broadly endorsed national priorities, strengthen developing country capacity 

and enabling environments, have sufficient scale, run over multiple years, engage public and 

private entities, promote broad knowledge sharing, and are coordinated and harmonized with

international support. 

For R&D programs, networks could allow for knowledge sharing between researchers, engaging 

developing country research institutions, and engage practitioners who can increase technology 

deployment. Work in R&D programs can be guided by roadmaps that provide direction, advisory 

groups that monitor progress and provide independent feedback, and implementing agencies that 

have a long-term commitment towards implementation. 

Increased R&D capabilities are needed in developing and least-developed countries alike. 

Without the strengthening of such capabilities, the establishment of partnerships, jointinvestments, and R&D collaborations will remain challenging. Part of a long-term strategy for 

clean energy technology should therefore be to implement structural programs for capacity 

building in all phases of the technology innovation chain. Such enabling efforts may need to be 

sector- or technology-specific, supported by strong national policies and explicitly aimed at 

improving the investment climate for a technology in a country. 

To enable financing of clean energy technology, finance and technology programs need to be 

aligned—as the type of financing depends on the technology. Experience with finance 

instruments should inform replication. Experimentation with risk-based models for public 

finance mechanisms may prove more cost effective along the innovation chain. 
v

In the post-Copenhagen environment, countries and international organizations may be best 

served by applying pragmatic approaches that enhance long-term commitment to collaboration 

through existing bilateral and multilateral partnerships and demonstrate a commitment to rapid 

scaling up of technology cooperation and financing. 
vi

Table of Contents

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. vii

1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Current Implementation Frameworks for Clean Energy Technology Cooperation under the 

UNFCCC................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Current UNFCCC Technology Cooperation Framework....................................................3

2.2 Summary of Selected International Clean Energy Technology Cooperation Programs......4

2.3 Comparison of Implementation Attributes of Existing Programs .......................................6

3 Clean Energy R&D Cooperation........................................................................................................ 10

3.1 Role of Global R&D Cooperation .....................................................................................10

3.2 Example Structure for R&D Networks and Road Mapping ..............................................10

3.3 Example Implementation Structure for Multilateral R&D Cooperation ...........................13

3.4 Example Structure for Technology Demonstration Collaboration ....................................15

3.5 Potential Integrated R&D Clean Energy Cooperation Framework ...................................17

4 Enabling Environments & Capacity Building .................................................................................. 20

4.1 National Policy...................................................................................................................20

4.2 International Collaboration for National Sectoral Deployment and Diffusion Programs .23

4.3 Intellectual Property Issues................................................................................................25

5 Options for Financing Clean Technology ........................................................................................ 30

5.1 What the Financing Infrastructure Should Do...................................................................30

5.2 Components of a Financing Infrastructure ........................................................................30

5.3 Implementation and Institutional Arrangements for Facilitating Low Carbon Technology 

Investment..........................................................................................................................35

6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 36

6.1 R&D Cooperation ..............................................................................................................36

6.2 Enabling Environments......................................................................................................37

6.3 Financing............................................................................................................................38

References................................................................................................................................................. 39
vii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Possible integrated framework for clean energy R&D cooperation............................................ 18

Figure 2. Example of implementation responsibilities for global clean energy R&D cooperation ............ 19

Figure 3. Organizational structure for implementing TNA in a country .................................................... 21

List of Tables

Table 1. Selected International Clean Energy Technology Cooperation Options Evaluated in this 

Paper............................................................................................................................................... 1

Table 2. Comparison of Primary Implementation Attributes of Selected Clean Energy Technology 

Cooperation Programs.................................................................................................................... 8

Table 3. Potential Structure of R&D Networks & Roadmaps................................................................... 11

Table 4. Potential Structure for Multilateral R&D Cooperation Projects.................................................. 14

Table 5. Potential Structure of Technology Demonstration Collaboration................................................ 16

Table 6. Possible Features of an Investment Matchmaking and Advisory Service ................................... 31

Table 7. Possible Features of Existing Fund Coordination........................................................................ 33

Table 8. Possible Features of Investment Risk Mitigation Vehicles .......................................................... 34
1

1 Introduction

Accelerating the transition to clean energy technologies can play a critical role in addressing 

international climate stabilization goals and creating a foundation for sustained economic 

growth. According to estimates made by the International Energy Agency, stabilizing

greenhouse gas concentrations would require global clean energy investments totaling over $10 

trillion1

Although an array of programs exists to foster international cooperation, these programs are not 

yet operating at the scale and scope, or in the coordinated manner necessary, for a rapid global 

clean energy transformation. This paper reviews current mechanisms and international 

frameworks for global cooperation on clean energy technologies, both within and outside of the 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and provides selected 

concrete options for scaling up global clean energy technology cooperation. The options are 

organized into three categories: 1) research and development (R&D), 2) enabling environments, 

and 3) financing (see Table 1).

between 2010 and 2030, with most of this investment coming from the private sector. 

International clean energy cooperation can help to facilitate the transition to a low emissions 

energy future while simultaneously meeting rapidly growing energy demand in developing 

countries, where demand is projected to double by 2030 (OECD/IEA 2009). 

Table 1. Selected International Clean Energy Technology Cooperation Options Evaluated in this Paper

Research and Development Enabling Environments Financing

R&D networks and road mapping National policies Investment matchmaking and 

advisory services

Multilateral R&D collaboration International cooperation on 

sectoral deployment programs

Coordination of existing funds

Technology demonstration 

partnerships

Intellectual property rights Investment risk mitigation

Development of a comprehensive and effective global clean technology cooperation framework 

will require years of experimentation with and evaluation of new instruments and institutional 

arrangements before it is clear what works, on which scale, and in which region or country. In 

presenting concrete examples, this paper aims to take the first step in that process by highlighting

successful models and innovative approaches that can inform efforts to ramp up clean energy 

technology cooperation. This is not an exhaustive treatment of options since only a couple of 

noteworthy examples are presented in each area.

The post-2012 climate change framework established at the COP-15 meeting in Copenhagen

leaves unresolved the question of how countries will collaborate in advancing development and 

deployment of climate change mitigation and adaptation technologies. The agreement to launch 

a technology mechanism and the commitment to “fast-track” financing in the Copenhagen 

Accord are a first start, but there is much left to be specified. International organizations may be 

best served through the application of pragmatic approaches that build on proven models and 

 

1 2008 U.S. dollars.
2

existing initiatives and partnerships and through tailoring activities to meet unique circumstances 

and needs. This paper presents examples and approaches that can inform the design of such 

flexible and practical technology initiatives. 

Chapter 2 reviews and compares current climate change technology cooperation programs. 

Chapters 3-5 present examples and optional frameworks for R&D, enabling environment, and 

financing cooperation. The final chapter presents conclusions on potential implementation 

frameworks for technology cooperation under the UNFCCC, drawing on the review of current 

programs and analysis of potential frameworks for R&D, enabling environment, and financing 

cooperation. 
3

2 Current Implementation Frameworks for Clean Energy 

Technology Cooperation under the UNFCCC

A wide diversity of multilateral and bilateral programs encourages cooperation between 

developed and developing countries in the realm of clean energy technology development,

deployment, and diffusion in support of the UNFCCC. This section reviews these programs, 

highlighting their implementation attributes.

2.1 Current UNFCCC Technology Cooperation Framework

The existing framework for technology cooperation under the UNFCCC (UNFCCC 2008b 

adopted by UNFCCC 2002) contains five elements: 1) technology needs assessments by 

developing countries; 2) technology information dissemination; 3) capacity building for 

developing countries; 4) enabling environment programs to improve conditions in countries for 

adoption and investment in climate technologies; and 5) mechanisms for technology transfer. 

With support through the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the United Nations Environment 

Program and United Nations Development Program are supporting the preparation of technology 

needs assessments while the UNFCCC Secretariat has established TT:CLEAR as a 

comprehensive clearinghouse for information on climate change technologies, needs 

assessments, and other related topics. Programs to address capacity building and improve 

enabling environments are implemented through a variety of multilateral and bilateral donors and 

organizations.

During the Bali Conference of the Parties (COP), a decision (UNFCCC 2008b) was adopted that 

calls for mechanisms and means for strengthening cooperation on technology R&D, deployment, 

diffusion, and transfer. The UNFCCC has established an Expert Group on Technology Transfer 

(EGTT) with 19 members and additional resource representatives to facilitate technology 

transfer implementation under the UNFCCC. The EGTT recently released a strategy paper that 

presents long-term options for scaling up technology cooperation to implement this decision. 

The EGTT strategy paper (EGTT 2009) presents a four-pronged approach for scaling up 

technology cooperation through: 1) research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) 

cooperation; 2) enhanced enabling environments; 3) financing facilitation and support; and 4) 

sectoral planning and cooperation. The paper reviews a broad array of potential options that 

could be conducted in each of these four areas to achieve three objectives relating to climate 

change mitigation and adaptation technologies: 

• Accelerate innovation across the world.

• Scale-up deployment, especially in developing countries.

• Speed-up diffusion, especially in developing countries.

The EGTT strategy paper also presents an array of functional and administrative implementation 

frameworks. The functional approaches include those centered on national plans and programs, 

sectoral initiatives (global, regional, and national), the four program elements, and specific 

crosscutting initiatives. These functional approaches can be combined with centralized, 

decentralized, and hybrid administrative options. A centralized approach is one in which all 

programs are conducted under one structure, whereas a decentralized approach would distribute 
4

implementation among many organizations and varying approaches, and a hybrid approach 

matches the structure to the type of implementation that will work best for the particular 

program.

2.2 Summary of Selected International Clean Energy Technology Cooperation 

Programs

A large number of organizations are implementing clean energy technology cooperation

programs among countries to accelerate technology innovation and deployment and reduce 

global greenhouse gas emissions. This includes numerous bilateral programs along with such 

multilateral initiatives and agencies as the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and 

Climate, the Major Economies Forum, the Global Environment Facility and Multilateral 

Development Agencies, the Clean Development Mechanism, the Climate Technology Initiative,

the International Energy Agency, the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency 

Cooperation, and the newly created International Renewable Energy Agency. This section of the 

paper briefly reviews the various frameworks for accelerated clean energy technology 

cooperation that each of these groups is putting forward. This is not an exhaustive treatment of 

this topic, as there are many other programs and organizations supporting international clean 

energy initiatives that will reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. 

2.2.1 Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate 

Through the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP;

http://www.asiapacificpartnership.org/english/default.aspx), government, private sector, and 

technical institute representatives from Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and 

the United States are working together to promote cooperation on clean energy and other climate 

mitigation technologies. The APP is supporting a portfolio of projects under eight sectoral task 

forces—aluminum, buildings and appliances, cement, cleaner fossil energy, coal mining, power 

generation and transmission, renewable energy and distributed generation, and steel. The APP 

projects cover a broad portfolio of activities with emphasis on technology demonstration and 

deployment through public-private partnerships. 

2.2.2 Major Economies Forum

The Major Economies Forum (MEF), comprised of the 17 countries with the largest economies, 

has developed a portfolio of 10 Technology Action Plans (TAPs) to advance global cooperation 

on clean energy technologies. These plans cover advanced vehicles, bio-energy, buildings 

energy efficiency, carbon capture and storage, high efficiency and low emissions coal, industrial 

energy efficiency, marine energy, smart grids, solar energy, and wind energy. These action plans 

identify a portfolio of measures in three main areas: 1) advancing innovation; 2) facilitating 

information sharing; and 3) accelerating deployment. The MEF action plans identify both 

measures that individual countries can take and opportunities for collaborative action across 

countries.

