NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Low Emission Development 

Strategies: The Role of 

Networks and Knowledge 

Platforms

Ron Benioff, Morgan Bazilian, Sadie Cox, 

and Caroline Uriarte

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Ana Kecman, Giuseppe De Simone, 

Kazuki Kitaoka, and Marina Ploutakhina

United Nations Industrial Development Organization

Mark Radka

United Nations Environment Programme

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A00-55343

September 2013
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Low Emission Development 

Strategies: The Role of 

Networks and Knowledge 

Platforms

Ron Benioff, Morgan Bazilian, Sadie Cox, 

and Caroline Uriarte

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Ana Kecman, Giuseppe De Simone, 

Kazuki Kitaoka, and Marina Ploutakhina

United Nations Industrial Development Organization

Mark Radka

United Nations Environment Programme

Prepared under Task No. WFL1.1022

Technical Report

NREL/TP-6A00-55343

September 2013
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, 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.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

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/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 16416, photo from SunEdison, NREL 17423, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 

16560, photo by Dennis Schroeder, NREL 17613, photo by Dean Armstrong, NREL 17436, photo by Pat Corkery, NREL 17721.

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
iii

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table of Contents

Abstract....................................................................................................................................................... iv

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

2 Network Theory..................................................................................................................................... 2

3 Review of LEDS Networks and Platforms.......................................................................................... 4

4 Experiences of Long-standing Successful Networks across Fields .............................................. 9

5 Opportunities for Improving LEDS Networks.................................................................................. 10

Appendix A. Network and Knowledge Platform Data............................................................................ 14

Appendix B. Comparison of Technology Needs Assessments, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation 

Actions, Roadmaps, and LEDS......................................................................................................... 28

References................................................................................................................................................. 34

List of Figures

Figure B-1. Data visualization proposed to simultaneously communicate GHG mitigation potential 

and development benefits of technology options .......................................................................... 33

List of Tables

Table A-1. Network and Knowledge Platform Data: Adaptation .......................................................... 14

Table A-2. Network and Knowledge Platform Data: Crosscutting....................................................... 15

Table A-3. Network and Knowledge Platform Data: Cross-Sectoral Mitigation Networks ................ 20

Table A-4. Network and Knowledge Platform Data: Energy................................................................. 22

Table A-5. Network and Knowledge Platform Data: Land Use............................................................. 26

Table B-1. Comparison of Technology Needs Assessments (TNAs), Nationally Appropriate 

Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), Roadmaps, and Low Emission Development Strategies (LEDS). 28

Table B-2. Potential Functions of the Climate Innovation Center (CIC).............................................. 30
iv

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Abstract

Considerable effort has been made to address the transition to a low-carbon economy. A key 

focus of these efforts has been on developing national low emissions development strategies 

(LEDS). Enabling these plans are well-functioning national, regional, and international low

emission development networks and knowledge platforms. To better understand the role of 

LEDS, we examine them in relation to network theory. We present a review of strengths and 

weaknesses of existing LEDS networks that builds on the findings of a study conducted by the 

Coordinated Low Emission Assistance Network (CLEAN).

1 We identify opportunities for 

further refining LEDS networks based on the insights from theory and a mapping of the climaterelated network space.

 1 As of April 2012, CLEAN has been merged with the Low Emissions Development Strategies Global Partnership

(LEDS GP) in order to improve efficiency and enhance coordination of LEDS activities.
1

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

1 Introduction

Climate change has been widely recognized as a major global issue as it threatens to alter the 

natural environment, disrupt the well-being of society, and deter economic development (UNDP

2010; OECD 2011a; Mitchell and Tanner 2006; USAID 2012). Governments worldwide

generally agree on the need to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the coming decades 

and adapt to the impacts of climate change (e.g., UNFCCC 2009). Given the importance that 

governments place on economic growth and development, low emission development strategies 

(LEDS) are regarded as, “indispensable to sustainable development” (UNFCCC 2009).

LEDS2 are described as “forward-looking national development plans or strategies that 

encompass low-emission and/or climate-resilient economic growth” (Clapp et al. 2010). For the 

purposes of this report, we consider LEDS-related activities to include efforts such as roadmaps, 

nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs), technology needs assessments (TNAs), and 

similar actions. Table B-1 compares some of the types of international instruments used to 

support low emission planning. Analysis of LEDS-related activities differs from the LEDS 

networks analysis. This report focuses on the latter.

Low emission planning processes consist of several stages3 (EU-UNDP n.d.; Cox and Benioff

2011), and they are characterized by a substantial degree of complexity and cost. For this reason, 

there is a clear need for high-quality knowledge, extensive information sharing, and bold 

decision-making; yet, the experiential base for LEDS is thin. Faced with these issues, a diverse 

group of LEDS stakeholders have recognized the need to form regional and international 

networks and knowledge platforms (generally shortened to networks in the remainder of this 

report).

In this report, we focus on these networks. To understand why they are useful in the context of 

LEDS, and how their functioning might be enhanced, we examine aspects of network theory. 

Then, we review LEDS networks, highlighting both their strengths and weaknesses.

4 Based on 

this review and the insights from theory, we identify several5 opportunities that could foster the 

improved performance of LEDS networks and platforms.

 2 LEDS has also been referred to as low carbon development strategies (LCDS), low carbon growth plans (LCGP) 

and climate resilient growth strategies (Clapp et al. 2010; Tilburg 2011). Climate compatible development (CCD) is 

another term often used along with LEDS. CCD, however, encompasses both low emission development and 

climate resilient development.

3 The stages of LEDS vary by country and look different depending on national circumstances, readiness, purpose,

and LEDS planning, for example. After the baseline analysis is conducted and projections are obtained, assessments 

regarding a country’s energy and landscape resource availability and general market conditions are carried out.

Future emissions scenarios and impact assessments are then developed, and are followed by policy and program 

design. Finally, plans are put into action by ensuring the necessary institutional infrastructure, catalyzing public and 

private sector investment and finance, as well as appropriate monitoring and evaluation of LED actions. 4 We review only a partial data set. CLEAN suggests that the selected list of LEDS networks is not exhaustive, and 

it explains the existence of several data limitations, including incomplete data, potential errors in categorizing 

activities, potential for unbalanced representation of low emission planning activities across sectors, and problems 

with consistency and currency of data, for example (Cox and Benioff 2011, Table 1). 5 Fully integrating insights from the network theory remains difficult. We suggest a few insights that could be 

implemented, and we point out that the development of in-depth recommendations may emerge only after a case-bycase inquiry into LEDS networks.
2

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

2 Network Theory

Networks are regarded as crucial for creating knowledge, sharing information, and allowing 

different actions to co-exist in a harmonized environment (Marx and Soares 2011; Slaughter 

2004; Martinez-Diaz and Woods 2009). Many perceive networks as a distinct form of 

governance, next to hierarchies and markets (Martinez-Diaz and Woods 2009; Podolny and Page 

1998; Powell 1990; Börzel 2011; Torfing 2012; Scharpf 1993). Networks may provide more 

efficient delivery of benefits compared to hierarchies and markets according to some academics 

and practitioners (Ostrom 1990; Sabel and Zeitling 2012; Gilardi and Radaelli 2012; Uzzi et 

al.2007; Wienges 2010). Marx and Soares (2011) quantitatively analyzed the importance of 

networks for a country’s development and revealed a strong positive correlation between its 

connectedness index and chosen policies and economy-related indicators. Although preliminary, 

this empirical exploration confirms the far-reaching benefits of effective networks in addressing 

policy issues and ensuring the delivery of public goods at all levels—local, regional, and 

international.

Several authors have emphasized the learning benefits of networks (Uzzi 1997; Hamel 1991; 

Powell 1990; Dore 1983), as they preserve greater diversity of search engines than hierarchies

do, and they convey richer, more complex information than the market does (Podolny and Page 

1998; Kaneko and Imai 1987). Networks can encourage learning by enhancing both the sharing

of information (Podolny and Page 1998; Hamel 1991; Contractor and Lorange 1988; Root 1988; 

Kogut 1988) and the creation of new knowledge (Podolny and Page 1998; Powell and Brantley 

1992). Personal and professional contacts established through networks allow experts and 

policymakers to share ideas, experience, and approaches more easily, bolstering their confidence 

and reducing their perceived risk of change (Radka and Aoki 1997).

The literature has also considered economic advantages of networks. While economists such as 

Williamson (1991) emphasize cost benefits of networks, laying out conditions under which 

networks lower transaction costs, sociologists stress advantages of quality

6 as the main economic 

benefit (Podolny and Page 1998; Uzzi 1997). Sociologists also regard adaptability of networks to 

unanticipated changes as another important economic benefit (Powell 1990; Kanter 1991). An 

additional benefit of networks is its adaptability to environmental changes. Because networks 

foster greater communication than the markets and have organizational boundaries that are easier 

to adjust in the face of change than hierarchies, they facilitate greater coordination among 

stakeholders and provide a greater flexibility to organizational modifications than other 

governance forms to respond to those changes (Sorenson 1997). In addition, some authors 

highlight the importance of networks in reducing intrinsic uncertainty and dealing with decisionmaking under bounded rationality (Haas and McCabe 2001; Ostrom 2001; Brousseau and Curien 

2001; Pfeffer and Nowak 1976).

Since networks have many advantages, as stated earlier, network literature has sought to 

determine factors that maximize the performance of these networks. A distinction is drawn 

between embedded and autonomous networks based on the characteristics and functions of 

networks (Marx and Soares 2011; Baker 1990; Lie 1997; Powell 1990; Uzzi 1996, 1997). 

 6 For example, Uzzi (1997) argues that a higher quality of product is derived in embedded networks because of

improved communication along the supply chain. 
3

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Embedded networks are grounded in norms of trust and reciprocity, which increase as the 

duration of ties and diversity of relationships between actors increase, and as the size of the 

network is reduced (Uzzi and Gillespie 2002; Marx and Soares 2011). Embedded networks are 

characterized by repetitiveness of interactions, joint problem solving arrangements, and low 

information asymmetries, as well as the ability to transmit large amounts of information, enable 

knowledge creation, and improve the quality of performance (Uzzi and Gillespie 2002; Perrow 

2002). For this reason, a network’s “embeddedness” is particularly beneficial for quickening 

decision-making, adaptation, and coordination; reducing monitoring costs; and enhancing 

organizational learning (Uzzi 1996). Despite the advantages embedded networks offer, the 

inverted U relationship between embeddedness and performance suggests that too much 

embeddedness reduces a network’s performance (Marx and Soares 2011). Essentially, an overly 

embedded network (i.e., one with too many strong ties and few weak ones) is an isolated 

“clique” (Uzzi 1996, 1997, 1999; Uzzi and Gillespie 2002; Granovetter 1973), which precludes 

an extensive flow of new information.

Autonomous networks, on the other hand, are characterized by sporadic interactions between 

actors and disintegrated network structures, enabling access to non-redundant contacts to obtain 

novel information (Uzzi 1996, 1997, 1999; Burt 1992). For this reason, autonomous networks 

allow for an extensive amount of new information to be processed (Marx and Soares 2011; 

Granovetter 1973; Burt 1992). Research on inter-firm networks has found that having wideranging networks of relationships enhances the ability of firms to find valuable knowledge and 

increases their speed of learning (McEvily and Zaheer 1999; Reagans and McEvily 2003; Zahra 

et al. 2000). However, unless these structures subsequently develop in certain ways, they may be 

unable to implement new ideas effectively (Mariotti and Delbridge 2011; Marx and Soares

2011). A key problem in this respect is managing a large number of connections, a situation 

known as “network overload” (Steier and Greenwood 2000).

Academics have attempted to integrate these differing perspectives and have concluded that a 

theoretical optimum may be found only through a sufficiently fluid and flexible embedded 

network, i.e., one with a mix of strong and weak ties (Uzzi 1996; Helper 1991; Marx and Soares

2011). Much literature emphasizes the significance of clearly identifying members’ common 

interests and the network’s objective(s) (Wienges 2010; Nelson and Farrington 1994; Plucknett 

1990; Bernard 1996; Ashman 2003). The different types of activities that networks seek to 

enhance raise demands for different types of organizational structures and levels of formalization 

of the network. A given organizational structure will allow the network to pursue certain 

activities more effectively than others. For example, a network will not likely have a loose and 

informal structure at the same time as it prioritizes fundraising, advocacy or lobbying activities 

(UNSO 2000). On the other hand, a centralized and highly formalized network will probably not 

effectively encourage mutual learning or information-sharing activities (UNSO 2000).