2.2.3 Global Environment Facility and Multilateral Development Agencies

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) was established in 1991 and is a primary 

implementation mechanism for financial support on climate change, ozone, and biodiversity 

issues to developing countries. The GEF provides grants and technical assistance to developing 

countries for climate change programs, including clean energy projects. These GEF projects are 

designed to play a catalytic role in overcoming market barriers to the uptake of energy 
5

efficiency, renewable energy, sustainable transportation, and other low emitting technologies. 

Through 2010, the GEF has provided around $2.5 billion in support of diffusion of climate 

mitigation and adaptation technologies in over 50 developing countries, with most of these 

resources supporting clean energy projects. A recent analysis by the Ecologic Institute

(Gerstetter and Marcellino 2009) indicates that GEF support, while substantial, represents less 

than 2% of total multilateral and bilateral clean energy support to developing countries. GEF 

projects are implemented by the World Bank and other multilateral development banks and by 

United Nations agencies. These development banks and UN organizations also have their own 

portfolios of clean energy technology cooperation programs, which are too numerous to describe 

here. 

2.2.4 Clean Development Mechanism

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows countries with Kyoto Protocol GHG targets 

to achieve emission reductions through projects in developing countries. Total investments 

associated with the CDM are estimated at some US$10 billion annually (UNFCCC 2008c).

Nearly 60% of the over 1,200 registered CDM projects as of the end of 2008 were in the energy 

sector (UNFCCC 2008a). An analysis by Stephen Seres and Eric Haites (2008) indicates that 

over a third of the registered and proposed CDM projects claim technology transfer benefits, 

including both knowledge and equipment transfer from sponsor to host countries. 

2.2.5 The Climate Technology Initiative

The Climate Technology Initiative (CTI; www.climatetech.net) is a multilateral partnership that 

supports international cooperation to advance adoption and diffusion of climate friendly 

technologies. CTI was established in 1995 and has supported an array of programs to advance 

use of clean energy and other climate mitigation and adaptation technologies. Current initiatives 

include the Private Financing Advisory Network (PFAN) to assist clean energy companies in 

developing countries in attracting financing through matchmaking and advisory services, 

symposium and training programs on climate technologies, technical assistance for technology 

needs assessments, and various information dissemination activities.

2.2.6 International Energy Agency

The International Energy Agency (IEA) includes 24 member countries from the developed world 

working together to advance energy security, economic growth, and environmental protection. 

The IEA international clean energy technology collaboration activities involve three primary 

activities: 1) developing global energy technology roadmaps and analysis on a technologyspecific basis that provide consensus on technology development, legal/regulatory, financial, and 

public engagement/outreach needs; 2) expanding technology analysis work with key nonmember countries (including Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia, and South Africa) to 

expand cost-benefit modeling, scenario assessment, and technology roadmaps at the national 

level; and 3) managing an existing network of 42 international energy technology cooperation 

implementing agreements that involve shared RD&D and analysis activities. These networks 

have recently been expanded to reach out to non-member countries via the NEET (Networks of 

Expertise on Energy Technologies) initiative.

2.2.7 International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation

The G8 countries plus Brazil, China, India, Korea, Mexico, and the European Commission are 

working together to accelerate the implementation of energy efficiency through the recently 
6

established International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation (IPEEC;

http://ipeecshare.org). IPEEC has developed an initial portfolio of cooperative projects to share 

best practices, build capacity, and provide expert assistance in five areas: 1) energy efficiency 

financing; 2) energy efficiency measurement and verification; 3) industrial efficiency energy 

management; 4) energy efficiency policies through the World-wide Energy Efficiency Action

through Capacity Building and Training (WEACT) initiative; and 5) the Sustainable Buildings 

Network. IPEEC encourages other countries and international institutions to join the partnership 

and its specific programs. The IPEEC Secretariat, located at the IEA, coordinates initiatives 

across countries and maintains an inventory of national and international energy efficiency 

policies and programs.

2.2.8 International Renewable Energy Agency

As of October 2009, 138 countries are members of the new International Renewable Energy 

Agency (IRENA; www.irena.org). IRENA’s mandate is to accelerate the global transition to 

widespread and sustainable renewable energy use. IRENA seeks to improve access, especially 

for developing countries, to renewable energy information and data, policy and program best 

practices, financing mechanisms, and technology expertise. IRENA has developed a 

collaborative work program that includes renewable energy knowledge management and 

technology assessment and capacity building and outreach, especially for developing countries. 

This work program is being launched in 2010. 

2.2.9 Bilateral Programs

Many developed countries provide in-depth assistance to developing countries on a bilateral 

basis to overcome technical, market, and capacity barriers to increased clean energy use. Taken 

together, these bilateral programs are often the largest source of clean energy assistance and can 

involve extensive technology cooperation linking technical institutes and the private sector 

between the countries. There are also an increasing number of cases where developed and larger 

developing countries are working together on clean energy research, development, and 

demonstration cooperation. These bilateral programs are too numerous to describe here. 

In addition to the above examples, there are many other multilateral and bilateral programs and 

forums that are advancing global clean energy cooperation that are not discussed here.

2.3 Comparison of Implementation Attributes of Existing Programs 

The various proposals that have been put forward for accelerating implementation of technology 

transfer under the UNFCCC highlight several desired attributes (see example in Gerstetter and 

Marcellino 2009). In addition, experiences from current and past technology transfer programs 

also highlight key lessons on effective program structures and delivery (see for example Kline et 

al. 2003). In reviewing the current proposals and experiences from current and past technology 

transfer programs, the following desired implementation attributes can be identified:

• Focus on Well Defined and Broadly Endorsed National Priorities. Technology cooperation 

will be most effective where it addresses national priorities defined in existing development 

plans that have been subjected to a rigorous evaluation and that enjoy strong support from 

public and private stakeholders. 
7

• Strengthen Developing Country Capacity and Enabling Environments. International 

technology cooperation efforts will only result in sustained impacts if they build capacity and 

effective enabling environments in the host country. 

• Apply a Comprehensive Approach and Sufficient Scale Over Multiple Years. Initiatives to 

advance technology cooperation should address all aspects of the technology life cycle in a 

country, including technology adaptation and commercialization (and innovation where 

applicable), demonstration, deployment, and financing. Implementation should be conducted 

at sufficient scale of resources and over multiple years to achieve substantial and lasting 

global impacts.

• Build Long-Term Public and Private Partnerships. Collaboration has the greatest value 

where it establishes long-term partnerships among developing and developed country 

technical institutes, companies, governments, and civil society. It is essential to actively 

engage the private sector to help accelerate private investment and business partnerships 

between countries.

• Engage all Regions and Promote Knowledge Sharing across Countries. Technology 

cooperation efforts should engage countries from all regions of the world and all levels of 

development and take full advantage of opportunities for countries to learn from each other 

through knowledge sharing at regional and global levels. 

• Coordinate International Programs. The large array of bilateral and multilateral technology 

cooperation programs can achieve maximum impact if they are effectively coordinated so 

that resources can be leveraged and activities harmonized. 

Table 2 identifies which of these features are emphasized by some of the largest clean energy 

technology cooperation programs currently conducted in support of UNFCCC goals. While 

recognizing that all programs may give some level of attention to most of these issues, programs 

are only marked if they have made a feature a defining characteristic of their activities. It is 

important to note that the comparison of these key attributes only provides qualitative 

information on how often such features are addressed and is not a determination of program 

effectiveness since many other factors can drive program impacts. 
8

Table 2. Comparison of Primary Implementation Attributes of Selected Clean Energy Technology 

Cooperation Programs

Program

Developing Country Plans 

& Strategies

Building Developing 

Country Enabling 

Environments & Capacity

R&D Cooperation

Financing Facilitation

Long-Term Partnerships 

Between Developed & 

Developing Country 

Institutions

Private Sector 

Engagement

Participation of All 

Groups of Developing 

Countries

Coordinated Engagement 

of Multiple Country & 

Donor Programs

Knowledge Sharing 

Across Developing 

Countries

(Regional and Global)

Implementation at 

Sufficient Scale for Large 

Global Impacts

TT:CLEAR ● ● ●

GEF ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

CDM ● ● ● ● ●

APP & MEF ● ● ● ● ●

MDB & UN 

Programs ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Bilateral 

Programs ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

IEA ● ● ●

Technology 

Agencies & 

Partnerships 

(e.g., 

IRENA, 

IPEEC, etc.)

● ● ● ●

CTI ● ● ● ● ●

A number of conclusions can be drawn from this comparison:

• The programs emphasize many different aspects of technology cooperation, allowing for 

specialization. 

• There is considerable overlap in goals and activities across these programs and a potential

need for initiatives to foster enhanced coordination and harmonization of related activities. 

This can include efforts to coordinate development of tools and delivery of training and 

technical assistance to improve efficiency of resource use and quality of support provided to 

developing countries. 

• Few programs have made significant investments in broad and effective knowledge sharing 

among developing countries at regional and global levels.
9

• Only a couple of programs adopt a comprehensive approach that covers R&D, enabling 

environment (or deployment), and financing facilitation to address the full suite of barriers to 

technology diffusion.

• Only some of the programs entail strong partnerships with the private sector.

• Many programs focus primarily on a subset of developing countries and do not have impacts 

across regions and sizes of developing countries.

• Only some of the programs are designed to be maintained over a long time period to allow 

for sustained, long-term partnerships.

• Just a couple of the programs currently operate at the large scale required for significant 

global impacts in accelerating technology diffusion.
10

3 Clean Energy R&D Cooperation

3.1 Role of Global R&D Cooperation

Various studies (see for example the IEA Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 Blue Map 

Scenario and a more recent R&D gap analysis conducted for the MEF) have estimated that up to 

$70 billion per year is required in additional public and private investment in clean energy R&D

to advance innovation and achieve climate stabilization (IEA 2008). This compares to current 

public clean energy R&D expenditures of around $5 billion per year. Such enhanced R&D

investment will have the greatest impact if conducted in a coordinated manner that harmonizes 

activities toward common strategic goals. This paper elaborates on three options for global R&D

cooperation:

• R&D Networks and Roadmaps. Where R&D activities are conducted in a coordinated 

fashion by sector and by technology at global, regional, and national levels and guided by 

shared technology roadmaps.

• Multilateral R&D Cooperation. Countries, along with the private sector and international 

institutions, can conduct multilateral R&D collaboration through coordinated projects and in 

some cases through joint R&D solicitations.

• Technology Demonstration Partnerships. Public and private agencies can also coordinate 

support for demonstration of emerging technologies, including expanding such 

demonstrations in developing countries.

There are other key approaches for facilitating R&D cooperation that deserve consideration, 

including establishment of regional centers of innovation, research exchange and training 

programs, joint work on technology standards and certification, and portals to share R&D data. 

In this paper, these activities are presented as initiatives that would be pursued by the R&D

technology networks, but they can also be conducted on an independent basis. 

3.2 Example Structure for R&D Networks and Road Mapping 

A global transformation to low carbon energy technologies requires that all countries work in 

concert in addressing common R&D challenges. One approach for building global R&D

capacity and for coordinated application of knowledge is to establish an interlinked set of global, 

regional, and national R&D networks. Such networks could bring together leading technical 

institutions, funding agencies, the private sector, and international organizations to accelerate 

progress toward shared R&D goals while building R&D capacity and knowledge throughout the 

world. These networks can be organized by technology, guided by shared roadmaps, and 

reached by a broad audience through use of virtual communication.

Activities conducted by clean energy R&D networks could include:

• Strengthening regional and national centers of innovation in developing countries and linking 

these centers with similar institutions in developed countries.

• Developing global and regional technology roadmaps articulating a shared technology vision 

and plan for coordinated R&D programs to achieve this vision.

• Sharing information and providing training on R&D methods and simulation tools.
11

• Creating common databases on technology performance and research results.

• Fostering collaboration on performance standards, certification, and testing.

• Facilitating researcher exchanges between countries and development of enhanced science 

and engineering educational programs.

• Coordinating joint research and demonstration projects (elaborated further later in this 

section).

Table 3 provides an example design for such R&D networks and roadmaps. 

Table 3. Potential Structure of R&D Networks & Roadmaps

Goals • To build technical capacity to support clean energy technology innovation, 

adaptation, commercialization, and deployment in all countries and regions.

• To develop shared visions for R&D pathways and coordinate application of 

knowledge and expertise across countries to address common goals.

Participants • Research funding agencies from countries with programs for the selected 

technology.

• Research institutions (e.g., labs and universities) playing leading roles for that 

technology, including regional centers of excellence.

• International technology organizations and networks.

• Private sector and foundation research sponsors. 

Scope of 

Activities

• Establish inter-linked global, regional, and national networks with extensive use of 

virtual forums and communication technologies.

• Strengthen regional and national centers of excellence in developing countries.

• Develop global and regional technology roadmaps articulating a shared vision of 

technology performance and deployment goals and barriers and plans for 

coordinated RD&D programs to achieve goals.

• Share information and provide training on R&D methods and simulation tools.

• Create common databases on technology performance and research results.

• Collaborate on performance standards and testing protocols and training.

• Facilitate researcher exchanges between countries and sharing of best practices 

with professional development and science and engineering educational programs.

• Coordinate multilateral R&D projects.

Selected 

Current 

Examples

• Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (http://www.cgiar.org).

• Sustainable Buildings Network as launched by Heiligendamm Process and the G8.

• IEA technology roadmaps and implementing agreements 

(http://www.iea.org/textbase/techno/index.asp ).

Resource 

Levels 

• $1-2 million/year may be the minimum required by technology to establish linked 

virtual global networks and regional centers of excellence and conduct the above 

activities. 
12

Benefits • Strengthened technical capacity will accelerate technology innovation and 

deployment around the world.

• Coordinated R&D harness global knowledge and resources to advance progress 

toward shared technology research and deployment goals. 

Constraints & 

Strategies 

• Global reach—use of virtual forums and communication technologies.

• Participation of least developed countries (LDCs)—establish regional centers of 

excellence and encourage countries to identify national focal points to help build 

in-country capacity. 

• Implement global roadmaps at the national/sectoral levels; specific strategies are 

needed to ensure implementation.

Various approaches can be pursued in strengthening and launching such R&D networks and joint 

roadmapping activities. These networks can be guided by an advisory group of technology R&D

experts from developed and developing countries. Networks can be managed by existing 

international clean energy partnerships and agencies, such as the energy partnerships established 

by the MEF, the IEA, the IRENA, and the IPEEC. The GEF, MDBs, and UN agencies could 

partner with these groups in implementing programs focused specifically on developing 

countries (e.g., strengthening national and regional centers of excellence). Network participants 

should include technical institutes and government and business representatives from around the 

world. A possible implementation approach could include the following steps: 

1. Establish Advisory Group to Review Existing Technology Networks and Gaps. A review 

could be conducted of existing and planned technology networks to identify gaps in 

current activities, needs for additional networks that address clean energy technologies of 

broad global relevance (e.g., sustainable buildings, solar technologies, efficient 

appliances, biomass technologies, industrial efficiency, and efficient vehicles), and 

includes participants from all regions. This review could also identify appropriate bodies 

to manage networks for specific sectors looking to complement the work of existing 

international organizations and groups. This could include a thoughtful assessment of the 

strengths and weaknesses of existing organizations and networks and strategies to 

overcome these limitations.

2. Identify Sectoral Agencies or Partnerships Responsible for Managing Networks. The 

advisory group could offer recommendations or options for assigning responsibility for 

management of networks to existing international energy agencies and partnerships. 

3. Develop Global and Regional Plans for Strengthening Networks. The advisory group 

could develop an action plan for enhancing the work of existing technology networks and 

creating new networks where needed. This plan would define performance metrics and 

identify funding sources and steps for securing needed funding. It would also include a 

review and accountability process for networks to report on progress and adjust their 

activities over time.

4. Expand Current Networks and Launch New Networks. This could include expanding the 

scope of participants and coverage of existing networks and creating new networks where 

required. Emphasis should be given to virtual networks to reduce the carbon impacts and 

costs of travel. 
13

5. Strengthen National Regional Centers of Excellence. To enable effective participation by 

developing countries, efforts could be undertaken to strengthen the capacity of regional 

and national centers of excellence and innovation. It is important to realize that networks 

should have meat on their bones—a network alone is not enough. R&D institutions in 

developed countries often have sufficient capabilities to be part of an international 

network. Networks and other international R&D cooperation initiatives will be most 

effective where they provide assistance for such science and technology capacity building 

programs in developing countries. 

6. Develop Global and Regional Roadmaps. The networks could prepare roadmaps that 

define common technology development, demonstration, and deployment goals and 

coordinate activities at global and regional levels to achieve those goals. 

7. Implement Joint Projects. Consistent with the roadmaps, the networks could coordinate 

implementation of collaborative projects on specific R&D or analysis topics of common 

interest. Such projects could focus on pre-competitive topics that do not involve sensitive 

intellectual property. Joint work on technology standards, certification, and training 

could also be conducted. 

8. Facilitate Researcher Exchange and Education. The networks could coordinate exchange 

of researchers and other technology experts, virtual and in-person training programs, and 

efforts to help strengthen scientific and technical education programs in developing 

countries. 

9. Establish Portals to Exchange Information. The networks could create community web 

portals and forums to disseminate information on R&D, analysis, and deployment 

activities and results, methods and tools, training materials, and other resources. 

3.3 Example Implementation Structure for Multilateral R&D Cooperation 

R&D cooperation across countries can serve as a force multiplier, accelerating progress toward 

shared clean energy research and development goals. In addition to the R&D capacity building 

(e.g., strengthening centers of innovation and training) and information sharing activities 

described earlier as potential elements of technology networks, countries can also work together 

in implementing focused R&D projects. These R&D projects can be conducted on a bottom-up 

basis where institutions identify alignment of interests and pursue joint projects or in more of a 

top-down manner through joint solicitations and collaborative R&D programs managed and 

driven by government’s partnerships. While this paper presents examples for multilateral 

collaborative R&D projects, these same approaches can be applied bilaterally where there is a 

growing portfolio of R&D partnerships. Technology networks or alliances can coordinate 

implementation of collaborative R&D projects, ideally guided by shared roadmaps.
14

Table 4. Potential Structure for Multilateral R&D Cooperation Projects

Goals • To harness funding across countries in advancing common R&D priorities.

• To foster research institution and private sector partnerships between countries.

• To enable broad dissemination of R&D methods and results. 

Participants • All countries invited to participate in solicitations and multilateral projects. 

• Private sector, international institution, and foundation engagement and funding.

• Research institutions from across the world. 

Scope of 

Activities

• Identify common interests and establish collaborative teams.

• Determine the best form of collaboration (e.g., bottom-up multiparty projects or 

joint solicitations).

• Establish collaborative R&D agreements for bottom-up multiparty projects.

• Pool resources across countries and issue a solicitation for the R&D topics of 

common interest for joint solicitations.

• Form multi-country teams and submit proposals. 

• Disseminate methods and results through Web sites, workshops, and other 

forums.

Selected 

Current 

Examples

• European Commission and the Government of India joint solar research solicitation 

(http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm?fuseaction=UserSite.CooperationDetails

CallPage&call_id=257).

• U.S.-Israel solicitations on renewable energy and energy efficiency R&D 

(http://www.birdf.com/Index.asp?CategoryID=118&ArticleID=321 and 

http://www.bsf.org.il/BSFPublic/Default.aspx).

• European Energy Research Alliance (http://www.eera-set.eu) with sub-networks 

organized by topic. 

Resource 

Levels 

• Joint solicitations on specific topics could be issued for as little as US$1 million.

• Multilateral projects may be cost neutral when integrating existing R&D activities.

Benefits • Tapped resources across countries to achieve common R&D goals. 

• Accelerated innovation and learning across the world. 

Constraints & 

Strategies 

• Developing country participation—could have lower minimum funding levels or 

explore sponsorship from international organizations for low income countries. 

• IP management—can focus on non-competitive topics and, where needed, require 

that team members establish agreements for IP ownership and protection.

• Transaction costs—establish efficient mechanisms for administering program, such 

as use of non-government foundations or other similar organizations.
15

Implementation of multilateral R&D projects can be driven by the networks and associated 

roadmaps and managed by existing international energy agencies and partnerships as described 

in the previous section. These networks could pursue the following steps:

1. Identify Research Topics of Common Interest. This identification of topics should flow 

from the technology roadmaps prepared by the networks. 

2. Establish Teams for Each Topic to Plan Collaborative Work. These teams could include 

representatives from research institutions and government research agencies from 

developing and developed countries as well as international organizations (and the 

private sector where desired) interested in R&D in the specific topic. This should also 

include a process for consulting with the private sector to identify opportunities to partner 

on R&D projects. 

3. Determine the Most Effective Mode of Cooperation for each Topic. Voluntary multiparty 

projects, joint solicitations, or research outreach and exchange, for example. 

4. Develop R&D Plans, Metrics, and Review Processes. For each topic, a multiyear R&D

plan would be established with clear performance metrics and review procedures.

5. Secure Support. The teams would work with the interested governments, international 

organizations, and appropriate UNFCCC bodies to secure support for R&D projects. This 

should include exploring opportunities for private sector co-funding. 

6. Coordinate Implementation. The teams would be responsible for guiding implementation 

of the R&D project.

7. Conduct Annual Review and Refine Plans. The teams could conduct annual peer 

reviews of results of R&D and reveal plans for the next year to reflect outcomes and 

lessons.

3.4 Example Structure for Technology Demonstration Collaboration 

Similar to joint R&D solicitations, countries, international institutions, and the private sector can 

also team in supporting demonstrations of emerging technologies to advance technology 

learning, reduce costs, and build global market acceptance. This can occur through two 

complementary mechanisms: 1) emerging technology demonstration partnerships to coordinate 

demonstrations across sponsoring countries and share results, tools, and lessons across all 

countries, and 2) expanding support for demonstrations in developing countries to foster 

technology adaptation, acceptance, and capacity building. Collaboration on demonstration of 

emerging technologies can harness collective resources in accelerating development and cost 

reductions of technologies that are not fully commercial and should engage both developed and 

developing countries. In addition, expanded support for demonstration of more technologies in 

developing countries will help build market awareness and acceptance and technical capacity and 

can inform adaptation of technologies to developing country markets.
16

Table 5. Potential Structure of Technology Demonstration Collaboration

Goals • To coordinate use of resources and knowledge across countries in reducing costs 

and improving performance of emerging technologies around the world.

• To build broad awareness and acceptance of emerging technologies and technical 

capacity to adapt technologies for use in developing countries. 

Participants • Developed and developing country technology demonstration funding agencies.

• Research institutions from all countries. 

• International organizations and foundations.

• Private sector companies participating in implementation of demonstrations.

Scope of 

Activities

• Demonstrate partnerships for emerging technologies.

o Develop collaborative technology demonstration plans and publicprivate partnerships for emerging technologies of common interest.

o Coordinate demonstrations across sponsoring countries including 

sharing of operational data and practices, exchanging of experts to 

inform project design, and working jointly on simulation models and 

test methods.

o Share approaches, results, test methods, and lessons with all 

countries.