The literature seems to offer no definite superior solution regarding the “optimal” composition of 

any network. It is often suggested that a heterogeneous group enables more beneficial interaction 

among members (Stübing et al. 2004; Marsden 1987) because the network encompasses a larger 

variety of perceptions and ideas than it would if it were drawn from members with a common 

origin (Rodan and Galunic 2004). Others have emphasized the enhanced innovation aspects of 

heterogeneous networks (Wiesenthal 1995), while still others have stressed that more 

homogeneous groups involve greater levels of trust, and that “tighter” networks are thus faster in 
4

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

implementing new ideas (Powell 1990; Hess 2007). Because heterogeneity of ideas is desired in 

several situations, academics have sought factors that can enhance the work of heterogeneous 

networks. Reinicke et al. (2000) reveal that a key to success of these networks lies in the 

complementarity of resources that participants bring to the fore. Reinicke et al. (2000) suggest 

that a successful (global public policy) network combines the energy and legitimacy of civilsociety groups; the financial “muscle” and interest of businesses; and the enforcement, rulemaking power, coordination, and capacity building skills of states and international 

organizations.

3 Review of LEDS Networks and Platforms

In this section, we consider existing networks and collaborative initiatives, and their impact on 

low emission development planning within the context of network theory. In reviewing and 

mapping existing LEDS networks and knowledge platforms,

7 we consider the multitude of 

networks as a part of one “ecosystem” whose primary goal is to assist in creating and 

implementing LEDS. Within this framework, we identify strengths and weaknesses, drawing on 

the findings of the study performed by the Coordinated Low Emission Assistance Network

(CLEAN 2011a) and results from a mapping activity performed in March 2012 (LEDS Global 

Partnership 2012).

CLEAN (2011b) shows the existence of a broad array of networks and platforms supporting low 

emission and climate-compatible development planning (Appendix A). Most of these networks 

were created recently. The majority of LEDS networks and platforms—e.g., the International

Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), CLEAN, the Climate and Development Knowledge 

Network (CDKN), and the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI)—operate at a global level. 

Other networks—e.g., Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES) and the Energy, 

Environment and Development Network for Africa (AFREPREN)—have a regional focus,

which has led to the emergence of regional clusters of LEDS support in Latin America, West 

Africa, Southern Africa, and Southeast Asia. Evidence suggests that at least 80 countries have 

been working on LEDS related activities and that more than 73 international programs support 

these efforts (LEDS GP 2012). Certain countries8 have a considerable number of LEDS support 

activities underway that can be strengthened through efficient donor coordination. Preparing and 

implementing LEDS requires significant financial resources9 (Clapp et al. 2010). The fact that 

during the last three years the number of donor-supported LEDS activities at the regional and 

national level reached 25710 (LEDS GP 2012), implies that LEDS networks have better means to 

reach their goals.

 7 Knowledge platforms are defined here as centralized forums (e.g., websites) for sharing information and technical 

resources and fostering peer-to-peer exchange of ideas and experiences. 8 These countries include Brazil, China, Colombia, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Philippines, South 

Africa, Thailand, Vietnam (CLEAN 2011a). 9 In one estimate, costs for preparing low-carbon growth studies (ESMAP 2009) ranged from 0.5 USD to 1.5 million 

USD (OECD 2010).

10 These data represent organizations that responded to a survey conducted by CLEAN and LEDS GP (see LEDS 

GP 2012), including CDKN, United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID), the United States 

Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. State Department, the United Nations Development 

Programme (UNDP), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the United Nations Environment Programme 

(UNEP), Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP), and Worldwatch Institute (WWI).
5

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Despite the worldwide proliferation of LEDS networks, certain regions (e.g., Central Africa, 

Middle East, and Central Asia) still have few networks. The Middle East, however, has seen 

continued rapid growth of GHG emissions, and it is the region with the highest levels of 

emissions per GDP (IEA 2011). Central Africa11 is particularly vulnerable to climate variability 

because of its limited economic development and constrained capacity to adapt and protect itself 

from the impacts of climate change (The Global Mechanism 2009; Boko et al. 2007). In Central 

Asia,

12 where almost half of the population lives in poverty and lacks access to sufficient natural 

resources to sustain their livelihoods, global climate change poses serious threats (Perelet 2007). 

Hence, more LEDS networks that focus on these regions are likely needed.

LEDS networks and platforms focused on the energy sector networks show a significant 

presence worldwide because the energy sector accounts for about two-thirds of total GHG 

emissions13 (IEA 2011; Blodget and Parker 2010; Rogner et al. 2007), thus a strong focus on 

energy-related issues within climate change considerations is warranted (Bazilian et al. 2010).

With objectives of reducing GHG emissions while ensuring energy security and expanding 

access, LEDS energy networks address topics ranging from the general (renewable energy,14

energy efficiency,15 and policy and finance16) to the more specific (such as biofuels,17

hydropower18 and solar energy19 development). Developed countries (i.e., United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change Annex I countries) are strongly represented in 

energy networks. While they were a source of most emissions of GHGs in the past (IEA 2011), 

many are now making technological, policy and financial efforts to reduce emissions and achieve 

sustainable development20. Their knowledge and expertise could enable developing countries to 

adopt different energy development paths.

Crosscutting networks and knowledge platforms are also widely diffused. Some analysts 

(Venema and Cisse 2004; Goklany 2007) have recognized potential for creating synergies 

between adaptation and mitigation (Klein et al. 2007), which explains the proliferation of 

crosscutting networks. This trend is welcomed by many developing countries, which during the 

2012 and 2013 LEDS Global Partnership annual global and regional workshops, noted the need 

to create stronger connections between adaptation and mitigation activities, as well as the need to 

place development priorities first (LEDS Collaboration in Action Workshop Report 2012). When 

looking at the specific subtopics addressed by these networks, it may be observed that mitigation 

 11 The Central Africa sub-region consists of Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, 

Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Rwanda, and Sao Tome and Principe (The Global 

Mechanism 2009).

12 Central Asia encompasses Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan (UNDP 2007). 13 In 2009, electricity and heat generation along with transport produced nearly two-thirds of global CO2 emissions 

(IEA 2011). In 2005, the energy sector accounted for almost 70% of total GHG emissions (Blodget and Parker 

2010).

14 For example, IRENA, the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21), and Open Energy 

Information, the online knowledge-sharing community 15 For example, the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation (IPEEC) and UNEP-en.lighten 16 For example, the Africa-EU Energy Partnership (AEEP), the Clean Energy Solutions Center, and the Global 

Village Energy Partnership (GVEP) 17 For example, Africa Biofuel Network 18 For example, the Sustainable Development of Hydropower Institute of the Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM) 19 For example, the Solar and LED Energy Access Program of the CEM 20 In 2009, the emissions of developed countries (UNFCCC Annex I) fell sharply (6.5%), putting them 6.4% below 

their 1990 collective level. Consequently, they accounted for 46% of total world emissions (IEA 2011). 
6

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

issues, required to avoid dangerous and irreversible changes to the climate system, generally 

prevail. 

At the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Cancun in December 2010, governments decided 

to create a new crosscutting network and an associated “centre” that will in part address LEDS 

issues. The mission of the so-called Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) is to 

stimulate technology cooperation and enhance the development and transfer of technologies to 

developing country parties at their request. The centre is to “build or strengthen [developing 

country] capacity to identify technology needs, to facilitate the preparation and implementation 

of technology projects and strategies ... to support action on mitigation and adaptation and 

enhance low emissions and climate-resilient development.” An advisory board that answers to 

parties will govern the centre, which is expected to become operational in late 2013.

Despite their relevance, land use (i.e., agriculture and forestry) issues have been covered by only 

a few LEDS networks and platforms (CLEAN 2011a). Agriculture releases to the atmosphere 

significant amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) (Klein 

et al. 2007; Cole et al. 1997; IPCC 2001; Paustian et al. 2004), and annual GHG emissions from 

agriculture are expected to increase in coming decades due to escalating demands for food and 

shifts in diet as well as the increasing demand for biofuels in some countries. Some have 

suggested that improved management practices and emerging technologies could permit a 

reduction in emissions per unit of food (or of protein) produced. Given their importance, land use 

issues certainly deserve more attention by LEDS networks (Smith et al. 2007a)21. The LEDS 

Global Partnership has recently launched a working group on Agriculture, Forestry and Land 

Use that plans to address these issues and collaborate on best practices for promoting the 

development of the sector while reducing GHG emissions.22

Many of the existing LEDS networks specialize in a few topics23, which is often appropriate for 

efficacy and effectiveness. This is not necessarily a fault, as in some cases, specialization is 

appropriate for efficacy and effectiveness. The type and the direction of information exchanged 

between members of the network are very important (Marx and Soares 2011). Ideally, a network 

should have a two-way flow of information and enable both information sharing and knowledge 

creation. LEDS networks largely facilitate the transmission and sharing of information. 

Providing data and tools is a common area of focus across LEDS networks and platforms. Many 

networks also concentrate on developing best practice resources, reports facilitating peer-to-peer 

learning forums, or both. Knowledge creation, however, is not as dispersed as it should be. Some 

networks and platforms (such as the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, the 

LEDS Global Partnership, and the Clean Energy Solutions Center (CESC)) are now focusing on 

knowledge creation. Launched in September of 2011, the CESC has responded to 83 questions 

from policymakers in 44 countries and provided 36 online trainings to 3,916 international 

organizations, governments and technical experts. Yet, in-depth and long-term training activities 

are limited, perhaps because they are more labor intensive and require greater time commitment, 

 21 Smith et al. (2007b) estimated a global potential mitigation of 770 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 

2030 from improved energy efficiency in agriculture (i.e., through reduced use of fossil fuels). 22 http://ledsgp.org/ 23 Common LEDS network topics of focus are included in Appendix A.
7

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

and hence are more expensive. Only 30% of these networks and platforms are involved in 

training activities, and few activities are sustained over long periods (CLEAN 2011a).

Activities provided by LEDS networks are considered invaluable for both adaptation and 

mitigation efforts. Adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change are subject to a cascade of 

barriers,

24 including incomplete and imperfect information, high transaction costs, and risk 

aversion in financial institutions and donors. Yet, staff in resource-constrained countries often 

lacks education and training to manage such issues (CLEAN 2011b). LEDS networks greatly 

reduce these problems by providing needed information and assistance, and facilitating decision 

making by relevant stakeholders. Still, more can be done if expert assistance, peer-to-peer 

learning and training activities are given greater emphasis.

Enhanced collaboration and cooperation of relevant stakeholders is fundamental to an effective 

response to climate change (PwC 2010). To ensure involvement of stakeholders, LEDS networks 

should provide the needed incentives, which differ according to the type of the stakeholder 

involved. Developing countries are interested in obtaining information, tools, resources, and 

capacity to embark on low emission development paths, as well as to maintain ownership of the 

development plans being created. Developing countries have also shown interest in intra regional 

and cross regional learning. Developed countries and multilateral organizations gain from 

participating in a LEDS network by better using their aid resources, avoiding duplication of 

work, and optimizing the development cooperation efforts. In addition, the knowledge, 

information, and best practices that LEDS networks identify, share, and foster may prove useful 

for the sustainable development plans of developed countries. The private sector benefits from 

participating in the policy design stage, as well as from the opportunity to foster innovation. By 

participating in networks, research and technical institutions raise their visibility, hence 

increasing their access to funding for their operations and improving the options for applying 

their research. Finally, through LEDS networks, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and 

civil society might participate as consulted stakeholders in low emission development planning, 

and hence have an opportunity to influence such processes.

Multilateral institutions, NGOs, and technical institutions are the main actors engaged with low 

emission and climate-compatible development planning activities. They make vital contributions

to LEDS formulation and implementation by providing technical and intellectual leadership.

Evidence suggests, however, that other key stakeholders are still insufficiently engaged in LEDS 

networks (CLEAN 2011a), including developing country officials, high-level political leaders,

and the private sector. The best interactions with these stakeholders seem to be at workshop style 

engagements (CLEAN 2011a). Reasons for their absence are 1) lack of awareness on the

meaning of low emission development, 2) lack of effective communication on opportunities for 

private sector stakeholders to engage in low emission development, 3) lack of awareness on the 

strong linkages between low emission development and domestic development goals, and 4) the 

lack of awareness of the benefits of participating in LEDS networks (see CLEAN 2011b).

Political leaders often have an unclear vision of the relation between low emission development 

and domestic development goals. Thus, they require tools that (1) illustrate how LEDS can help 

 24 See for example, Adger et al. (2007); OECD (2006); Lu (n.d.); ORNL (2008); Sathaye (2002); Davidson (2000); 

UNFCCC (2005).
8

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

achieve national goals, such as energy and food security and economic growth, but (2) do not 

retard development (CLEAN 2011b). Despite the criticism marginal abatement cost (MAC)

curves receive for their cost and carbon focus, and their omission of development goals (CLEAN 

2011b; CLEAN 2011c), these curves have helped decision makers understand the costs and 

opportunities of different GHG mitigation options. Nevertheless, it might prove useful to develop 

visualizations that communicate development benefits and contributions of LEDS initiatives to 

development goals, as doing so would educate key stakeholders of development benefits and 

enable countries to better prioritize policy actions (CLEAN 2011c; CLEAN 2011b).

Few LEDS networks25 seem to foster interaction between private-sector companies and investors 

with country government officials and technical institutes (CLEAN 2011a). However, privatesector investment is regarded as a key element of low emission and climate-compatible 

development planning. Dialogue between private-sector leaders and policymakers is 

fundamental, as it allows the policymakers to understand the regulatory, fiscal, and other hurdles 

companies face in achieving sustainable development (Brown et al. 2008; Sathaye 2002; 

UNFCCC 2005). In addition, businesses may use their technical expertise to assist developing 

countries in their clean technology research and development (R&D) efforts.

CLEAN (2011b) emphasizes a need for increased engagement of developing countries in LEDS 

networks and platforms. In the near term, adaptation is vital for developing countries as (1) they 

are home to the world’s most vulnerable populations and societies, and (2) for the most part, they

lack adequate financial and technical resources with which to respond to climate change (Sagar

2010). It is clear that developing countries will also need to take action to slow their rapid 

greenhouse gas emissions growth in order to keep global warming below 2o

C. In order to keep 

the global average temperature below 2o

C, emerging economies as a group will need to reduce 

emissions by 15 to 30% by 2020 below the currently forecasted rate of growth in emissions 

(UNFCCC 2011). 

Demand for energy is growing exponentially in developing countries due to rapid population 

growth (especially in Africa) and rapid economic expansion (especially in China and India) 

(OECD 2007, OECD 2011b). Growing demand is projected to lead to a near doubling in primary 

energy use, much of it unsustainable, by developing countries in the next two decades (OECD 

2007). Because of this growth, developing countries will account for 50% of primary energy use 

and 52% of energy related CO2 emissions by 2030 (OECD 2007). However, developing 

countries often lack the necessary data and tools, as well as the proper education and training to 

cope with these problems, and successfully develop and implement LEDS. Further engagement 

of these countries in networks, will facilitate their access to technical assistance for the 

development and implementation of their LEDS. The engagement of developing countries in 

networks would also benefit the entire network by providing a developing country perspective to 

better align activities to countries needs.

 25 Public-private and purely private partnerships in the area of green finance exist (San Giorgio Group 2011; Capital 

Markets Climate Initiative 2012; World Economic Forum website [http://www.weforum.org/]), and they have 

shown significant interest in fostering environmental sustainability. However, because these partnerships do not fall 

within the definition of a LEDS network, they are not examined here.
9

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4 Experiences of Long-standing Successful Networks

across Fields 

In this section, we attempt to glean lessons learned from select LEDS network precedents.

Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR): In 2010, CGIAR26

completely overhauled its governance structure to harmonize and maximize funding for priority 

research areas, and to simplify structures and reduce transaction costs (CGIAR 2009, 2011). The 

result is a more business-like partnership that links, in more binding27 and transparent ways, 

donors who fund research with the scientists and others who conduct it (CGIAR 2011). CGIAR 

centers are united under the Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers, a new 

legal entity that provides a stronger foundation for integrating research across centers and 

providing donors with a single point of contact (CGIAR 2011). In addition, the CGIAR Fund 

was established to enable donors to harmonize their contributions toward major research 

initiatives (CGIAR 2011). These reforms are expected to curb the recent tendency toward 

fragmentary funding of dispersed research efforts (CGIAR 2011). Given the increasing donor 

support of LEDS networks, it may be beneficial to implement governance structures similar to

CGIAR to ensure both integrated research and harmonized funding.

Other Multilateral Environmental Agreements: Regional networks of national ozone units28

(NOUs) provide a workable model for the participation of developing countries. These networks, 

now numbering nine, have helped NOUs in 148 developing countries overcome challenges they 

face in complying with the Montreal Protocol29 and its subsequent amendments (UNEP 2001;

Rasmusson 2002)30. UNEP (2002) shows how important the influence of neighboring countries 

is on creation of a successful national phase-out strategy for ozone-depleting substances,

31 and 

how the progress initially made by some developing countries attracted their regional 

counterparties to join the regional network. This experience appears to suggest that regional 

networks are useful for enhancing the participation of developing countries, especially in cases 

of highly technical issues.

 26 The CGIAR is a strategic alliance of countries, international and regional organizations, and private foundations 

supporting 15 international agricultural research centers. For more information, see http://www.cgiar.org/. 27 The central innovation of the new model is its clear definition of the mutual accountability of those who conduct 

research and those who fund it (CGIAR). 28 Regional networking provides a regular interactive forum for officers in NOUs to exchange information and 

experience, brainstorm innovative regional solutions, and enhance cooperation with developed countries as well as 

the regional counterparts (UNEP 2002). 29 Networking activities have resulted in improved data reporting, policymaking, refrigerant management plans, and 

the development of peer pressure among ozone-depleting substances (ODS) officers to take early steps to implement 

the Montreal Protocol. Some of the most notable results of the regional networks are accelerated ratification of the 

Montreal Protocol and its amendments; earlier development of national ODS legislation and other policy measures; 

more regular data reporting; and improved compliance with the ODS phase-out schedules. (UNEP 2007) 30 UNEP (2002) reveals that based on the subjective judgment of the national ozone officers, networking activities 

have exerted an important positive effect on improving the national ozone officers skills, expertise, and experience. 

The most significant improvements have been identified in the areas of reporting, data collection, promotion of 

public awareness, and the level of information relating to alternative technologies and substances. 31 Examples mentioned include Malaysia, Philippines, Laos, and the Dominican Republic (UNEP 2002).
10

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production (RECP) Network32: The RECP network is an 

example of a successful sector-specific (industry) network. The RECP network model is based 

on the fact that the countrywide application of resource efficient and cleaner production can 

come about only if the concept is promoted by professionals in the country itself and adjusted by 

them to suit the local conditions.

33 Based on a multi-stakeholders approach, national centers are 

initially established as a United Nations-backed technical cooperation project and are hosted by a 

national industry association, technical institute, or university. Over time, the centers start 

generating their own revenues from service fees, become financially and administratively 

independent, and acquire a separate legal entity, generally with buy-in from government, 

business sector, and civil society. What makes the RECP network a successful34 model are (1) its 

sector-specific, impact-oriented nature, and (2) a governance structure that brings together 

international development aid, public and private sector, which warrants ownership, financial 

sustainability, and responsiveness to country needs.

5 Opportunities for Improving LEDS Networks 

In this section, we describe opportunities for improving LEDS networks based on the 

experiences of existing LEDS platforms and networks reviewed in Sections 3 and 4. We also 

offer opportunities for leveraging efforts with emerging LEDS initiatives.

Our review of network theory (Section 3) suggests a few building blocks for a well functioning 

LEDS network. First, identifying common interests of LEDS stakeholders and setting a clear 

goal for the network are vital. Based on the set goal for the network, the appropriate 

organizational structure and the level of formalization should be identified. Furthermore, LEDS 

networks should strive to develop both embedded and autonomous ties.35 On one hand, members 

should repeatedly interact, develop joint problem-solving arrangements, and cooperate with one 

another on many issues. On the other hand, they should remain open to novel outsider 

information and actively communicate with similar networks. Due to the diversity of issues 

covered, the development and implementation of LEDS benefit from heterogeneity of ideas from

stakeholders including governments, the private sector, and civil society. The complementarity 

of resources that heterogeneous participants provide is essential to success of the network. This 

is currently as far as the network theory can take us. A follow-up paper to UNIDO (Marx and 

Soares 2011) and case-by-case inquiry into different networks will enable us to provide 

 32 This is a network of National Cleaner Production Centers (NCPCs) that have been established in 47 developing 

and transition countries to promote, coordinate, and facilitate RECP activities. The objectives of the NCPCs are (1) 

to build local capacity to implement cleaner production and (2) to provide core cleaner production services at the 

national level. For more information, see http://www.unido.org/index.php?id=o5133. 33 The centers do not deliver ready-made solutions, but train and advise their clients on how to find the best solutions 

for their own specific problems.

34 Several success stories show how NCPCs led to placing RECP high on the agenda of businesses and governments 

by providing several essential services, including technical assistance and in-plant assessments, training, information 

dissemination, policy advice, and clean technology and investment promotion (UNIDO, UNEP 2010). As 

demonstrated by the experiences of Sri Lanka, Kenya and Peru, for example, benefits are eminent in many 

enterprises, regardless of sector, location, or size; they include significant annual savings, increased product quality, 

improvement in production efficiency, access to larger market share, and creation of new business ventures.

35 One might argue that this depends on the goal of the network. However, because our network analysis suggests 

that the network optimum is found in a mix of embedded and autonomous ties, we proceed with that idea.
11

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

additional findings, including more about success factors, the importance of financing 

mechanism, and governance structure of networks.

Our review of both LEDS related networks and the experiences of those implementing LEDS 

programs (1) suggests that networks need to evolve to cover a wider range of regions, issues, and 

activities, and (2) identifies several lessons that can inform efforts to strengthen these networks 

and related knowledge platforms. These lessons include36 the value of:

1. Covering adaptation and mitigation issues in an integrated manner to advance both lowcarbon growth and enhanced resiliency to climate impacts

2. Engaging a portfolio of both global and regional networks to allow for learning and 

exchange at both levels, recognizing that the greatest learning often happens among peers 

in a region

3. Developing sectoral- and topic-specific networks and platforms as much of the action is 

driven by sectoral development programs and existing public-private partnerships for 

each sector

4. Raising broad awareness and support for low emission development to enhance 

engagement in LEDS design and implementation across all countries and actors

5. Gaining strong buy-in and participation from developing countries along with donors and 

practitioners

6. Establishing close links and working relationships with the private sector given the 

critical private-sector role in financing LEDS projects

7. Ensuring that development objectives are an integral part of the LEDS discussion.

The effectiveness of LEDS related networks could be improved by tackling the aforementioned 

points but also by tapping several emerging opportunities, including: 

Central Repository for Quality Tools: Aiming to facilitate climate-compatible 

development planning, CDKN, the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), and Ecofys 

recently developed (1) an analytical report (Ecofys, IDS 2011) containing a rigorous 

review of existing tools and methods to support climate-compatible development 

planning (thus including LEDS tools) and (2) a complementary website37 for 

stakeholders to search for tools that meet their needs. Instead of examining myriad tools, 

LEDS stakeholders will now be able to simply select their focus area, the policy stage or 

stages on which they are working, and the tool type needed, to quickly find the best tool. 

This report complements existing LEDS toolkits such as the one developed by the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for the U.S. government-supported ECLEDS program38, which identifies a portfolio of data source, analysis tools, best 

practices, and related technical resources for each stage of LEDS analysis, plan 

development, and implementation.