• Expand support for demonstrations in developing countries.

o Identify needs for technology demonstrations in developing 

countries.

o Support coordinated demonstrations at a national and regional 

level where resources are available, including technical assistance 

with innovation and demonstration planning, design and operation 

of demonstration projects, and data collection, monitoring, and 

review. 

Selected 

Current 

Examples

• Over 30 countries are collaborating on demonstration and deployment of 

technologies for reducing global emissions of methane through the Methane to 

Markets Partnership (http://www.methanetomarkets.org).

• Countries are teaming on demonstration of carbon capture and sequestration 

technologies through the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute 

(http://www.globalccsinstitute.com).

Resource 

Levels 

• Networks across countries already sponsoring emerging technology 

demonstrations and sharing results, tools, and lessons may require as little as 

US$200,000 per technology, while new demonstration programs in developing 

countries require much higher levels of resources. 

Benefits • Harmonized use of existing resources to efficiently overcome performance and 

market acceptance challenges for emerging technologies.

• Supported adaptation of emerging technologies for developing country markets and 

building technical capacity to speed market adoption. 
17

Constraints & 

Strategies 

• Timing broad developing country demonstrations to ensure technology and market 

readiness—employ rigorous technology and market reviews to inform 

demonstrations. 

• Developing country participation—could sponsor participation in partnerships. 

Demonstration partnerships (engaging both developed and developing countries) for emerging 

technologies can be conducted in parallel with expanded demonstration of technologies in 

developing countries designed to support technology adaptation and market acceptance. These 

two activities would reinforce each other, including sharing lessons and results from 

demonstrations and engaging similar experts in design of demonstration programs. Potential 

steps are similar to those for multilateral R&D projects so are not repeated here.

The technology networks described earlier could take on lead responsibility for design and 

implementation of demonstration projects for the specific technologies consistent with the 

roadmaps they develop. The technology networks could have accountability to international 

energy agencies (e.g., IEA and IRENA) or partnerships (e.g., IPEEC and MEF) identified as the 

managing bodies for R&D cooperation at the sectoral level. These managing organizations 

should work in partnership with the GEF, MDBs, and UN agencies in implementing 

demonstration projects with developing countries. It may be appropriate for the GEF to play a 

leading role in supporting expanding demonstration of technologies in developing countries 

consistent with their mission.

3.5 Potential Integrated R&D Clean Energy Cooperation Framework

The three core elements described here (technology networks and roadmaps, multilateral R&D

cooperation, and technology demonstration partnerships) will be most effective when 

implemented in an integrated fashion. As shown in Figure 1, technology networks and roadmaps 

can serve as the primary integrating mechanism that guide and coordinate multilateral R&D and 

technology demonstration cooperation. These networks can also serve as the organizing 

mechanism for R&D capacity building, innovation center support, information sharing,

technology standards, testing, and certification. Organization of R&D networks by technology 

will allow them to gain traction and build from the existing technology driven structure of 

national R&D programs and international R&D collaboration. However, some consideration 

should also be given to system level networks (e.g., sustainable energy communities and vehiclegrid integration). The potential structure and steps for establishing such networks, engaging them 

in development of technology roadmaps, and instilling collaborative implementation of R&D

cooperation and emerging technology demonstration programs is presented in further detail in

this section. 
18

Figure 1. Possible integrated framework for clean energy R&D cooperation.

As described in this section, the individual technology networks could have primary 

responsibility for conducting R&D programs with accountability to existing international energy 

agencies or partnerships (e.g., IEA, IPEEC, IRENA2, and MEF energy technology partnerships) 

that provide overall management oversight and coordinate provision of resources for the work of 

the networks. The GEF, MDBs, and UN agencies could also manage delivery of programs 

focused specifically on developing countries (e.g., expanded demonstrations in those countries) 

and work in partnership with these international energy agencies and partnerships. In turn, the 

management agencies could report to an overall UNFCCC clean energy technology advisory 

group. These activities could be closely coordinated with bilateral programs. This is depicted in 

Figure 2. 

 

2 The emphasis of IRENA is more on building developing country capacity on renewable energy policies and 

deployment than on R&D, so the IRENA role may be limited in this area. 

Technology Networks

Global and Regional

Strengthen Regional 

Centers & Networks Expert 

Networks

Portals with R&D Data, 

Methods, & Tools

Researcher Exchange & 

Training Programs

Technology Roadmaps & Action Plans

Global, Regional, & National

R&D Cooperation Emerging Technology 

Demonstration Programs

Joint R&D 

Solicitations

Multilateral & 

Bi-lateral R&D 

Projects

Demonstration 

Partnerships

Expanded 

Developing Country 

Demonstrations

Technology Standards, 

Testing, & Certification & 

Training Programs
19

Implementing 

Agencies or

Partnerships

Technology

Networks

Figure 2. Example of implementation responsibilities for global clean energy R&D cooperation

Wind Others

e.g., GEF, MDBs, and 

UN Agencies Partnerships Global Energy Agencies

UNFCCC Clean Energy Technology 

Cooperation Advisory Group

Clean Coal

Coordination 

with Bilateral 

Programs

Bioenergy Buildings Solar
20

4 Enabling Environments & Capacity Building

This chapter reviews and illustrates how national policies and international collaboration for 

national sectoral deployment programs can create enabling environments for technology transfer 

and highlights the main issues concerning intellectual property. Each section is concluded with a 

discussion about an approach for the future.

4.1 National Policy 

4.1.1 Role of National Policies and the Technology Needs Assessment Process

National policies are defined as policies both formulated at the country level and policies 

formulated at the sub-country level, such as state, province, and municipality.

The lack of supportive local policy is a barrier to technology transfer and diffusion (Hoekman et 

al. 2005), and within the climate community, it is assumed that by providing financial and 

technical assistance to developing countries, national policies can be strengthened (EGTT 2009). 

Financial and technical assistance can be used to develop technology needs assessments (TNAs),

technology standards, procurement programs and elements of nationally appropriate mitigation 

actions (NAMAs), and national adaptation programs of actions (EGTT 2009). 

NAMAs have resulted in a lot of debate with respect to their definition (Olsen et al. 2009), and 

as a result, coming out of Copenhagen, there remains a trust deficit between developed and 

developing countries (Zevallos 2009). Therefore, mechanisms for helping developing countries 

prepare strategies for elaboration of NAMAs should help in building trust and improving the 

overall outcome.

TNAs are an element of enabling activities leading to NAMAs. UNEP is planning to implement

GEF-supported TNA. The TNA approach involves wide stakeholder consultations within the 

countries through which priority technologies are identified (UNDP 2009). The technologies 

selected are based on a sustainability framework and would have to contribute to the economic, 

social, and developmental priorities. A wide stakeholder process (Figure 3) and explicit 

recognition of the developmental needs is expected to create a trust within developing countries 

in the TNA exercise.

The TNA exercise would go beyond technology prioritization to include identification of barriers 

to the acquisition, deployment, and diffusion of technologies and develop enabling frameworks 

to overcome the barriers in the form of an Action Plan. The Action Plan would provide a 

description of the measures that would be needed to 1) reduce risks and create a stable market, 2) 

provide incentives for cleaner technologies, 3) remove barriers created by existing policies, and 

4) gain access to international funds and technologies. 
21

Figure 3. Organizational structure for implementing TNA in a country

Reducing risks to create stable markets, providing incentives for cleaner technologies, and 

removing policy distortions are all requirements for an enabling environment that depend on 

national policies. Some examples from developing countries show how national policies have 

been able to successfully support deployment and diffusion of technologies. Next, we examine 

one such case.

4.1.2 Wind Energy 

Wind energy deployment in China and India has occurred at a fast rate during the last few years 

(REN21 2009) and contributed significantly to the reduction of GHG emissions in the country,

since the electricity sector in both these countries is heavily dependent on coal (IEA 2008). 

Wind power technology was developed and deployed initially in developed countries, but wide 

scale diffusion and rapid commercialization has been largely a result of the involvement of

companies in China and India. The diffusion of wind energy has contributed to development by 

creating jobs, improving the local environment, and contributing to energy security. 

Domestic policy supports for wind can be classified into three types: 1) those that help to reduce 

risks and create a stable market for wind energy, 2) those that help to reduce capital costs, and 3)

those that help to reduce operating costs. The principal policy instruments for creating a stable 

market have been “feed-in tariffs” and “renewable portfolio standards” (RPS). Feed-in tariffs,

along with long-term purchase commitments, can play an important role in reducing risks for 

investors. These policies, however, increase the weighted costs for electric utilities because wind 

power is more expensive than coal-based power and more difficult to integrate into the grid due 

to its intermittency. The policy instruments for reducing capital costs have included capital 

subsidies, grants, excise benefits, and tax credits. The policy supports for reducing operating 

costs have mainly involved favorable tax treatment to electricity generated from wind (e.g., 

lower sales tax). China and India have employed all three sets of policies within their countries 

(REN21 2005) involving considerable financial commitments (Peidong et al. 2009). However,

these domestic policy supports have not only resulted in creating a domestic capacity but also a 

strong manufacturing capability within these countries.

Other experts

Etc...

Energy

Regional 

Local 

Experts

Task 1 Task 2 Task ..

Other experts

Etc...

Agriculture

Energy

Ministry of 

Environment

Regional 

Centres

Local

Experts

TNA Team

(Clean Technology Task Force)

Other stakeholders

Task 1 Task 2 Task ..

URC
22

Local manufacturing has been found to be beneficial for the wider diffusion of wind, though is 

not a precondition for diffusion (Lewis and Wiser 2007). The positive aspects of local 

manufacturing can include reduced costs in some circumstances (Zhang et al. 2009; Lewis and

Wiser 2007), technological risk reduction (Zhang et al. 2009), and private sector capacitybuilding, which is essential for developing public-private partnerships. Public-private 

partnerships played an important role in the success of wind power in Spain (Dinica 2008). In the 

cases of the United States, China, and India where we are witnessing a rapid growth in wind 

capacities (REN21 2009), we are also witnessing a creation of local manufacturing, which is not 

only catering to domestic demand but also to the international market. Lewis and Wiser (2007)

indicate that there are different models for localization starting with assembly of imported 

components, then manufacturing of components, and finally full manufacturing of turbines. 

Countries can adapt a model based on their starting endowments and comparative strengths,

which continue to change with wider diffusion of the technology.

International support for wind energy projects has happened through technology transfer 

including joint wind assessments, wind policy and program best practices information, joint wind 

turbine testing activities, and commercial wind development and financing partnerships and 

through carbon financing by participating in the CDM. The CDM revenues are a significant 

incentive for installing wind turbines (Zhang et al. 2009). 

4.1.3 Discussion

The successful diffusion of wind energy has happened in part because of national policies that 

reduced market risks, technology risks, capital costs, operating costs, and improved local 

capabilities. These policies required substantial financial commitments from the countries 

themselves besides international support. Developing countries support technologies that can aid 

development as well as contribute to GHG mitigation. The idea of TNA is to identify such 

technologies and prepare an action plan for accelerated development, demonstration, and 

diffusion. The technology development and demonstration are covered in previous sections; in 

the case of diffusion, a broad portfolio of measures involves:

1. Changing policies to alter market design (e.g., feed-in tariffs require a change in the 

structure of electricity markets to enable wind producers to supply to the grids).

2. Improving the dissemination of information regarding technologies (e.g., wind 

assessments help identify potential sites for investors).

3. Creating associated infrastructures (e.g., absorbing wind power, which is an intermittent 

source of electricity, requires investments into storage or back up capacities).

4. Providing financial incentives for technologies until economies of scale and scope can 

bring down costs (e.g., capital subsidies and tax benefits allow investors to make their 

projects bankable).