 36 More could be said after the case-by case inquiry. For instance, it might be interesting to examine the degree of 

effectiveness of networks and need for their harmonization as well as the need for coupling networks and knowledge 

platforms.

37 See http://www.climateplanning.org/userguide. 38 See http://en.openei.org/wiki/Gateway:Low_Emission_Development_Strategies. 
12

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Linked Open Data: Using LEDS-related data sets in an integrated searchable format 

represent another opportunity (CLEAN 2011a). To this end, many organizations are 

adopting linked open data to support data integration. Linked data uses the Web to 

connect related data or to lower barriers to linking data currently linked using other 

methods.

39 Linked open data is domain-independent and penetrates various areas and 

domains, thus proving its advantage over traditional data management (Bauer and 

Kaltenbock 2012). As linked open data facilitates innovation and knowledge creation 

from interlinked data, it is an important mechanism for information management and 

integration, which are of prime importance for LEDS networks and platforms.

Climate Technology Centre and Network: The Climate Technology Centre and Network 

(CTC&N) as initially envisaged by COP16 (UNFCCC 2011) represents an opportunity to 

facilitate expert assistance related to low emission development planning (CLEAN 

2011a). Participants of CTC&N will be expected to provide information, training, and

support for programs to build or strengthen capacity of developing countries to identify 

technology options; make technology choices; and operate, maintain, and adapt 

technologies (UNFCCC 2011).

Climate Innovation Centers: Development of Climate Innovation Centers40 (CICs) 

(Sagar 2010) could prove very useful in formulating and implementing LEDS. CICs are 

envisaged to address the barriers that impede developing countries from transferring, 

developing, and deploying advanced climate technologies for both domestic use and 

export (Sagar 2010). Through a wide range of functions (Sagar 2010, Table 2), CICs are 

intended to transform the threat of climate change into an agent of technology innovation, 

helping tackle both global warming and sustainable development challenges in the 

developing world. As they would build technical, business, and policy capacity, CICs 

could help developing countries establish their LEDS, thus greatly facilitating the work 

of LEDS networks and platforms.

Marginal Abatement Cost Curves and Development Benefits: To address several 

shortcomings of marginal abatement cost curves,41 CLEAN partners have proposed a 

new data visualization (see Figure B-1) to communicate simultaneously GHG mitigation 

potential and development benefits of technology options (CLEAN 2011c). The 

information needed for this new communication tool can build from many LEDS efforts, 

and it can particularly benefit from UNEP’s Multi-Criteria Analysis for Climate 

(MCA4climate)42 and technology needs assessments (TNA) supported by the United 

Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment 

Programme (UNEP). The data visualization would add to the existing benefits of 

marginal abatement cost curves and thus facilitate the LEDS decision-making process.

 39 See http://linkeddata.org/. 40 See http://www.infodev.org/en/TopicBackground.19.html. 41 See CLEAN (2011c), Ekins et al. (2011), and Kesicki and Strachan (2011) for more information about the 

shortcomings of marginal abatement cost curves. 42 See http://www.mca4climate.info/.
13

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Increased Awareness from the Private Sector: Acknowledgement of climate change as a 

business risk43 is an important stimulus for the private sector to provide its voice and 

constructive input to LEDS networks and knowledge platforms. The UNFCCC 

adaptation Private Sector Initiative highlights successful strategies that businesses and 

communities are using to adapt to climate change while simultaneously increasing their 

profits and using their resources more efficiently. The initiative provides a platform for 

businesses to contribute in a sustainable and profitable manner to a strong and effective 

response, both in their own adaptation efforts and, importantly, in those of the most 

vulnerable countries and communities around the world.

In Section 4, we identified several general lessons for improving the scope, design, and 

operations of LEDS related networks and platforms. These lessons could be shared with 

managers and participants of these networks for their consideration and for further review and 

refinement. A more in-depth, case-by-case inquiry into LEDS networks would enable a more 

detailed assessment and development of tailored recommendations for strengthening the various 

types of LEDS networks and platforms. UNIDO is developing a questionnaire that will further 

define success factors that improve the functioning of LEDS networks.

Tables A-1 through A-5 show network and knowledge platforms by topic, geographic area, and 

type of activity.

 43 For example, see UN Global Compact et al 2011, Agrawala et al. 2011, and the UNFCCC Private Sector Initiative 

website (http://unfccc.int/adaptation/nairobi_work_programme/knowledge_resources_and_publications/items/

4747.php).
14

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Appendix A. Network and Knowledge Platform Data

Table A-1. Network and Knowledge Platform Data: Adaptation

Name Type Participant 

Type

Number of Participants

Subtopics Addressed Geographic Focus Activities

Knowledge PlatformNetworkBest PracticesData and ToolsExpert 

Assistance

Peer-to-Peer 

Forum

Virtual (webinars/blogs)WorkshopsCountry Peer ExchangesReports (emerging issues/innovation)Training

Adaptation Learning Mechanism X X Multilateral, 

Government, 

Financial 

institutions

9 Adaptation, Operational 

guidance, Capacity 

building

Global X

Africa Adaptation Programme X X NGOs, 

Multilateral

15 Adaptation, Capacity 

building

Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Congo, Ethiopia, 

Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, 

Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, 

Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and 

Principe, Senegal, Tanzania, Tunisia

X X

AfricaAdapt X X NGOs, 4 Adaptation, 

Communication facilitation

Africa X

Asia Pacific Adaptation Network 

(APAN)

X Multilateral, 

NGOs, 

6 Adaptation, Capacity 

building, Knowledge 

transfer

Asia, Pacific X

Caribbean Community Climate 

Change Centre

X Developed 

countries, 

Developing 

countries

20 Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, 

Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, 

Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint 

Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the 

Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, 

Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, 

Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands

X X X

Regional Climate Change Adaptation 

Knowledge Platform for Asia

X Asia X X

weADAPT X X Multilateral, 

Private, NGOs, 

University, 

Government

86 Global X X
15

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table A-2. Network and Knowledge Platform Data: Crosscutting

Name Type Participant 

Type

Number of participants

Subtopics Addressed Geographic Focus Activities

Knowledge PlatformNetworkBest PracticesData and ToolsExpert 

Assistance

Peer-to-Peer 

Forum

Virtual (webinars/blogs)WorkshopsCountry Peer ExchangesReports (emerging issues/innovation)Training

CLEAN (Coordinated Low Emissions 

Assistance Network) 44

X X Multilateral, 

Government, 

NGOs, 

45 Low emission climatecompatible development 

country support and 

technical methods and 

tools

Global X X X X X

Climate 1-Stop X Adaptation, Finance, 

Mitigation

Global X X X

Climate Action Network X Multilateral, 

Government, 

NGOs

700 Mitigation, DonorstrategiesGlobal X

Climate and Development Knowledge 

Network (CDKN)

X X Mitigation, Climate 

Change, Adaptation, 

Impacts, climate 

compatible development

(CCD)

Global X X X

X

 44 As of April of 2012, CLEAN merged with the Low Emissions Development Strategies Global Partnership (LEDS GP) in order to improve 

efficiency and enhance coordination of LEDS activities. CLEAN falls under the umbrella of the LEDS Global Partnership as a network of 

practitioners from around the world that collaborate on and share experiences with LEDS data, tools, methods, and assessments.

World Bank Climate Change 

Knowledge Portal

X Global X

WWF-Climate Prep X Global X X
16

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Name Type Participant 

Type

Number of participants

Subtopics Addressed Geographic Focus Activities

Knowledge PlatformNetworkBest PracticesData and ToolsExpert 

Assistance

Peer-to-Peer 

Forum

Virtual (webinars/blogs)WorkshopsCountry Peer ExchangesReports (emerging issues/innovation)Training

Climate Knowledge Brokers X Multilateral, 

NGOs, 

Government

21 Coordination Global X

ClimateTechWiki X X Multilateral, 

Universities, 

NGOs

9 Low-carbon and 

adaptation technologies 

Global X X X

Energy and Climate Partnership of the 

Americas

X Government, 

NGOs

33 Energy, Land use, 

Mitigation, Adaptation

North America, Latin America and Caribbean X X

ESMAP (Energy Sector Management 

Assistance Program at the World Bank)

X Multilateral Low-carbon 

development, climate 

resilience in the energy 

sector, clean energy 

Global X X X X X X

X

Finanzas Carbono X Finance, Development Latin America and Caribbean X X X

GEF Knowledge Management Initiative X Climate change, 

Biodiversity, Organic 

pollutants, REDD+ 

Global X X

Global Climate Network X Government, 

NGOs

11 Technology, Finance, 

Economic opportunity

Global X X

Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) X Developing 

countries, 

Developed 

countries, 

Multilateral

17 Green growth programs, 

Mitigation, Biodiversity 

Global X X X

Green Growth Knowledge Platform 

(GGKP)

X X Multilateral, 

Developing 

countries, 

Developed 

countries

Green growth programs Global X X X X X X
17

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Name Type Participant 

Type

Number of participants

Subtopics Addressed Geographic Focus Activities

Knowledge PlatformNetworkBest PracticesData and ToolsExpert 

Assistance

Peer-to-Peer 

Forum

Virtual (webinars/blogs)WorkshopsCountry Peer ExchangesReports (emerging issues/innovation)Training

Institute for Global Environmental 

Strategies (IGES)

X X

Government, 

Multilateral, 

Universities

50 Climate Change, 

Mitigation, Development

Asia-Pacific Region X X X

IGES-Successful Practices and Policies 

Databases

X Policy, Environment Asia-Pacific Region X X

Japan International Cooperation Agency 

(JICA) Climate Finance Impact Tool 

(Climate-FIT)

X Mitigation, Adaptation, 

Development

Global X X X

X

Joint Implementation Network (JIN) X Private, 

Universities, 

Multilateral, 

59 Climate change, Policy Global X X X

LEDS Global Partnership X X Multilateral, 

Government, 

NGOs

28 LEDS country support Global X X X X X X X

X

The Renewable Energy and Energy 

Efficiency Partnership (REEEP)

X Developing 

countries, 

Developed 

countries, 

Multilateral, 

Private, NGOs

400 Renewable Energy, 

Energy Efficiency, 

Policy , Regulation, 

Business, Finance, 

Transport, Smart grid

Argentina, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 

Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia , 

Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, 

Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, India, 

Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati 

Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mexico, 

Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, 

Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Panama, 

Philippines , Poland, Russia, Samoa, 

Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Solomon 

Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, 

Thailand, Tonga, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine 

Vanuatu, Zambia

X X X X X

X
18

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Name Type Participant Type

Number of participants

Subtopics Addressed Geographic Focus Activities

Knowledge PlatformNetworkBest PracticesData and ToolsExpert Assistance

Peer-to-Peer 

Forum

Virtual (webinars/blogs)WorkshopsCountry Peer ExchangesReports (emerging issues/innovation)Training

Science and Technology Research 

Partnership for Sustainable 

Development (SATREPS)

XX Research 

Institutions, 

Development 

Agencies

Climate change, Low-

carbon Development, 

Adaptation, Energy

GlobalXXX

X

Southeast Asia Network of Climate 

Change Focal Points

X National climate change 

programs

SE AsiaX

X

UNEP Southeast Asia Network of 

Climate Change Focal Points (SEAN-

CC)

XX Multilateral, 

Government, 

Private

Universities / 

centers of 

excellence

60 Climate change policies, 

inter-sectoral 

coordination, low-carbon 

and adaptation 

technologies

SE Asia (ASEAN countries)XXXXX

X

UNEP Regional Gateway for 

Technology Transfer and Climate 

Change Action in Latin America and the 

Caribbean (REGATTA)

XX Multilateral, 

Government, 

Private, 

Universities / 

centers of 

excellence

Climate change policies, 

inter-sectoral 

coordination, low-carbon 

and adaptation 

technologies

Latin America and CaribbeanXXXXX

X

UNEP South African Network for 

Accelerating Investments in Climate 

Technology Transfer (SANAICTT)

X Multilateral, 

Government, 

Private, 

Universities / 

centers of 

excellence

50 Climate change policies, 

inter-sectoral 

coordination, low-carbon 

and adaptation 

technologies

Southern Africa (SADC countries)XXXXX

X

UNDP-Low-Emission and Climate-

Resilient Development Strategies

(LECRDS)

X Low-carbon 

development

GlobalX

USAID-Knowledge-Driven International XX N/A Development GlobalXXXXX
19

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Name Type Participant 

Type

Number of participants

Subtopics Addressed Geographic Focus Activities

Knowledge PlatformNetworkBest PracticesData and ToolsExpert 

Assistance

Peer-to-Peer 

Forum

Virtual (webinars/blogs)WorkshopsCountry Peer ExchangesReports (emerging issues/innovation)Training

Development

World Bank Green Growth Knowledge 

Platform

X Development, Policy Global X X X

WRI Open Climate Network X Climate change Global X X
20

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table A-3. Network and Knowledge Platform Data: Cross-Sectoral Mitigation Networks

Name Type Participant 

Type

Number of Participants

Subtopics Addressed Geographic Focus Activities

Knowledge platformNetworkBest practicesData and ToolsExpert 

Assistance

Peer-to-Peer 

Forum

Virtual (webinars/blogs)WorkshopsCountry Peer ExchangesReports (emerging issues/innovation)Training

Global Methane Initiative (GMI) X Developed 

countries, 

Developing 

countries

41 Mitigation, Methane, 

Finance

Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, 

Chile, China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, 

Ecuador, Ethiopia, European Commission, 

Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, India, 

Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, 

Mexico, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, 

Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, 

Republic of Korea, Republic of Serbia, 

Russia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, 

United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam

X

X

International Partnership on 

Mitigation and MRV

X Bilateral, 

Developing 

countries, 

Developed 

countries

27 Mitigation, Policy, 

Promoting High-Level 

Dialogue

Australia, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Chile, 

China, Colombia, Denmark, Ethiopia, 

European Commission, France, Germany, 

India, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New 

Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, 

Poland, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Spain, 

Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, 

United States

X X

X X X X

International Research Network for 

Low Carbon Societies (LCS-RNet)

X X NGOs 17 Mitigation, Low-carbon, 

Development

Global

X X X

LEDS Gateway X Mitigation, Low-carbon, 

Development

Global X X X

Low Carbon World X Mitigation, Low-carbon, 

Development

Global X X

Mitigation Action Implementation 

Network (MAIN)

X NGOs, 

Multilateral 

3 Mitigation Partner countries X

X X

World Resources Institute’s 

Measurement and Performance 

Tracking (MAPT)

X Developing 

countries, 

NGOs, Industry

Mitigation, Inventories, 

Accounting, Corporate 

Reporting, Policy 

Partner countries: Brazil, Colombia, Ethiopia, 

India, South Africa, Thailand

X X X

X X X X
21

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Name Type Participant 

Type

Number of Participants

Subtopics Addressed Geographic Focus Activities

Knowledge platformNetworkBest practicesData and ToolsExpert 

Assistance

Peer-to-Peer 

Forum

Virtual (webinars/blogs)WorkshopsCountry Peer ExchangesReports (emerging issues/innovation)Training

Implementation, 

Forestry/Land Use 

Change, Institutions, 

Implementing 

International MRV 

guidelines

UNEP Climate Neutral Network X X Developed 

countries, 

Developing 

countries, 

Universities, 

NGOs, 

Multilateral, 

Private

276 Mitigation, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Iceland, Maldives, 

Monaco, New Zealand, Niue, Norway, 

Pakistan, Portugal

X

X X
22

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table A-4. Network and Knowledge Platform Data: Energy

Name Type Participant Type

Number of Participants

Subtopics Addressed Geographic Focus Activities

Knowledge platformNetworkBest PracticesData and ToolsExpert 

Assistance

Peer-to-Peer 

Forum

Reports (emerging issues/innovation)Virtual (webinars/blogs)WorkshopsCountry Peer ExchangesTraining

Energy, Environment and 

Development Network for 

Africa (AFREPREN)

X Developing 

countries

10 Energy development, 

Rural development, 

Renewable energy

Africa

X

X

Africa Biofuel Network X X Energy, Biofuel, 

Renewable energy

Africa X

X

Africa-EU Energy Partnership 

(AEEP)

X Developed 

countries, 

Developing 

countries, Bilateral

Energy, Policy, Finance Africa, European Union X

Association of Southeast Asian 

Nations (ASEAN)

X Developing 

countries

10 Energy SE Asia

X

X

Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM)-

Multilateral Solar and Wind Working 

Group

X Multilateral, 

Developed 

countries, 

20 Energy Australia, Brazil, Denmark, European 

Commission, France, Germany, Japan, 

Korea, Mexico, Norway, Spain, South 

Africa, United Kingdom, United Arab 

Emirates, United States of America

X X

X

CEM-Bioenergy Working Group X Developed 

countries

4 Energy Global X

X

CEM-Carbon Capture Use and 

Storage Action Group (CCUS)

X Private, 

Multilateral, NGOs, 

Developed 

countries, 

Developing 

countries

27 Carbon Capture and 

Sequestration

Australia, Canada, China, France, 

Germany, Japan, Republic of Korea, 

Mexico, Norway, South Africa, United 

Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United 

States

X

CEM-Clean Energy Education and 

Empowerment Women’s Initiative 

(C3E) 

X Developed 

countries

9 Energy, Renewable 

energy, Gender equality

Australia, Denmark, Mexico, Norway, 

South Africa, Sweden, United Arab 

Emirates, United Kingdom, United States X

CEM-Electric Vehicles Initiatives X Multilateral, 14 Energy, Transportation China, Denmark, Finland, France, X
23

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Name Type Participant Type

Number of Participants

Subtopics Addressed Geographic Focus Activities

Knowledge platformNetworkBest PracticesData and ToolsExpert 

Assistance

Peer-to-Peer 

Forum

Reports (emerging issues/innovation)Virtual (webinars/blogs)WorkshopsCountry Peer ExchangesTraining

(EVI) Developed 

countries

Germany, India, Japan, Portugal, South 

Africa, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, 

United States

CEM-Global Superior Energy 

Performance Partnership (GSEP)

X Multilateral 11 Energy, Buildings, 

Energy efficiency

Canada, European Commission, France, 

India, Japan Korea Mexico, Russia, 

South Africa Sweden, United States X

CEM-International Smart Grid Action 

Network (ISGAN)

X Multilateral, 

Developed 

countries, 

Developing 

countries

22 Energy, Generation, 

Transmission, Smart 

Grid

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, 

China, European Commission, France, 

Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, 

Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Russia, 

Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, 

United States

X X

X

CEM-Solar and LED Energy Access 

Program (SLED)

X Developed 

countries

2 Energy, Solar, Lighting, 

Energy access

Italy, United States

X X

CEM-Super-Efficient Equipment and 

Appliance Deployment Initiative 

(SEAD)

X Developed 

countries, 

Developing 

countries

20 Energy, Equipment 

efficiency

Australia, Brazil, Canada, European 

Commission, France, Germany, India, 

Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South 

Africa, Sweden, United Arab Emirates, 

United Kingdom, United States X

CEM-Sustainable Development of 

Hydropower Institute 

X Multilateral, 

Developed 

countries

6 Energy, Hydro, 

Development

Brazil, France, Mexico, Norway, United 

States

X X

Clean Energy Solutions Center X X Multilateral, 

Government, 

NGOs

26 Energy, Policy Global X X X X

X

X

X

ClimateWorks-Best Practice 

Networks

X Multilateral, NGOs 11 Energy Global X

X

X

ECOWAS Regional Centre for 

Renewable Energy and Energy 

Efficiency (ECREEE)

X Developing 

countries

15 Energy West Africa X
24

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Name Type Participant Type

Number of Participants

Subtopics Addressed Geographic Focus Activities

Knowledge platformNetworkBest PracticesData and ToolsExpert 

Assistance

Peer-to-Peer 

Forum

Reports (emerging issues/innovation)Virtual (webinars/blogs)WorkshopsCountry Peer ExchangesTraining

Energy Development in Island 

Nations (EDIN)

X X Developed 

countries

3 Island Nation Energy 

development

Island nations X X X

X

Environment and Development 

Action in the Third World (ENDA-TM)

X Africa X

Energypedia X Energy, Renewable 

energy

Global X X

Global Network on Energy for 

Sustainable Development (GNESD)

X Multilateral, 

Government, 

NGOs

21 Energy, Development Global X

X

X

Global Village Energy Partnership 

(GVEP)

X X Bilateral, 

Multilateral, 

Finance

15 Energy, Finance Global X X

X

IEA-International Low-Carbon Energy 

Technology Platform

X Energy, Technology Global X X

International Partnership for Energy 

Efficiency Cooperation (IPEEC)

X X Developed 

countries, 

Developing 

countries

15 Energy efficiency, Policy Australia, Italy, Brazil, Japan, Canada, 

Mexico, China, Russia, EU, South Korea, 

France, United Kingdom, Germany,

United States, India

X X X

X

International Renewable Energy 

Agency (IRENA)

X X Developed 

countries, 

Developing 

countries

85 Renewable energy Global X X X X

X

X

X

Latin American Energy Organization 

(OLADE)

X X Developed 

countries, 

Developing 

countries

27 Energy Latin America and Caribbean X

X

Leonardo Energy X Renewable energy, 

Energy efficiency, 

Training

Global X X X

X X
25

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Name Type Participant Type

Number of Participants

Subtopics Addressed Geographic Focus Activities

Knowledge platformNetworkBest PracticesData and ToolsExpert 

Assistance

Peer-to-Peer 

Forum

Reports (emerging issues/innovation)Virtual (webinars/blogs)WorkshopsCountry Peer ExchangesTraining

OAS-Renewable Energy in the 

Americas (REIA)

X Energy, Development North America, Latin America and 

Caribbean

X X X

X

Open Energy Information X Renewable energy, 

Data

Global X X X X

Reegle X Renewable energy Global X X X X

Renewable Energy Policy Network 

for the 20th Century (REN21)

X X N/A Renewable energy, 

Policy

Global X X

UNEP-en.lighten X Energy, Energy 

efficiency

Global X X X

United Nations Energy Knowledge 

Network

X Multilateral 21 Energy Global X X X X
26

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table A-5. Network and Knowledge Platform Data: Land Use

Name Type Participant Type

Number of Participants

Subtopics Addressed Geographic Focus Activities

Knowledge PlatformNetworkBest PracticesData and ToolsExpert 

Assistance

Peer-to-Peer 

Forum

Virtual (webinars/blogs)WorkshopsCountry Peer ExchangesReports (emerging issues/innovation)Training

Adaptation and Mitigation Knowledge 

Network

X N/A Mitigation Global X

Center for International Forestry 

Research 

X Forestry, Global X

Coalition of Rainforest Nations X Developing 

countries 

42 Forestry, Biodiversity Cameroon, Central African Republic, 

Democratic Republic of Congo, 

Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, 

Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, 

Nigeria, Republic of Congo, Sierra 

Leone, Uganda, Dominica, Dominican 

Republic, Bangladesh, Malaysia, 

Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, Viet Nam, 

Oceania, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, 

Samoa, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, 

Central America, Belize, Costa Rica, El 

Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 

Nicaragua, Panama, Argentina, Chile, 

Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Suriname, 

Uruguay X

Consultative Group on International 

Agricultural Research (CGIAR)

X Developing 

countries, 

Developed 

countries, Finance, 

Multilateral, NGOs

22 Agriculture Global X X

X

Food and Agriculture Organization of 

the United Nations (FAO) Climate 

Impact on Agriculture (CLIMPAG)

X Forestry, Agriculture Global X

Institute for Global Environmental 

Strategies - REDD+ Project 

Database

X Forestry, REDD REDD Partner Countries X
27

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Name Type Participant Type

Number of Participants

Subtopics Addressed Geographic Focus Activities

Knowledge PlatformNetworkBest PracticesData and ToolsExpert 

Assistance

Peer-to-Peer 

Forum

Virtual (webinars/blogs)WorkshopsCountry Peer ExchangesReports (emerging issues/innovation)Training

Sustainable Development Policy and 

Practice - Forests and REDD

X Forestry, REDD Global X

UNFCCC-REDD Web Platform X Forestry, Mitigation Global X X X X

Verified Carbon Standards - REDD 

Methodology Modules

X Forestry, REDD Global X

X
28

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Appendix B. Comparison of Technology Needs 

Assessments, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation 

Actions, Roadmaps, and LEDS

Table B-1 (Cox and Benioff 2011, Table 1) compares some of the types of international 

instruments used to support low emissions planning. Assistance activities include support for green 

growth, low emissions or low-carbon growth plans, TNAs, NAMAs, and technology roadmaps.