5. Removing policies that exacerbate price distortions or favor incumbent technologies 

(e.g., removing fossil fuel subsidies; enforcing stricter environmental regulations to 

account for environmental externalities).

6. Creating policies that increase demand for cleaner technologies (e.g., RPSs require 

utilities to provide clean energy).
23

7. Developing local manufacturing to improve local capacities and reduce costs (e.g., local 

manufacturing of wind turbines).

8. Collaborating internationally (discussed next).

4.2 International Collaboration for National Sectoral Deployment and Diffusion 

Programs

4.2.1 Role of Sectoral Programs

Enhancing the capacity of public institutions, governmental agencies, and private sector actors 

for initiating concrete actions in specific sectors is an important aspect of creating enabling 

environments in developing countries for a wider scale deployment of climate change 

technologies. Developing the capacity to undertake integrated and coordinated national plans 

targeting various sectors is particularly relevant since it allows for effective planning and ensures 

a greater possibility for achieving end results (IPCC 2000). 

The adoption of relevant sectoral efforts needs to be aligned with non-climate-change-related 

national priorities and aspirations in an integrated manner, with the relevant sectors addressed 

(Heller and Shukla 2003). For example, technology deployment initiatives in the energy sector 

should be complementary to national objectives for industrial and economic development, 

energy infrastructure planning, and social and environmental aspects. Incorporating these 

considerations into a coherent plan and implementation program therefore requires the capacity 

to manage and integrate a variety of diverse considerations. In addition, an understanding of the 

technological and financial viability of specific technologies, as well as the associated market 

characteristics, is required. Careful attention also needs to be directed towards including relevant 

actors and stakeholders in the process. The capacity to address the issue in a coordinated manner 

is necessary, in order to handle the complexities associated with an aspiration to accelerate the 

deployment and diffusion of technologies in a developing country context. However, since the 

concern here is the accelerated diffusion of existing or emerging technologies, the barriers 

relating to the adoption of technologies at a later stage of the innovation cycle needs to be well 

understood. Barriers may also pertain to the specific sectors under consideration and these need 

to be addressed as well. 

Technology transfer through the public and private sector may play a central role for supporting 

national sectoral efforts for climate change mitigation and adaptation. The transfer process may 

be implemented through financial and technical assistance and collaboration programs to 

developing countries or through support for partnerships and diffusion of technologies in the 

private sector (WTO 2009; UNEP 2009). Different types of bilateral and multilateral 

international cooperative initiatives aiming to enhance the capacity of national entities in 

developing countries to increase technology adoption may therefore be relevant. 

4.2.2 Cogen Program 

A long-term agreement between the European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast 

Asian Nations (ASEAN) dating back to 1980 was established with the aim to increase economic 

cooperation between these regions. Within this overall framework, the EU–ASEAN Cogen 

program was completed in three phases in the period from 1991 to 2004, with the purpose of 

facilitating an enhanced adoption and diffusion of proven cogeneration technologies from 

Europe into ASEAN countries (European Commission 2006). As such, the program provides an 
24

appropriate and successful example of an international cooperative initiative with the objective 

of continuing to increase the adoption of low carbon technologies in the energy sector of certain 

developing countries. 

As a central element, the objective of the EU–ASEAN Cogen program was to develop the 

national planning capacity to adopt similar sectoral initiatives through the provision of technical 

assistance to relevant institutions in the process of implementing the program. It also aimed at 

facilitating and providing business opportunities for the private sector companies in both regions 

to engage in technology transfer activities (COWI 2006). The program focused particularly on 

implementation of cogeneration technologies in the ASEAN wood and agro-industries, utilizing 

biomass residues from these industries in order to substitute fossil fuel consumption in their 

energy consuming processes. 

The first phase of the program (1991–1994) concerned a technically focused identification phase 

for what was to become Cogen phase II. It aimed at increasing the awareness of European 

technologies in the ASEAN market and providing information to European suppliers for the 

opportunities in the Southeast Asian region. The first phase, however, also succeeded in 

implementing seven demonstration projects, although of a rather limited capacity, the maximum 

being 2.5 MWe. 

The second phase (1995–1998) focused on the completion of 16 full-scale demonstration 

projects promoting further reference projects with a total capacity of 354 MWth/74MWe and a 

total investment of around 60 million Euros. Nine projects with a maximum capacity of 10 MWe 

each were implemented throughout this phase and the purpose was to demonstrate the technical 

reliability, economic viability, and environmental benign effects of these projects. The Cogen 

program coordinating team worked as a business facilitator in this second phase and thereby laid 

the ground for an accelerated dissemination of biomass-cogeneration technologies in Cogen 

phase III through already established company relations. 

The purpose of the third phase (2002–2004) was to secure further deployment of these 

technologies and demonstrate the ability to replicate such initiatives in the countries hosting the 

projects. In ASEAN countries such as Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia, eight additional 

projects were implemented in different industries during the third phase, most of these with a 

higher capacity than the earlier projects. Training and capacity building of representatives from 

private companies and governmental agencies was a central aspect in the third phase. To this 

end, a number of seminars, conferences, matchmaking events, site visits, and individual 

consultations were provided by the Cogen coordinating team. Strategic management tools and 

models for the purpose of coordinating efficient implementation of future projects were also 

introduced during these events. 

4.2.3 Discussion 

The Cogen example shows how the enabling environment and the capacity for deployment of 

climate change mitigation technologies in specific sectors has been enhanced through an 

internationally coordinated technology transfer initiative. Furthermore, an important achievement 

of the Cogen program was the awareness raised in certain industries, which potentially could 

adopt the technologies in their internal production processes. In the years following the 

completion of the Cogen program, some of the ASEAN countries also experienced an increase in 
25

biomass cogeneration projects implemented under the Clean Development Mechanism (UNEP 

2009). This may, to some extent, be attributable to the importance given throughout the Cogen 

project of securing a long-term replication potential of cogeneration technologies in the region. 

Valuable insights therefore accrue from the Cogen program with regard to adoption of future 

strategies and programs consistent with implementation frameworks proposed under the 

UNFCCC negotiation process. 

Technology support from developed countries as an element underlying developing countries’ 

adoption of sector targeted nationally appropriate mitigation actions may be addressed through a 

staged approach similar (although preferably faster) to the Cogen project. This may involve 

elements to enhance the capacity of domestic entities in developing countries to coordinate and 

establish integrated plans for sector specific mitigation actions through focused technology 

deployment schemes. If implemented as complete and large-scale packages, such internationally 

coordinated deployment programs could involve elements of business training, demonstration, 

private sector partnerships, financing assistance, policy development, joint standards agreements, 

and best practice information exchange. For example, discussions concerning a comprehensive 

bilateral joint clean technology initiative between the United States and China have incorporated 

these elements, including common technology deployment road maps and marketing needs. 

Especially relevant in this regard are the implementation oriented approaches covering sector and 

technology specific mandates on short- or medium-term deployment of energy efficiency, 

renewable energy, clean transport, and other technologies (van Tilburg et al. 2009). Similarly, 

the possible expansion of the carbon market to include sectoral crediting mechanisms may also 

integrate some of these elements as aspects of larger bilateral or multilateral initiatives 

internationally governed by a UNFCCC body. 

Furthermore, within an overall multilateral financial and governance structure under a possible 

UNFCCC technology institution, the proposed regional centers of excellence may also 

incorporate technology diffusion windows that target specific technological areas in developing 

countries (Tomlinson et al. 2008). As in the Cogen project, the enabling environment of host 

countries would thereby increase in terms of the capacity to generate and implement national 

sectoral diffusion and deployment programs. Large scale international technology diffusion and 

deployment programs should particularly promote the establishment of business relationships 

between technology suppliers, consultants, end users, and other private sector actors in order to 

support this objective. Therefore, facilitating a process whereby the engagement and 

involvement of relevant private sector companies is leveraged will be a central aspect for 

achieving end results.

4.3 Intellectual Property Issues

4.3.1 Intellectual Property Overview

The UNFCCC (Article 4.5) requires developed countries take appropriate action for transfer of 

environmentally friendly technologies, including financial know-how and access to developing

countries. This has been reiterated at various COP sessions as well. A substantive step in access 

to finance for technology transfer was taken by establishment of the GEF as the financial 

mechanism, who have since provided more than $2.5 billion for transfer of environmentally 

friendly technologies to more than 50 developing countries. Though GEF and the subsequently 

created market mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol, particularly the CDM, have fostered 

technology transfer to developing countries, the pace and the scale is nowhere near what would 
26

be required to address the issue of climate change. A related issue is that most of the technology 

transfer in such cases has been for technology deployment, bypassing the crucial element of 

technology development, which can spur innovations in developing countries as well. However, 

several bilateral and donor funded programs have helped technology development in developing 

countries. Commercial transactions involving the private sector have also helped technology 

transfer to developing countries, which included the transfer of environmentally friendly 

technologies (e.g., wind and solar energy technologies). Ockwell et al. (2009) conclude that 

existing policy mechanisms fail to consider the importance of developing indigenous capacity for 

technology expansion, which is essential even for diffusion of a technology. Technology 

development capacity is also important for the adoption of technologies to the country 

circumstances and needs. For developing countries, adoption, adaption, and development of 

environmentally sound technologies in line with their needs is important for their sustainable 

economic development. Often, large project-based approaches focus on the transfer of the 

hardware aspects of clean technologies, neglecting the crucial aspect of the transfer of underlying 

knowledge (know-how and know-why) and tacit knowledge. This can even undermine the 

performance of the technology so transferred, as some developing countries have experienced in 

the case of wind turbines where they have to depend on a technology supplier for repairs. 

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) has emerged as a contentious issue in technology transfer

discussions, with differing views between developed and developing countries. IPRs refer to 

legal rights over ideas, creative processes, and products and include copyrights, trademarks, and 

patents. These patents have been the most powerful tools for holders to prevent the unauthorized

use of their technological innovations. The research on empirical effects of IPRs on technology 

transfer to developing countries is inconclusive, with divergent views and results coming out 

from the studies. In addition, the studies previously conducted have, to a limited extent,

specifically addressed the subject of climate change related technologies. Based on the empirical

studies undertaken thus far, proponents of the strict IPR regime and developed countries claim 

that IPR reduces transaction costs for technology transfer through a regulatory framework, and it 

is a lack of IPR law or its enforcement that constitutes a main barrier to technology transfer. This 

line of reasoning also emphasizes the positive role that IPR plays with regard to development 

and diffusion of new technologies. IPRs are considered a catalyst that facilitates businesses to 

invest in risky ventures, giving them legal clarity and certainty. It is also reflected in one of the 

TRIPS rationales that the protection and enforcement of IPRs will contribute to both increased 

FDI and the transfer and dissemination of technology (UNCTAD-ICTSD 2003). The 

commentators on the other side consider this as protectionism on behalf of powerful western 

economies. Trade surpluses on license fees and royalties on patents of some developed countries 

are cited as an evidence as well as incentive for them to push for stricter IPR regime in 

developing countries. These commentators assert that low carbon technologies should be treated 

as public goods as they contribute to mitigation of future carbon emissions, and therefore, an 

international fund should be established to buy IPRs for these technologies to make them freely 

available to developing countries. 

4.3.2 Examples on IPR

Interesting case studies are cited by commentators from both sides to support their arguments. 

See Box 1 for the case study of India and China that concludes that IPRs do not seem to prohibit 

access by developing country firms to the low carbon technologies. See Box 2 for the case study 
27

of South Korea which concludes that IPR can be a hindrance to technology transfer, especially if

the “one size fits all” approach is used.