Table B-1. Comparison of Technology Needs Assessments (TNAs), Nationally Appropriate 

Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), Roadmaps, and Low Emission Development Strategies (LEDS)

Program Background Key Questions Addressed 

by Host Country

Primary Products

TNAs TNAs are an approved 

element of United Nations 

Framework Convention on 

Climate Change (UNFCCC) 

technology transfer 

framework under Article 4.5.

The Global Environment 

Facility (GEF) has provided 

TNA support to more than 

90 countries and has 

initiated support for more indepth TNAs to about 30 

countries.

What are the priority 

mitigation and adaptation 

technologies to achieve 

climate and development 

goals?

What portfolio of domestic 

programs and projects and 

international cooperation will 

facilitate implementation of 

these technologies?

Description of priority 

adaptation and mitigation 

technologies

Action plan for domestic 

programs to advance 

technology deployment

Potential projects for 

international support to 

advance technology 

deployment

NAMAs NAMAs were adopted under 

the Bali Action Plan as a 

mechanism for developing 

countries to undertake 

voluntary projects to reduce 

GHG emissions with 

international support.

The Copenhagen Accord 

notes that countries should 

describe NAMAs in their 

national communications 

and establishes registry of 

NAMA projects proposed for 

international support. 

The COP 16 draft decision 

notes that NAMAs should 

“include information on 

mitigation actions, the 

national greenhouse gas 

inventory report, including a 

description, analysis of the 

impacts and associated 

methodologies and 

assumptions, progress in 

implementation and 

Which projects and 

programs are the priorities 

for reducing GHG emissions 

and achieving development 

goals? 

What domestic action can 

be undertaken to advance 

these mitigation measures? 

What international 

technology, financing, and 

capacity building support are 

needed to implement these 

projects?

Description of priority 

mitigation projects

Proposals for international 

support for mitigation 

projects that would be 

combined with domestic 

action
29

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Program Background Key Questions Addressed 

by Host Country

Primary Products

information on domestic 

measurement, reporting and 

verification and support 

received...”a

LEDS/LowCarbon 

Developm

ent 

Strategies 

(LCDS)

As first noted in the

Copenhagen Accord, the 

COP 16 draft decision states 

that “a low-carbon 

development strategy is 

indispensable to sustainable 

development”b and 

encourages developing 

countries to prepare lowcarbon development 

strategies.c

Pilot projects to assist 

countries with LEDS 

development have been 

initiated by the United 

States, Netherlands, 

European Commission, and 

others.

What are the near and longterm development and low

emission goals and

benefits?

Which technology and

market pathway will best 

achieve these goals?

What portfolio of policies 

and measures will yield low

emission growth?

How can these policies and 

measures be implemented

and the plan monitored and

refined?

What international support is 

needed?

Development and low

emission goals and benefits 

for the country and by sector

Pathway for low emission 

development

Action plan of low emission

policies and measures

Process for plan

implementation, monitoring, 

and refinement

Proposals for international 

support for low emission 

development

Roadmaps A technology roadmap is a

specialized type of strategic 

plan that outlines activities 

an organization can

undertake over specific time

frames to achieve stated

goals and outcomes. 

Technology-specific 

roadmaps are intended to

support the development of 

specific types of 

technologies. The roadmaps 

serve to achieve consensus 

on low-carbon energy 

milestones, priorities for 

technology development, 

policy and regulatory 

frameworks, investment 

needs, and public 

engagement.d

What is the status of the

technology in question?

What is the potential for the

technology in question?

What goals and milestones 

should be established for 

the specific technology?

What are the gaps and

barriers to deployment of the

technology?

What action items can

overcome these barriers?

Which are highest priorities?

What is the timeline?

How can these actions be

effectively implemented and

monitored?

Quantified goals for each

technology or sector of 

interest

Timeframe of milestones for 

achieving interim targets

Identification of gaps and

barriers to deployment of the

technologies

Identification of action items 

to address the barriers 

Prioritized actions, timeline 

for implementation of the

actions and tracking system 

to assess progress

a Draft decision -/CP.16.Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperative Action 

under the Convention. #64. Pg. 10. http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_16/application/pdf/cop16_lca.pdf b Draft decision -/CP.16.Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperative Action 

under the Convention. #6. Pg. 2. http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_16/application/pdf/cop16_lca.pdf c Draft decision -/CP.16.Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperative Action

under the Convention. #65. Pg. 10. http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_16/application/pdf/cop16_lca.pdf d Text from Antonia Gawel, IEA
30

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table B-2. Potential Functions of the Climate Innovation Center (CIC)

CIC Function Gap or Barrier Addressed 

TECHNOLOGY 

Help improve the technology development 

process to ensure the availability of technologies 

for local markets

Undertake technology needs assessment and/or 

options analysis to understand which 

technologies are best suited to advance 

adaptation and mitigation in the local context 

Lack of understanding among firms about the scale 

and scope of climate challenges and lack of 

familiarity with technological possibilities and 

performance of existing technologies; emphasis 

mostly on mitigation rather than adaptation 

Facilitate applied R&D through provision of small 

grants; improved communication, interactions, 

and collaboration among actors (entrepreneurs, 

firms, universities, government laboratories); and 

international networking and experts-in-residence 

Inadequate applied R&D due to lack of market 

signals, limited existing technical capabilities within 

firms and other organizations, or lack of coordination 

among actors 

Work with governments to develop demonstration 

programs to identify technologies with high 

potential and fund projects to evaluate technology 

and product performance under real-world 

conditions through demonstrations and field-trials 

Uncertainty about in-situ costs and performance, and 

lack of end user awareness; lack of funding or 

institutional structures to enable technology 

demonstration and to utilize the learning in 

technology/ product improvement 

MARKETS 

Promoting demand through creation and 

strengthening of markets for climate technologies

Market analysis to help better understand the 

characteristics of the demand and markets for 

specific technologies 

Lack of clear understanding among policymakers 

and firms about potential size and nature of markets 

Help develop policies to enhance markets for 

climate technologies (this can involve, for 

example, feed-in tariffs, renewable portfolio 

obligations, government procurement programs, 

environmental standards) 

Climate technologies may cost more than existing 

options in the absence of climate policies; buyers are 

risk-averse about new technologies; firms do not 

invest in technology development, manufacturing 

facilities, and supply networks until markets exist. 

Identifying and overcoming barriers to deployment 

(for example, lack of consumer awareness 

tackled through information and labeling

programs, making financing options available for 

firms that cannot invest in energy-efficient options 

that have high initial investments but low payback 

periods) 

Lack of awareness, information, and market 

structures limit uptake of climate technologies, even 

if they are cost-competitive with existing options. 

COMPANY 

Supporting entrepreneurial as well as existing 

ventures to succeed in the business of climate 

innovation

Advance enterprise creation by linking technical 

researchers with entrepreneurs, venture 

capitalists, and business people; provide some 

limited seed funding for new firms 

Lack of business skills within research/ technical 

personnel; lack of seed funding to start new 

technology firms 

Provide business advisory services such as 

strategic and business development advice to 

start-ups; information provision about new 

Lack of detailed understanding about technologies, 

markets, consumer needs, business strategy, and 

business development possibilities 
31

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

CIC Function Gap or Barrier Addressed 

technologies; market analysis and consumer 

surveys 

Training programs to upgrade business 

management, managerial, operational, and

technical capabilities 

Limited skills of existing personnel, lack of 

appropriately-trained workers 

Provide support services and infrastructure for 

start-ups and other small firms 

Lack of resources to invest in appropriate 

infrastructure

Working with governments to streamline policies 

for effective operation of small businesses 

Bureaucratic hurdles and complex policies impede 

effective functioning of small firms and act as barrier 

to entrepreneurship 

REGULATIONS 

Ensuring that the regulatory framework supports 

climate innovation

Help develop regulatory framework that supports 

the uptake of new climate technologies in existing 

markets 

Regulations may hinder the introduction of new 

climate technologies that may incur higher costs or 

have different performance characteristics than 

existing option (for example, by requiring utilities to 

choose lowest-cost options) 

Help develop technology standards and 

certification schemes to build consumer 

confidence in new technologies 

Uncertainty on part of consumers about performance 

of new technologies 

Help with modification of regulations that may 

impede technology development and diffusion 

Regulations may serve as a barrier to the 

development of fledgling or even established local 

businesses (e.g., high customs duty on parts but not 

assembled goods) 

Improve financial regulatory architecture to 

promote investments in climate innovation 

Financial regulations may limit investment and exit 

strategies for investors, limited openness to new 

debt and financing instruments 

Improve evaluation and protection of intellectual 

property 

Lack, or ineffective functioning, of intellectual 

property rights (IPR) rules and institutions impedes 

both innovators as well as investors 

FINANCE 

Facilitating the expansion of financing options for 

climate innovation by both helping deepen the 

pool of funds available and enhance access for 

firms 

Work with governments and private investors to 

increase pool of funds to support various, 

especially early, stages of climate innovation 

Limited funds available to support technology 

innovation, especially climate innovation, in many 

developing countries 

Help expand early-stage financing through coinvestments, loans or risk guarantees to help 

viable businesses attract private-sector funding 

Lack of financing (typically first or second round) for 

early stage technology/ product development due to 

classic innovation barriers combined with perceived 

energy technology market/ policy risks. 

Help overcome “valley of death” by working with 

government to develop programs to provide 

financial support for the translation of 

technologies to viable products through for 

example early-stage innovation grants to small 

firms or new business units 

Limited funding from private and public sources 

available for moving technologies to product ready 

for market but no internal source of funding within 

firm, especially if start-up, since too early for cash 

flow from technology 
32

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

CIC Function Gap or Barrier Addressed 

Explore innovative options to develop and tap 

new avenues of finance 

Financing approaches often are not tailored to the 

needs and context of developing countries 

Facilitate easier access to finance for firms 

through improved interactions between firms and 

funders, coordinate funding avenues, elimination 

of bureaucratic hurdles, and enhancing investor 

confidence 

Access to financing is impeded by bureaucratic 

hurdles, limited avenues of interaction with funders, 

and limited information about, and confidence in, 

firms available to funders 

COORDINATION AND NETWORKING 

Streamlining the innovation process through a 

bird’s-eye view of various activities in the 

innovation process
33

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure B-1. Data visualization proposed to simultaneously communicate GHG mitigation potential and development benefits of technology options 

Source: CLEAN (2011c)
34

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

References

Adger, W.N.; Agrawala, S.; Mirza, M.M.Q.; Conde, C.; O’Brien, K.; Pulhin, J.; Pulwarty, R.;

Smit, B.; Takahashi, K. (2007). Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and 

capacity. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Parry, M. L.; Canziani, O. F.; Palutikof, J. P.;

Linden, P. J. v. d.; Hanson, C. E.; eds. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and 

Vulnerability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 717–743.

Agrawala, S. et al. (November 30, 2011). Private Sector Engagement in Adaptation to Climate 

Change: Approaches to Managing Climate Risks. OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 39.

Paris, France: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg221jkf1g7-en.

Ashman, D. (2003). Towards more effective collaboration in NGO networks for Social 

Development, lessons learned from the NGO networks for Health Project and a Framework for 

planning, monitoring and evaluation. Washington, DC: NGO Networks for Health.

Baker, W.E. (November 1990). Market Networks and Corporate Behavior. American Journal of 

Sociology (96:3); pp. 589–625.

Barabási, A. (2002). Linked: The New Science of Networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.

Bauer, F.; Kaltenböck, M. (2012). Linked Open Data: The Essentials, A Quick Start Guide for 

Decision Makers. Vienna, Austria: edition mono/monochrom. Accessed July 2012 

http://www.reeep.org/LOD-the-Essentials.pdf. 

Bazilian, M.; Outhred, H.; Miller, A.; Kimble, M. (December 2010). Opinion: An Energy Policy 

Approach to Climate Change. Energy for Sustainable Development (14:4); pp. 253–255.

Bernard, A. K. (1996). IDRC Networks: an ethnographic perspective. International Development 

Research Centre. 

Blodget, J.; Parker, L. (March 5, 2010). Greenhouse Gas Emission Drivers: Population, 

Economic Development and Growth, and Energy Use. Congressional Research Service/

7-5700/RL33970. http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/10Apr/RL33970.pdf.

Boko, M.; Niang, I.; Nyong, A.; Vogel, C.; Githeko, A.; Medany, M.; Osman-Elasha, B.; Tabo, 

R.; Yanda, P. (2007). Africa. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Parry, M.L.; Canziani, O.F.; Palutikof, J.P.; van der Linden, P.J.;

Hanson, C.E.; eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 433–467.

Börzel, T. (2011). Networks: Reified Metaphor or Governance Panacea. Public Administration 

(89:1); pp. 49–63.

Brousseau, E.; Curien, N. (2001). Economie d’Internet, économie du numérique. Revue 

économique (52:52); pp. 7–36.
35

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Brown, M.A.; Chandler, J.; Lapsa, M.V.; Sovacol, B.K. (2008). Carbon Lock-In: Barriers to 

Deploying Climate Change Mitigation Technologies. ORNL/TM-2007/124. Oakridge, TN: 

Oakridge National Laboratory, November 2008. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/eere/PDFs/Carbon_

Lock-In_200811.pdf.

Buchanan, M. (2002). Nexus: Small Worlds and the Groundbreaking Science of Networks. New 

York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Building a Network of Climate Innovation Centers (CICs). (no date). The World Bank. Accessed

July 2012: http://www.infodev.org/en/TopicBackground.19.html.

Burt, R. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: 

Harvard University Press.

Capital Markets Climate Initiative (CMCI). (2012). Department of Energy & Climate Change. 

Accessed July 2012: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/tackling/international/

cmci/cmci.aspx.

CGIAR (2009). Voices for Change: The New CGIAR. Accessed July 2012:

http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/cgiar/Documents/9.%20CGIAR%20Voices%20for%20Change.pdf. 

CGIAR. (2011). The CGIAR at 40 and Beyond: Impacts that Matter for the Poor and the Planet. 

Washington, DC: CGIAR Fund Office. Accessed July 2012: http://www.cgiar.org/

pdf/cgiar@40_final_LOWRES.pdf.

Clapp, C.; Briner, G.; Karousakis, K. (November 22, 2010). Low-Emission Development 

Strategies (LEDS): Technical, Institutional and Policy Lessons. Environment Directorate, 

International Energy Agency. Paris, France: OECD/IEA. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/58/

46553489.pdf.

Cole, C.V.; Duxbury, J.; Freney, J.; Heinemeyer, O.; Minami, K.; Mosier, A.; Paustian, K.;

Rosenberg, N.; Sampson, N.; Sauerbeck, D.; Zhao, Q. (1997). Global estimates of potential 

mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by agriculture. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems

(49:1-3), pp. 221–228.

Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Contractor, F.J.; Lorange, P.; eds. (1988). Why Should Firms Cooperate: The Strategy and 

Economics Basis for Cooperative Ventures. Chapter 1. Contractor, F.J.; Lorange, P.; eds. 

Cooperative Strategies in International Business: Joint Ventures and Technology Partnerships 

Between Firms. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.; pp. 3–30.

Coordinated Low Emissions Assistance Network (CLEAN). (2011a). Review of Networks and 

Platforms for Low Emission and Climate Compatible Development Planning. Prepared as 

response to High Level Dialogue on Low Emission Development Policy Implementation 

convened by the World Bank. http://prod-http-80-800498448.us-east-1.elb

.amazonaws.com/w/images/3/3e/LEDS_networks_and_platforms_rev_%2812-01-11%29.pdf.
36

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Coordinated Low Emissions Assistance Network (CLEAN). (2011b). International Experiences 

and Frameworks to Support Country-driven Low Emission Development. Prepared as response to 

High Level Dialogue on Low Emission Development Policy Implementation Forum convened 

by the World Bank. http://prod-http-80-800498448.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws

.com/w/images/9/97/WB_CLEAN_paper_7-1-11_v2.pdf.

Coordinated Low Emissions Assistance Network (CLEAN). (2011c). Communicating 

Development Benefits of Low Emission Development Actions to Policy Makers. Discussion 

paper.

Cox, S.; Benioff, R. (May 2011). International Assistance for Low-Emissions Development 

Planning Coordinated Low Emissions Assistance Network (CLEAN) Inventory of Activities and 

Tools—Preliminary Trends. NREL/TP-6A00-49972. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49972.pdf. 

Davidson, O.R. (June 7, 2000). IPCC Special Report: Methodological and Technological Issues 

in Technology Transfer. Key Messages Related Decision 4/CP.4. Presented at workshop in 

Bonn. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Dore, R. (1983). Goodwill and the spirit of market capitalism. The British Journal of Sociology

(34:4); pp. 459–482.

Ecofys; IDS. (September 16, 2011). Guiding climate compatible development: User-oriented 

analysis of planning tools and methodologies, Analytical report. Cologne, Brighton, Utrecht, 

London: Climate and Development Knowledge Network. Accessed July 2012. 

http://www.climateplanning.org/sites/climateplanning.org/files/attachments/Ecofys%20%20IDS

%202011_TM%20for%20CCD_main%20report%20format.pdf.

Ekins, P.; Kesicki, F.; Smith, A.Z.P. (April 2011). Marginal Abatement Cost Curves: A Call for 

Caution. London, UK: UCL Energy Institute, University College London. http://www.bartlett

.ucl.ac.uk/energy/news/documents/ei-news-290611-macc.pdf.

ESMAP. (2009). Low carbon growth country studies – getting started: experiences from six 

countries. http://mitigationpartnership.net/sites/default/files/esmap_-_case_studies_lowcarbon_growth_strategies.pdf. 

EU-UNDP (European Union-United Nations Development Programme) (no date). Conceptual 

Frameworks for Implementing LEDS & NAMAS. European Union–United Nations Development 

Programme, Low Emission Capacity Building Programme. Accessed July 2012: 

http://www.undpcc.org/docs/Bali%20Road%20Map/English/NAMA%20%20LEDS_conceptual

%20frameworks.pdf.

Gilardi, F.; Radaelli, C. (2012). Governance and Learning. D. Levi-Faur, ed. The Oxford 

Handbook of Governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Goklany, I.M. (2007). Integrated strategies to reduce vulnerability and advance adaptation, 

mitigation, and sustainable development. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global 

Change (12:5); pp. 755–786.
37

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Granovetter, M. (May 1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology (78:6);

pp. 1360–1380.

Haas P.M.; McCabe D. (2001). Amplifiers or dampeners: international institutions and social 

learning in the management of global environmental risks. Chapter 13. Learning to Manage 

Global Environmental Risks, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; pp. 323–348.

Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international 

strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal (12:S1); pp. 83–103.

Helper, S. (1991), Strategy and irreversibility in supplier relations: the case of the US 

automobile industry, Business History Review, 65(4), 781–824.

Hess, D. (2007). Heterogeneous and homogeneous groups in the innovation process. Oldenburg, 

Germany: Jean Monnet Centre for Europeanisation and Transnational Regulations Oldenburg.

Accessed July 2012: http://www.cetro.uni-oldenburg.de/download/Nr._16_jm.pdf.

IEA. (October 2011). CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion: Highlights. International Energy 

Agency. Paris, France: IEA Publications. http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf.

Inaugural Meeting of the San Giorgio Group: Expanding Green, Low-Emissions Finance. 

(2011). Climate Policy Initiative. http://climatepolicyinitiative.org/event/inaugural-meeting-ofthe-san-giorgio-group/.

IPCC (2001). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.” Contribution of Working Group I to 

the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Houghton, 

J.T.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J.; Noguer, M.; van der Linden, P.J.; Dai, X.; Maskell, K.; Johnson, 

C.A.; eds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kaneko, I.; Imai, K. (1987). A Network View of the Firm. Presented at first Hititsubashi-Stanford 

conference.

Kanter, R.M. (1991). The Future of Bureaucracy and Hierarchy in Organizational Theory: A 

Report from the Field. Bourdieu, P.; Coleman, J.; eds. Social Theory for a Changing Society. 

Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Kesicki, F.; Strachan, N. (2011). Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves: confronting theory 

and practice. UCL Energy Institute, University College London. Environmental Science Policy

(14:8). London, UK: Elsevier Ltd.; pp. 1195–1204.

Klein, R.J.T.; Huq, S.; Denton, F.; Downing, T.E.; Richels, R.G.; Robinson, J.B.; Toth, F.L. 

(2007). Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. Contribution of Working Group 

II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Parry, 

M.L.; Canziani, O.F.; Palutikof, J.P.; van der Linden, P.J.; Hanson, C.E.; eds. Climate Change 

2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

pp. 745–777.
38

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Kogut, B. (July/August 1988). Joint Ventures: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Strategic 

Management Journal (9); pp. 319–332.

LEDS Global Partnership (LEDS GP). (2012). Key Trends in LEDS Support Globally. Accessed 

July 20, 2012: http://prod-http-80-800498448.us-east1.elb.amazonaws.com/w/images/7/77/LEDSInventory.pdf

Lie, J. (1997). Sociology of Markets. Annual Review of Sociology (23); pp. 341–60.

Lobel, O. (2012). New Governance as Regulatory Governance. Levi-Faur, D., ed. The Oxford 

Handbook of Governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Lu, X. (no date). Applying Climate Information for Adaptation Decision-Making: A Guidance 

and Resource Document. New York, NY: National Communications Support Programme 

(NCSP). http://www.adaptationlearning.net/sites/default/files/ncsp.pdf.

Mariotti, F.; Delbridge, R. (2011). Overcoming Network Overload and Redundancy in 

Interorganizational Networks: The Roles of Potential and Latent Ties. Organization Science

(23); pp. 434-448. http://orgsci.journal.informs.org/content/early/2011/05/17/

orsc.1100.0634.

Marsden, P.V. (February 1987). Core Discussion Networks of Americans. American Sociological

Review (52:1); pp. 122–131.

Martínez-Diaz, L; Woods, N. (2009). Networks of Influence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marx, A.; Soares, J. (2011). Measuring Networks across Countries: an Empirical Exploration, 

Chapter 2. Kitaoka, K.; MacGillivray, A.; O’Reilly, C.; Marx, A.; Soares, J. Networks for 

Prosperity: Achieving Development Goals through Knowledge Sharing. Boulder, CO: United 

Nations Industrial Development Organization; pp. 57-81.

McEvily, B.; Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in comparative 

capabilities. Strategic Management Journal (20:12); pp. 1133–1156.

Mitchell, T.; Tanner, T. (2006). Adapting to Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities for 

the Development Community. Middlesex, UK: Institute of Development Studies. http://www.

tearfund.org/webdocs/website/Campaigning/policy%20and%20research/Adapting%20to%20cli

mate%20change%20discussion%20paper.pdf. 

Nelson, J.; Farrington, J. (1994). Information Exchange Networking for Agricultural 

Development, a Review of Concepts and Practices. Summary No.1. Technical Centre for 

Agriculture and Rural Cooperation. Exeter, UK: Sayce Publishing.

OECD. (March 2006). Putting Climate Change Adaptation in the Development Mainstream.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Policy Brief. Paris, France: OECD 

Publications.
39

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

OECD. (2007). OECD Contribution to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable 

Development 15: Energy for Sustainable Development. Paris, France: OECD Publications.

Accessed July 2012: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/6/8/38509686.pdf. 

OECD. (2011a). Recent OECD work on Climate Change. Paris, France: OECD Publications.

Accessed July 2012: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/40/41810213.pdf. 