Box 1. Indian and Chinese Experience: IPRs are not a Barrier

Barton (2007) examined technology transfer for solar PV, wind, and biofuels, and Lewis and 

Wiser (2007) covered wind power industry in China and India in detail. Ockwell et al. (2007; 

2008) covered a few case studies related to integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) for 

power generation, LED lighting, hybrid vehicles, biomass generation, and improving the 

combustion efficiency of existing power stations. Ockwell summarizes these and other studies 

and concludes that developing country firms had access to all the technologies examined, 

except that IGCC and hybrid vehicles in India were still at the R&D stage and primarily 

seemed to be driven by indigenous R&D. Access to wind technologies in India and China had 

been facilitated via the acquisition of licenses from developed country firms and, in the case of 

India, also by strategic acquisition of developed country firms. In the case of solar PV, China 

has pursued a strong policy of indigenous technology development, whereas India’s access has 

principally been via a joint venture with BP Solar. For biofuels, significant indigenous ethanol 

industries in China, India, Pakistan, Japan, Thailand, and Malaysia exist with notable success 

of Brazil in this sector. The developing country firms however had no access to the most 

cutting edge technologies. To some extent Suzlon, India’s most successful wind technology 

manufacturer with the fifth biggest share of the global market, has overcome these issues by 

buying majority shares in developed country firms in order to gain access to cutting edge 

technologies. This would seem to suggest that IPR may not be an issue in access to 

technologies by developing countries though may prohibit access to cutting edge technologies. 
28

Box 2: Korean Experience: IPRs are a Barrier

In yet another example, Magic (2003) gives the example of Thailand, where despite tightening 

the IPR regime through patent acts, the technology transfer failed to foster growth in domestic 

technology R&D. One of the reasons cited is “turnkey” projects where technology is imported 

and controlled by foreign experts for a limited purpose.

4.3.3 Discussion

The discussion regarding how best to handle IPR continues. Exchanging information and 

learning from common experiences on this topic could speed technology transfer. Addressing 

IPR must be combined with increasing educational and research infrastructures in developing 

countries and identifying and removing other barriers to technology transfer. Together, these 

measures will increase the absorptive capacity within these countries, although it may take time 

for results to be apparent. 

IPR does not act as a barrier to the same extent for all countries. For developing countries with 

large domestic markets (emerging economies), IPR may not be a significant barrier, since

technology transfer already occurs to some extent through FDI, licensing, and “outsourcing” 

knowledge. Access to cutting-edge, low carbon technologies continues to be a problem in these 

emerging economies, however. For the least developed countries, IPR is still a hindrance, though 

views on the significance of this issue differ. There is little dispute, however, that there is a need

for a multifold increase in the transfer of environmentally friendly technologies between NorthSouth and South-South countries, including an increased capacity for technology development 

within country borders. These needs can be partly addressed through initiatives such as the 

Carbon Trust’s proposed network of Low Carbon Technology Innovation and Diffusion Centres,

Fundacion Chile (a not-for-profit organization geared towards facilitating access to relevant 

The Korean experience suggests that the effects of IPRs on technology transfer and local 

innovation in developing countries vary according to countries’ levels of economic 

development and to the technological nature of economic activities and that these countries 

can reap long-term benefits from strong IPRs only after they reach a certain threshold level in 

their industrialization (Kim 2003). Kim concludes that strong IPRs would prevent developing 

countries from attempting industrialization at the very early stage. Examples of Korea and 

Taiwan, who first acquired and assimilated mature technologies to undertake duplicative 

imitation of existing foreign products with their skilled but cheap labor force, are given. This 

supplemented learning by doing and upgrading the quality of educational systems in Korea. 

The learning at this stage thus takes place through reverse engineering and duplicative 

imitation of mature foreign products. Kim argues that only after countries have built up 

science and technology infrastructure and accumulated indigenous capabilities to undertake 

creative imitation does IPR protection become an important element in technology transfer 

and industrial activities. He also suggests that Japan, Korea, and Taiwan could not have 

achieved their current levels of technological sophistication if strong IPR regimes had been 

forced on them during the early stage of their industrialization. He also argues that this applies 

to the United States and western Europe during their industrial revolutions. As a corollary to 

this, Kim suggests that differentiation in terms of the level of economic development and

industrial sectors should be considered in the IPR protection and enforcement. Absorptive 

capacity of the developing countries also needs to be strengthened for a long-term solution. 
29

international innovations and increasing indigenous innovation capabilities), and the Eco-Patent 

Commons, in which member companies make patents that directly or indirectly improve or 

protect the environment available to anyone for use free of charge.
30

5 Options for Financing Clean Technology

5.1 What the Financing Infrastructure Should Do

The financing challenge is often pictured as a gap in investment. The challenge is phrased, for 

example, as “we need to generate US$500 billion additional investment into clean energy, 

annually up to 2030.” The analysis then continues in a manner as if the international community 

should provide such finance, that this finance needs to be “leveraged” by public funding, and that 

international mechanisms or a fund can make this happen. 

In reality, the challenge is of a wholly different nature. The clean energy investment gap (not to 

be confused with the incremental cost gap) is built up of a rich and heterogeneous set of 

investment gaps. Rather than leveraging capital for clean energy projects, the challenge consists 

mostly of diverting capital from high carbon energy investments to low carbon projects, and 

mobilizing additional capital. In addition, enabling environments for finance and investments are 

important. It is therefore not correct to talk of a “gap,” since the difference between desired and 

baseline financing is only part of the investment challenge. 

The financing challenge is also highly heterogeneous. In least-developed countries (high-risk 

environment, unstable regime, moderate growth), it is of a different nature than in emerging 

economies (stable regime, strong growth; opportunities but also regulatory risks) and developed 

countries (stable regime, low growth). Those making decisions on which projects to invest in are 

not only interested in returns, but they think in terms of risks. An investment is often 

“structured”: part of the investment is financed with low-risk debt finance and part with high-risk 

capital, so the whole of the investment has a certain average risk profile. This means that not 

only the projects and operational environment vary greatly, but also the investment itself can be 

broken up into parts. 

Hence, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for financing clean technology. The heterogeneity of 

the challenge calls upon the participation of a multitude of institutions, including domestic 

institutions that take into account national sovereignty and international institutions that adhere 

to general rules of accountability. The institutions adhere to the characteristics of “measurability, 

reportability, and verifiability”. Some institutions are already operational at a small scale, while 

others will have to be formed. The section below provides strategies for expanding and creating 

some of the most promising “no-regret” options for closing the clean energy investment gap.

5.2 Components of a Financing Infrastructure

5.2.1 Investment Matchmaking and Advisory Services

Investment matchmaking and advisory services bring together different actors involved in the 

low carbon technology market and provide assistance and advice for project developers and 

innovators by attracting investment and finance for their innovations. These services can make a 

positive impact because the various actors have different viewpoints that often inhibit 

spontaneous collaboration:

• Large, commercial banks based in developed countries are interested in investing in 

developing countries but are accustomed to a certain level of documentation and information 

on specific conditions and on market stability. Local conditions in developing countries are 

often well known with local banks and institutions but not well-documented. 
31

• Policymakers tend to think in terms of incremental costs and how to subsidize them. They are 

often not familiar with the considerations of financiers. They are often unaware of the 

barriers they themselves form for project developers and financiers (e.g. rapid policy 

changes, red tape, and changing political preferences). 

• Innovators and project developers are often focused on their project or product and oblivious 

of contextual factors, demands of investors, and regulatory barriers. What an innovator 

considers a good business plan is often very different from what a potential financier would 

consider a bankable project.

Clearly, an essential element of estimating the risk of an investment decision involves sharing

information across different actors. This information enables the variety of stakeholders to relate 

to each other and collaborate. Matchmaking events, where the actors have the opportunity to 

meet, in combination with capacity development, are also important. 

National and regional matchmaking events aimed at overcoming information barriers between 

project developers and banks, banks and policymakers, innovators and banks, and local banks 

and international commercial banks could fill a need for interaction. In addition, assistance for 

innovators in writing business plans that are attractive to banks would be useful. Services would 

need to be tailored to the context, and it is therefore advisable that such services are implemented 

in the countries where the technology is to be implemented. Other elements could include:

• Finance training for policymakers.

• Energy training for financiers.

• Education for financial advisors and national matchmakers who are essential for catalyzing 

finance for diffusing and transferring technologies.

• Formation of national or regional innovation hubs/centers

The current Private Financing Advisory Network (PFAN) is an institution that aims to resolve 

some of the issues identified here. Founded in 2007, its experiences are relatively short-term but 

could be replicated to a larger scale by opening more regional offices and potentially combining 

them with other mechanisms such as a network of innovation centers (see Chapter 3). 

Table 6. Possible Features of an Investment Matchmaking and Advisory Service

Goals • To overcome information barriers for investing in clean energy 

technologies between different stakeholders.

• To facilitate clean energy investments.

Participants • National governments.

• Commercial and local banks.

• Project developers.
32

Scope of Activities • Matchmaking events between innovators and financiers. 

• Training and education for all participants.

• Assistance with business plans for innovators.

• Case studies of best practices and financing information portals.

Selected Current 

Examples

• Private Financing Advisory Network (PFAN; http://www.climatetech.net/). 

• Elements of Botswana Innovation Hub (http://www.bih.co.bw).

Resource Levels • Roughly on the order of US$30–50 million annually. Cost estimates 

include 80–100 specialized staff and non-personnel costs (van Tilburg et 

al. 2009).

Benefits • Improved understanding of financing with policymakers and innovators.

• Improved understanding of local conditions with international banks.

• Overcome information barriers.

• Facilitated clean energy investments. 

Constraints & 

Strategies 

• Country-level, tailor-made infrastructure makes coordination challenging 

and implementation diffuse.

• Information is unlikely to be the only barrier. For reaching a significant 

scale, it needs to be implemented in conjunction with other instruments.

5.2.2 Coordination of Existing Funds

Currently a large collective of development banks, official development assistance, trust funds,

and carbon markets are already operational. Coordination between those efforts is limited. It is 

difficult to get a consistent overview of the type of support provided and the conditions for 

financing. The World Bank (excluding GEF and carbon finance) invested US$2.28 billion in 

renewable energy and energy efficiency, but data on other banks and sources are not so clear. In 

2008, the Group of Eight established the Climate Investment Funds, which is projected to result 

in US$6.1 billion being invested in technologies for mitigation and adaptation in 2009–2012 

(UNFCCC 2008c). It is difficult to gather information from non-governmental funding 

recipients. In addition, it is unclear how much those existing instruments currently invest in 

energy-related projects and programs that actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. The latter 

might be larger than the investments made in low carbon solutions. 

Coordination of such funds can make a difference, particularly in the least-developed countries 

where they constitute a large share of foreign direct investment (UNFCCC 2008d). Funds could 

collaborate in making their investments more specific and complementary. They could assist 

each other in identifying appropriate projects and hence operate more efficiently. 

Coordination could be centralized in the UNFCCC or in a more generic (not-climate-changespecific) UN body. 
33

Table 7. Possible Features of Existing Fund Coordination

Goals • To improve efficiency in international fund operation.

• To decrease high carbon and increase low carbon investments.

Participants • International banks. 

• Donor governments.

Scope of 

Activities

• Exchange information and data.

• Create low carbon standards for investments.

Resource Levels • Unclear, but likely to be limited.

Benefits • Moved from high carbon to low carbon investments in countries where there 

was a scope. 

Constraints & 

Strategies 

• Coordination may be difficult, and the right body to coordinate may be hard to 

find.

• Move to low carbon investment should not go at the expense of poverty 

reduction activities.