OECD (2011b). Green Growth Studies: Energy Paris, France: OECD Publications. Accessed 

August 5 2013: http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/greening-energy/49157219.pdf.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. (2001). Decentralization and Development: The New Panacea. Dowding, K. et al, 

eds. Challenges to Democracy: Ideas, Involvement and Institution. New York: Plagrave 

Publishers; pp. 237–256.

Paustian, K.; Babcock, B.A.; Hatfield, J.; Lal, R.; McCarl, B.A.; McLaughlin, S.; Mosier, A.; 

Rice, C.; Robertson, G.P.; Rosenberg, N.J.; Rosenzweig, C.; Schlesinger, W.H.; Zilberman, D. 

(2004). Agricultural Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases: Science and Policy Options. Council on 

Agricultural Science and Technology. Report R141 2004.

Perelet, R. (2007). Central Asia: Background Paper on Climate Change. New York, NY: United 

Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report Office. Accessed July 2012: 

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-8/papers/Perelet_Renat.pdf.

Perrow, C. (2002). Organizing America: Wealth, Power, and the Origins of Corporate 

Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Pfeffer, J.; Nowak P. (1976). Joint Ventures and Interorganizational Interdependence.

Administrative Science Quarterly (21:3); pp. 398–418.

Plucknett, D. L.; Smith, N.J.H.; Ozgediz, S. (1990). Networking in International Agricultural 

Research. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Podolny, J.; Page, K. (August 1998). Network Forms of Organization. Annual Review of 

Sociology (24); pp. 57–76.

Podolny, J.; Rauch, J. (2007). Introduction: On the Formation and Decay of Interdisciplinary 

Boundaries. Rauch, J., ed. The Missing Links: Formation and Decay of Economic Networks.

New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; pp. 1–17.

Powell, W.W. (1990). Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization. Research 

in Organizational Behavior (12); pp. 295–336.

Powell, W.W.; Brantley P. (1992). Competitive Cooperation in Biotechnology: Learning 

Through Networks? Eccles, R.; Nohria, N.; eds. Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form 

and Action. Columbus, OH: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
40

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). (December 2010). Business Leadership on Climate Change 

Adaptation: Encouraging engagement and action. London, UK: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

http://www.pwcwebcast.co.uk/encouraging-engagement-and-action-full-report.pdf.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New 

York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Radka, M.; Aoki, C. (1997). Promoting International and Regional Cooperation in Cleaner 

Production. Green Productivity in Pursuit of Better Quality of Life. Tokyo, Japan: Asian 

Productivity Organization.

Rasmusson, R. (2002). Networking Counts: Montreal Protocol Experiences in Making 

Multilateral Environmental Agreements Work. Stockholm, Sweden and New York, NY: Sida and 

OzonAction Programme, UNEP. http://www.unep.fr/ozonaction/information/mmcfiles/3947-

e.pdf.

Reagans, R.; McEvily, B. (June 2003). Network Structure and Knowledge Transfer: The Effects 

of Cohesion and Range. Administrative Science Quarterly (48:2); pp. 240–267.

Reinicke, W.H., Deng, F.M., Witte, J.M. (2000). Critical Choices: The United Nations, 

Networks, and the Future of Global Governance. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: International 

Development Research Centre.

Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21th Century (REN21). http://www.ren21.net. 

Rhodes, R. (2012). Waves of Governance. D. Levi-Faur, ed. The Oxford Handbook of 

Governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Rodan S.; Galunic, C. (2004). More Than Network Structure: How Knowledge Heterogeneity 

Influences Managerial Performance and Innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal (25); pp.

541–562.

Rogner, H.-H.; Zhou, D.; Bradley, R.; Crabbé, P.; Edenhofer, O.; Hare, B. Kuijpers, L.; 

Yamaguchi, M. (2007). Introduction. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Metz, B.; Davidson, 

O.R.; Bosch, P.R.; Dave, R.; Meyer, L.A.; eds. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Cambridge, 

UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Root, R.R. (1988). Some Taxonomies of International Cooperative Arrangements. Chapter 4. 

Contractor, F.J.; Lorange, P.; eds. Cooperative Strategies in International Business: Joint 

Ventures and Technology Partnerships Between Firms. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science, Ltd.; 

pp. 69–80.

Sabel, C.; Zeitlin, J. (2012). Experimentalist Governance. D. Levi-Faur, ed. The Oxford 

Handbook of Governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
41

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Sagar, A. (October 2010). Climate Innovation Centres: A New Way to Foster Climate 

Technologies in the Developing World? An infoDev publication in collaboration with UNIDO 

and DFID. London, United Kingdom: Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Sathaye, J. (April 4, 2002). Climate Change Mitigation: Barriers, Opportunities and Technology 

Transfer. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Accessed December 11, 2012: 

http://ies.lbl.gov/ppt/ccmbott.pdf. 

Scharpf, F. (1993). Games in Hierarchies and Networks. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Slaughter, A.M. (2004). A New World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Smith, P.; Martino, D.; Cai, Z.; Gwary, D.; Janzen, H.; Kumar, P.; McCarl, B.; Ogle, S.; O’Mara, 

F.; Rice, C.; Scholes, B.; Sirotenko, O. (2007). “Agriculture.” Contribution of Working Group III 

to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Metz, B.; 

Davidson, O.R.; Bosch, P.R.; Dave, R.; Meyer, L.A.; eds. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. 

Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, P.; Martino, D.; Cai, Z.; Gwary, D.; Janzen, H.H.; Kumar, P.; McCarl, B.; Ogle, S.; 

O’Mara, F.; Rice, C.; Scholes, R.J.; Sirotenko, O.; Howden, M.; McAllister, T.; Pan, G.; 

Romanenkov, V.; Schneider, U.; Towprayoon, S.; Wattenbach, M.; Smith, J.U. (2007). 

“Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Agriculture.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society

(B: 2008 363); pp.789–813.

Solar and LED Energy Access Program (SLED). (2012). Energetics Incorporated. Accessed July 

2012. http://www.cleanenergyministerial.org/our_work/energy_access/. 

Steier, L.; Greenwood, R. (2000). “Entrepreneurship and the Evolution of Angel Financial 

Networks.” Organization Studies (21:1); pp. 163–192.

Stübing, J; Schulz-Schaeffer, I.; Meister, M.; Gläser, J., eds. (2004). Kooperation im 

Niemandsland: Neue Perspektiven auf Zusammenarbeit in Wissenschaft und Technik. Einleitung.

Glaser, J.; Schulz-Shaeffer, I.; Meister, M.; eds. Opladen, Germany: Leske und Budrich.

Sustainable Development of Hydropower Initiative. (2012). Energetics Incorporated. Accessed

July 2012: http://www.cleanenergyministerial.org/our_work/initiatives.html.

Sørenson, O. (1997). The Complexity Catastrophe in the Computer Industry: Interdependence 

and Adaptability in Organizational Evolution. Ph.D. Stanford CA: Stanford University.

The Global Mechanism (2009). Land and Climate Change Finance in Central Africa: Climate 

Change Mitigation and Adaptation Activities in Central Africa and Options for Improving 

Access to Climate Change Finance Supporting the UNCCD. Rome, Italy: The Global 

Mechanism of the UNCCD. Accessed July 2012: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/

rome2007/docs/CC%20and%20funding%20in%20Central%20Africa-english-1.pdf.
42

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Tilburg, X. van; Wurtenberger, L.; Coninck, H.C. de; Bakker, S.J.A. (September 2011). Paving 

the way for low-carbon development strategies. Energy research Centre of the Netherlands 

(ECN), The Netherlands. http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2011/e11059.pdf.

Torfing, J. (2012). Governance Networks. D. Levi-Faur, ed. The Oxford Handbook of 

Governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

UN Development Programme (UNDP). (November 2010). Handbook for Conducting 

Technology Needs Assessment for Climate Change. New York, NY: UNDP. http://unfccc.int/

ttclear/pdf/TNA%20HANDBOOK%20EN%2020101115.pdf.

UN Environment Programme (UNEP). (February 26, 2001). Final Report on the Evaluation of 

Regional Networks. UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/33/7. Limited distribution for the 33rd meeting of 

the executive committee regarding the Montreal Protocol. http://www.unep.fr/ozonaction/

information/mmcfiles/4774-e-networkevaluation3307.pdf.

UNEP. (2007). Networking Counts: Combating Illegal Trade in Ozone Depleting Substances. 

Stockholm, Sweden and New York, NY: Sida and OzonAction Programme, UNEP. http://mearen.org/files/publications/6076-e-networkingcounts.pdf.

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Accessed July 2012: http://unfccc.int/

essential_background/basic_facts_figures/items/6246.php.

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2005). Barriers to mitigation. Global hands-on 

training workshop on mitigation assessments, 26–30 September 2005. Seoul, Republic of Korea.

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2009). “Part Two: Action taken by the 

Conference of the Parties at its fifteenth session.” Report of the Conference of the Parties on its 

fifteenth session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009. FCCC/CP/2009/11.

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (2011). Compilation of economy-wide emission 

reduction targets to be implemented by Parties included in Annex I to the Convention”. 7 June 

2011. Bonn, Germany. Accessed July 2013: 

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/sb/eng/inf01r01.pdf

UN Global Compact, UN Environment Programme, Oxfam and the World Resources Institute.

(2011). Adapting for a Green Economy: Companies, Communities and Climate Change, A 

Caring for Climate Report. UN Global Compact Office. http://www.oxfamamerica.org/files/

adapting-for-a-green-economy.pdf.

UNIDO & UNEP (2010), Tacking Stock and Moving Forward, the UNIDO-UNEP National 

Cleaner Production Centers.

United Nations Environment Programme. (March 15, 2001). Report of the Conference of the 

Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010. 

FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1. Accessed July 2012: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/

eng/07a01.pdf.
43

This report is available at no cost from the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

at www.nrel.gov/publications.

United Nations Office to Combat Desertification and Drought (UNSO). (May 2000). Optimizing 

Efforts: A Practical Guide to NGO Networking. Office to Combat Desertification and Drought.

New York, NY: UNDP.

USAID. (2012). USAID Climate Change and Development Strategy 2012-2016. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Agency for International Development. Accessed July 2012:

http://www.adaptationlearning.net/sites/default/files/USAID%20-

%20Global%20Climate%20Change%20Strategy%20-%202012-2016.pdf.

Uzzi, B. (1996). “The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic 

Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect.” American Sociological Review (61:4);

pp. 674–698.

Uzzi, B. (1997). “Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of 

Embeddedness.” Administrative Science Quarterly (42:1); pp. 35–67.

Uzzi, B. (1999). “Embeddedness in the Making of Financial Capital: How Social Relations and 

Networks Benefit Firms Seeking Financing.” American Sociological Review (64:4); pp. 481–

505.

Uzzi, B.; Gillespie, J. (2002). “Knowledge Spillover in Corporate Financing Networks: 

Embeddedness and the Firm’s Debt Performance.” Strategic Management Journal (23); pp. 595–

618.

Uzzi, B.; Luis, A.; Reed-Tsochas, F. (2007). “Small-world networks and management science 

research: a review.” European Management Review (4); pp. 77–91.

Venema, D.H.; Cisse, M.; eds. (2004). Seeing the Light: Adapting to climate change with 

decentralized renewable energy in developing countries. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: 

International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Wienges, S. (2010). Governance in Global Policy Networks: Individual Strategies and Collective 

Action in Five Sustainable Energy-Related Type II Partnerships. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter 

Lang GmbH.

Wiesenthal, H. (1995). “Konventionelles und unkonventionelles OrganisationslernenLiteraturreport und Erganzungsvorschlag.” Zeitschrift fur Soziologie (24:2); pp. 137–155.

Williamson, O.E. (1991). “Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete 

Structural Alternatives.” Administrative Science Quarterly (36:2); pp. 269–296.

Woolcock, M. (1998). “Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis 

and policy framework.” Theory and Society (27:2); pp. 151–208.

Zahra, S. A.; Ireland, R. D.; Hitt, M. A. (2000). “International Expansion by New Venture Firms: 

International Diversity, Mode of Market Entry, Technological Learning, and Performance.”

Academy of Management Journal (43:5); pp. 925–950.