5.2.3 Investment Risk Mitigation Vehicles

The traditional approach to stimulating low carbon technologies in developing countries is to 

somehow fund the incremental cost gap, for instance through a feed-in subsidy for the 

incremental electricity cost or covering the costs per tonne of CO2-eq avoided, such as in the 

CDM. More recently, there have been several suggestions for funds to cover the investment gap

rather than the incremental cost gap and emphasize bringing down risks for investors (UNEP 

2009; WEF 2009). Such risk mitigation vehicles need to be tailor-made for the specific problems 

that projects face. The risk mitigation measures vary the most across the major stages in the 

innovation chain, i.e., the demonstration phase versus the deployment or diffusion phases (van 

Tilburg et al. 2009; UNFCCC 2008c; Tomlinson, Zorlu, and Langley 2008; Tirpak and Stales

2008). 

Several barriers prevent investors from diverting funds from conventional to low carbon energy 

options and particularly low carbon technologies in developing countries. UNEP (2009) reviews 

the barriers from a financial perspective and arrives at country politics risk, low carbon policy 

risk, currency risk, availability of projects, and increased overall risk because of the difficulty in 

evaluating a multitude of risks. In addition to those barriers, others can be identified, such as 

project execution risks (e.g., poor management and project delays), technological risks (because 

experience with the technology is limited), lack of infrastructure or human capacity, and 

information barriers (UNFCCC 2008c). 

Funds for low carbon projects could be secured from institutions like Development Finance 

Institutions (such as the World Bank or the regional development banks) but also from pension 

funds. Together, for such institutions, the total investment size required does not seem to be the 

problem—the question is how to make the investments acceptable and attractive for those 

players. 
34

The multitude of barriers makes the design of an institutional arrangement for mitigating these 

risks complex as well. It is clear that several vehicles for mitigating risks need to be used to 

enable projects. A number of proposals include:

• Country and Low Carbon Policy Risk Fund. Investors can secure coverage for country risk in 

specific developing countries before raising capital, reducing the finance risk. This could be 

expanded with coverage of low carbon policy risk, as climate and energy policies sometimes 

change over time, resulting in higher investment uncertainty (WEF 2009).

• Loan Guarantees and Equity Subordination. Public investors take a subordinated position in 

equity financing, meaning that they will not receive pay-back until private investors have 

their returns (UNEP 2009; UNFCCC 2008c).

• Venture Capital Fund. High-risk public equity fund for pre-determined technologies beyond

demonstration technology deployment in new environments (Tirpak and Stales 2008; 

UNFCCC 2008c). 

Table 8. Possible Features of Investment Risk Mitigation Vehicles

Goals • To allow financiers to lower the risks on the high-risk part of their 

investment, making financing low carbon technologies more attractive.

Participants • Government/public entities.

• Financiers and investors such as pension funds and other institutional 

investors.

• Development Finance Institutions.

Scope of Activities • Provide loans against, with the possibility of non-payback, to cover the 

high-risk part of the investment.

• Provide funds for country risk, currency risk, and low carbon policy risk.

• Provide funding for developing low carbon projects into bankable projects. 

• Deploy venture capital for beyond-demonstration technology in new 

environments.

Resource Levels • No estimate of resources required could be found.

Benefits • Diverted and mobilized investments in low carbon technologies.

• Responsive to investor community.

Constraints & 

Strategies 

• Raising the public finance for the vehicles might not be straightforward.

• Experience is currently limited and will need to be gained. Trying many 

different tracks at the same time would allow for learning.
35

5.3 Implementation and Institutional Arrangements for Facilitating Low Carbon 

Technology Investment

This section provides a scope of the implementation steps for the options to mobilize finance of

low carbon technologies. Three generic options are identified: investment matchmaking and 

advisory services, coordination of existing funds, and investment risk mitigation vehicles. 

Given the relevance of national circumstances, it seems that an international organization would 

not have to implement the aims of matchmaking. Rather, countries could set up national 

innovation hubs, potentially with international support from a “Network of Innovation Centres,” 

mandated with the task of investment matchmaking. We suggest including matchmaking and 

advisory services in the mandate of such a network, which means that suitable personnel need to 

be hired.

Coordination of existing funds could be centralized in the UNFCCC or in another (not

necessarily climate change-specific) international body such as the World Bank. Provision of 

information could be implemented by a public body such as UNEP Collaborating Centre on 

financing sustainable energy.3

The implementation of investment risk mitigation vehicles is challenging, since the amount of 

the funding involved is large and the risk that public entities would need to take are significant. 

Still, there are a number of existing vehicles that can be used as starting points and that can then 

be expanded and given new mandates. WEF (2009) also suggests promoting dialogue between 

public and private investors so their interests can be further aligned—setting this up is step 2, 

which can potentially be undertaken by UNEP SEFI or its Finance Initiative. Such a platform or 

dialogue can inform further steps. Once experiences have been evaluated and sufficient 

confidence in specific vehicles has been gained, larger such funds could be accommodated under 

the UNFCCC and possibly administered by development finance institutions or even specific 

governments. This option should also be linked to the coordination of funds. 

In all cases, a decision in the climate negotiations, or bilateral 

funding through UNEP donations, would be needed for this aspect to materialize.

 

3 The model that is an example here is the provision of CDM market information by UNEP/Risoe.
36

6 Conclusion

This paper synthesizes information and studies of current and potential implementation 

approaches for enhancing international cooperation on clean energy technology R&D, enabling 

environment, and financing in support of the objectives of the UNFCCC. Several conclusions 

can be drawn from this analysis of current and potential future programs that can inform design 

of future clean energy technology cooperation initiatives under the UNFCCC.

The Copenhagen Accord has set the rough form for the future global regime for addressing 

climate change. Continuing and building on the momentum of current efforts is important to the 

advancement of the development and diffusion of clean energy technologies. Specifically,

investigating which approaches work best under which circumstances will advance 

implementation of the Accord. In the current environment, countries and international 

organizations may be best served by applying pragmatic approaches that enhance collaboration 

through existing bilateral and multilateral partnerships and demonstrate a commitment to rapid 

scaling up of technology cooperation and financing. 

This paper highlights the fact that such programs will be most effective if they 1) focus on well 

defined and broadly endorsed national priorities, 2) strengthen developing country capacity and 

enabling environments, 3) apply a comprehensive approach at sufficient scale over multiple 

years, 4) build long-term public and private partnerships, 5) engage countries from all regions

and promote broad knowledge sharing, and 6) coordinate and harmonize international support. 

More detailed conclusions are presented for each of the three areas covered in this paper:

6.1 R&D Cooperation

• R&D Cooperation May be Most Effectively Implemented by Technology Networks. 

Networks comprised of representatives from developing and developed country 

research institutes, government research programs, and the private sector may be best 

positioned to implement specific R&D projects. Such networks can directly engage 

practitioners to ensure that the work has a concrete and practical focus, building 

meaningful long-term partnerships, and complementing activities supported by national 

governments and the private sector.

• Address Needs to Build R&D Capabilities in Least-Developed and Developing 

Countries. It is important to realize that networks should have meat on their bones—a 

network alone is not enough. R&D institutions in developed countries often have 

sufficient capabilities to be part of an international network, but universities and 

research institutions in least-developed countries will need much assistance with 

capacity building. Networks and other international R&D cooperation initiatives will 

be most effective where they provide assistance for such science and technology 

capacity building programs in developing countries. 

• A Clean Energy Technology Advisory Group and Implementing Agencies Can Guide 

the Work of these Networks. An advisory group of clean energy experts from 

developing and developed countries can establish an overall clean energy R&D plan 

and principles to guide work by the implementing agencies. The implementing 

agencies can be drawn largely from existing international energy agencies and 
37

partnerships (e.g., IEA, MEF energy technology partnerships, IPEEC, and IRENA) as 

well as the GEF, MDBs, and UN agencies. They can be assigned responsibility for 

managing specific elements of the international clean energy technology cooperation 

portfolio. 

• Shared R&D Technology Roadmaps Can Drive Program Design. One of the first tasks

of these technology networks could be the establishment of common technology 

roadmaps to develop a shared vision for clean energy technology R&D goals, barriers, 

and programs at global and regional levels (complementing national and private sector 

efforts) to achieve these goals. These roadmaps can provide a multiyear vision and

provide the foundation for coordinated national, regional, and global R&D initiatives.

International review processes can be established to assess progress at global and 

regional levels relative to roadmap goals and to update the roadmaps. 

• Multilateral R&D Projects Can be Conducted both through Partnering on 

Independently Funded Projects and through Joint Solicitations. Multilateral R&D

projects can be driven by promoting teaming of interested research institutes (and 

companies) who have funding from their own independent sources and by pooling 

resources through common R&D solicitations. The technology networks can determine 

the most effective means of cooperation for a specific topic.

• Technology Demonstration Partnerships can be Implemented in Parallel with 

Expanding Demonstrations in Developing Countries. Efforts are needed to both 

expand partnerships in implementing demonstrations of emerging technologies and to 

expand support for demonstrations of more mature and emerging technologies (where 

appropriate) in developing countries. Such partnerships should include governments, 

the private sector, and international organizations. 

6.2 Enabling Environments

• Strong National Policies are Essential for Diffusion of Technologies. National policies 

and measures play a key role in creating enabling environments in developing countries 

for an accelerated diffusion and uptake of clean energy technologies. However the 

enabling environment for cleaner technologies involves policies that reduce risks, 

remove distortions, and provide incentives. All this will, however, carry costs, and the 

countries will go forward only with the technologies that are aligned to their national 

priorities, which may relate to energy access, energy security, and economic, social,

and environmental concerns. Capacity building efforts for national policymaking 

should keep in mind this concern. The TNA exercise is trying to address this by 

following a bottom-up process with explicit recognition of the national context and 

national priorities for identification of technological options. TNA could appropriately 

be implemented as a key element of developing countries’ NAMAs.

• Launch Large Scale and Internationally Coordinated Programs Targeting Specific 

Sectors. Internationally coordinated large-scale programs targeting technology 

deployment in specific sectors in developing countries could be promoted and initiated 

either bilaterally or multilaterally. Such programs should be implemented as complete 

and comprehensive packages laying out a clear medium-term pathway for increasing 

technology diffusion and deployment. They could include technological and financial 

assistance in order to achieve well functioning implementation of viable technologies. 
38

Technological support could include training in operation and maintenance, system 

integration assistance, introduction of monitoring and auditing systems, management 

tools, and more. Projects within these programs should receive financial support and 

could function as showcases with a large replication potential in the national or regional 

context. Besides project finance, programs could also facilitate business and industry 

matchmaking, project inspection and supervision, and consultancy services. 

• Access to Technology can be Addressed through Expanding Successful Technology 

Cooperation Models and Building Developing Country Capacity. Developed and 

developing countries have differing views regarding the impact of IPR on technology 

transfer. Identifying common experiences and successful case studies could provide 

insight needed to remove barriers and build new programs that improve educational and 

research infrastructures and increase the absorptive capacity of cutting edge climate 

technologies in developing countries. Recent, existing initiatives such as the Carbon 

Trust’s proposed network of Low Carbon Technology Innovation and Diffusion 

Centres, Fundacion Chile, and the Eco-Patent Commons should also be strengthened 

and enlarged.

6.3 Financing 

• Finance and Technology need to be Addressed in Combination. Technological 

development and transfer needs financing, and the type of financing depends on the 

technology and application. The separation of the topics of technology and financing in 

negotiations is an artificial one that could lead to inconsistencies. Some finance 

instruments may work for some technologies and not for others; their applicability 

depends, in part, on the stage of technological maturity, the scale of the technology, and 

the degree capital intensity. 

• Learn Before Deployment. Current experience helps identify technological financing 

mechanisms that work on a particular scale and context. Lessons from existing 

financing activities can inform the design of larger financing instruments and help tailor 

them to a country’s national policy and market conditions. It may make sense to start 

with an experimental phase for new financial instruments and then scale-up and expand

to other country contexts.

• One Technology Fund is Unlikely to be Manageable. Although providing technology 

funding through a single, centralized fund (even one that is sub-divided) has the benefit 

of straight-forward institutional arrangements, this approach also has significant 

disadvantages. These include challenging governance structures, a reduced ability to 

learn from mistakes, and a higher degree of bureaucracy. A collection of funds and 

instruments, perhaps distributed across different countries, might help to overcome 

these disadvantages. 

• Focus Public Finance Instruments on Risk, not on Incremental Costs. Funding risk 

mitigation vehicles is a more cost-effective way to use public financing instruments. 

This will not be sufficient for all technologies, because some technologies need 

incremental cost funding. However, there are a substantial number that could 

potentially benefit from such instruments. This approach would build confidence 

between parties, assuming the programs are credibly deployed. 
39

References

Barton, J.H. (2007). Intellectual Property and Access to Clean Technologies in Developing 

Countries: An Analysis of Solar Photovoltaic, Biofuel and Wind Technologies. Geneva, 

Switzerland: ICTSD. 

Baumert, K.; Herzog, T.; Pershing, J. (2009). Navigating the Numbers: Greenhouse Gas Data 

and International Climate Policy. World Resources Institute.

pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers.pdf Accessed June 28, 2010.

COWI. (September 2006). Ex-Post Evaluation of the COGEN 3 Programme. Framework 

Contract 2006/115686. Lyngby, Denmark: 

COWI.http://www.deltha.ec.europa.eu/Publications/COGEN3%20Popular%20Report.pdf 

Dinica, V. (2008). "Initiating a Sustained Diffusion of Wind Power: The Role of Public-Private 

Partnerships in Spain." Energy Policy (36) pp. 3562-3571.

EGTT. (June 1-10, 2009). "Strategy Paper for the Long-Term Perspective Beyond 2012, 

Including Sectoral Approaches, to Facilitate the Development, Deployment, Diffusion and 

Transfer of Technologies under the Convention." Prepared for the Thirtieth Session, Subsidiary 

Body for Scientific and Technological Advice by the Expert Group on Technology Transfer.

Bonn, Germany: UNFCCC.

European Commission. (2006). Replicable & Sustainable COGEN 3: Cogen Experience 

Overview. European Commission (EC) and ASEAN Centre for Energy (ACE). 

www.cogen3.net/final/docs/ceo_final.pdf Accessed June 28, 2010.

Gerstetter, C.; Marcellino, D. (November 2009). "The Current Proposals on the Transfer of 

Climate Technology in the International Climate Negotiations: An Assessment." Washington 

D.C.: Ecologic Institutehttp://ecologic.eu/download/projekte/8200-

8249/8208/DDCF_Master_161109.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2010.

Heller, T.C.; Shukla, P.R. (2003). “Development and Climate: Engaging the Developing 

Countries.” Beyond Kyoto: Advancing the International Effort Against Climate Change. 

Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Global_warming

/PCGC_international_climate_efforts_1204.pdf Accessed June 28, 2010.

Hoekman, B.M.; Maskus, K.E.; Saggi, K. (2005). "Transfer of Technology to Developing 

Countries: Unilateral and Multilateral Policy Options." World Development (33:10) 1587-1602.

ICTSD-UNCTAD. (2003). Intellectual Property Rights, Implications for Development. Policy 

Discussion Paper; Intellectual Property Rights & Sustainable Development Series, 152 pp. 

IEA. (2008). Energy Technology Perspectives 2008: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050. 

International Energy Agency. ISBN 978-92-64-04142-4.
40

IPCC. (2000). “Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer.” A special 

report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group III.

Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Kim, Linsu. (2003). Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Rights: The Korean 

Experience. UNCTAD-ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development, Issue Paper No. 2. 

June 2003.

Kline, D.; Vimmerstedt, L.; Benioff, R. (2003). “Clean Energy Technology Transfer: A Review 

of Programs under the UNFCCC.” 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h5282185458725k8/fulltext.pdf. Accessed June 28, 2010.

Lewis, J.I.; Wiser, R.H. (2007). "Fostering a Renewable Energy Technology Industry: An 

International Comparison of Wind Industry Policy Support Mechanisms." Energy Policy (35)

1844-1857.

Magic, P. (2003). “International Technology Transfer & Intellectual Property 

Rights.”http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~fussell/courses/econtech/public-finalpapers/Peter_Magic_International_IP_Rights.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2010. 

Ockwell, D.; Watson, J.; MacKerron, G.; Pal, P.; Yamin, F. (November 2008). “Key Policy 

Considerations for Facilitating Low Carbon Technology Transfer to Developing Countries.”

Energy Policy Vol 36, Issue 11, pages 4104-4115.

Ockwell, D.; Watson, J.; MacKerron, G.; Pal, P.; Yamin, F; Vasudevan, N.; Mohanty, P. (March 

2007). UK-India Collaboration to Identify the Barriers to the Transfer of Low Carbon Energy 

Technology. Report by SPRU, TERI, and IDS. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sussexenergygroup/1-2-

9.html. Accessed June 21, 2010.

Ockwell, D. et al. (2010), “Enhancing Developing Country Access to Eco-Innovation: The Case 

of Technology Transfer and Climate Change in a Post-2012 Policy Framework”, OECD 

Environment Working Papers, No. 12, OECD Publishing. 

www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/46/45263722.pdf Accessed: June 25, 2010.

OECD/IEA. (2009). How the Energy Sector can Deliver on a Climate Agreement in 

Copenhagen. Special Excerpt of the World Energy Outlook 2009 for the Bangkok UNFCCC 

meeting.

Olsen, K.H.; Fenhann, J.; Hinostroza, M. (2009). "Editorial." NAMAs and the Carbon Market: 

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions of Developing Countries, Olsen, K.H., Fenhann, J.,

Hinostroza, M., eds. Roskilde, Denmark: UNEP Risoe Centre.

Peidong, Zhang, Yang Yanli, Shi jin, Zheng Yonghong, Wang Lisheng, and Li Xinrong. (2009).

“Opportunities and challenges for renewable energy policy in China” Renewable and Sustainable 

Energy Reviews 13 pp.439–449.

REN21. (2005). Renewables 2005: Global Status Report. Paris: Renewable Energy Policy 

Network for 21st Century, REN21 Secretrait.
41

REN21 (2009), Renewables Global Status Report: 2009 Update. Paris: Renewable Energy 

Policy Network for 21st Century, REN21 Secretrait.

Seres, S. (In consultation with Haites, E.). (December 2008). “Analysis of Technology Transfer 

in CDM Projects” Prepared for the UNFCCC Registration and Issuance Unit, CFM/SDM. 

http://cdm.unfccc.int/Reference/Reports/TTreport/TTrep08.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2010. 

Tirpak, D.; Stales, B.C. (2008). Components of a New Financial Agreement. WRI, Washington 

DC. 

Tomlinson, S.; Zorlu, P.; Langley, C. (November 2008). Innovation and Technology Transfer: 

Framework for a Global Climate Deal. London: E3G.

http://www.e3g.org/images/uploads/E3G_Innovation_and_Technology_Transfer_Full_Report.pd

f. Accessed June 21, 2010.

UNDP. (September 2009). Handbook for Conducting Technology Needs Assessment for Climate 

Change. United Nations Development Programme, New York, NY. 

http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/contacts/v.php?id=10 Accessed June 28, 

2010.

UNEP. (October 2009). Catalysing Low-Carbon Growth in Developing Economies. UNEP and 

Partners. http://sefi.unep.org/fileadmin/media/sefi/docs/publications/PublicPrivateWeb.pdf. 

Accessed June 21, 2010.

UNFCCC. (2002). Decision 4/CP.7: Development and Transfer of Technologies.

FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop7/13a01.pdf#page=22. Accessed 

June 21, 2010. 

UNFCCC. (2008a). “Clean Development Mechanism 2008 in Brief.” 

cdm.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CDM/UpFile/File2113.pdf

UNFCCC. (2008b). Decision 1/CP.13: Bali Action Plan. FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1.

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf#page=3. Accessed June 21, 2010.

UNFCCC. (2008c). Identifying, Analysing and Assessing Existing and Potential New Financing 

Resources and Relevant Vehicles to Support the Development, Deployment, Diffusion and 

Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technologies. FCCC/SB/2008/INF.7. Bonn, Germany: 

UNFCCC.

UNFCCC. (2008d). Investment and Financial Flows to Address Climate Change: An Update. 

FCCC/TP/2008/7. Bonn, Germany: UNFCCC. 

van Tilburg, X.; Tomlinson, S.; De Vita, A.; Zorlu, P.; de Coninck, H. (2009). Financial 

Assessment of the Technology Proposals under the UNFCCC. ECN-E-09-073. Petten, 

Netherlands: Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN) and E3G. 

http://www.e3g.org/images/uploads/E3G_ECN%20Financial%20Assessment%20of%20Technol

ogy%20Proposals%20under%20UNFCCC_October%202009.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2010.
42

WEF. (October 2009). Task Force on Low-Carbon Prosperity: Recommendations. Geneva, 

Switzerland: WEF. 

http://www.weforum.org/documents/gov/Environment/TF%20Low%20Carbon%20Prosperity%

20Recommendations.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2010.

WTO. (November 24, 2009). "Standards and Safety: Technical Regulations and Standards." 

World Trade Organization

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm4_e.htm#TRS. Accessed June 21, 

2010.

Zevallos, P. (2009). "The Trust Building Role of NAMAs." Olsen, K.H., Fenhann, J., 

Hinostroza, M., eds. NAMAs and the Carbon Market: Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions 

of Developing Countries Roskilde, Denmark: UNEP Risoe Centre.

Zhang, X.; Chang, S.; Huo, M.; Wang, R. (2009). "China’s Wind Industry: Policy Lessons for 

Domestic Government Interventions and International Support." Climate Policy (9) 553-564.
F1147-E(10/2008)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

August 2010

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Strengthening Clean Energy Technology Cooperation Under the 

UNFCCC: Steps Toward Implementation

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-08-GO28308

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Ron Benioff (NREL), Heleen de Coninck (ECN), Subash Dhar 

(Risoe National Lab), Ulrich Hansen (Risoe National Lab) Joyce 

McLaren (NREL) and Jyoti Painuly (Risoe National Lab)

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/TP-6A0-48596

5e. TASK NUMBER

6A00.6003

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401-3393

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP-6A0-48596

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

Development of a comprehensive and effective global clean technology cooperation framework will require years of 

experimenting and evaluation with new instruments and institutional arrangements before it is clear what works on 

which scale and in which region or country. In presenting concrete examples, this paper aims to set the first step in 

that process by highlighting successful models and innovative approaches that can inform efforts to ramp up clean 

energy technology cooperation. This paper reviews current mechanisms and international frameworks for global 

cooperation on clean energy technologies, both within and outside of the UNFCCC, and provides selected concrete 

options for scaling up global cooperation on clean energy technology RD&D, enabling environment, and financing. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

clean energy technology; CET; UNFCCC; RD&D; international; greenhouse gas; GHG; deployment; enabling 

environment; finance; adaptation; energy efficiency; roadmap; renewable portfolio standards; RPS; feed-in tariffs; 

Cogen program; Intellectual Property Rights; IPR

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3305

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

NREL/TP-6A0-48596 • August 2010

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at least

50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.