World Development 100 (2017) 123–132

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

World Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev

Mitigating Climate Change in Africa: Barriers to Financing Low-Carbon

Development
Ademola A. Adenle a,b, Dale T. Manning c, Joseph Arbiol d
a
School of Global Environmental Sustainability, Colorado State University, USA
b
The United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability (UNU-IAS), Japan
c
Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, USA
d
Laboratory of Environmental Economics, Kyushu University, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o s u m m a r y

Article history: Meeting global climate change mitigation goals requires the participation of developing countries in
Accepted 31 July 2017 abatement programs to encourage low-carbon development pathways. Incentivizing developing coun-
tries to participate in climate change mitigation often requires a mechanism for developed countries
to finance projects in poorer countries. While several funding institutions have been established,
Key words: African country participation has been low. In this analysis, we conduct interviews with climate change
mitigation action policy stakeholders from across the continent and find a general consensus that a lack of institutional
low-carbon development pathway
capacity has limited the participation of African countries in existing climate change mitigation pro-
institutional capacity
Africa
grams. To confirm this qualitative observation, we use data from the Global Environment Facility (GEF)
and the World Bank to examine the correlation between country-year measures of institutional capacity
and the number of projects implemented by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and find that better
institutional quality is associated with more GEF projects implemented in a country-year. We propose
to address the lack of institutional capacity with the creation of regional institution, or Climate Change
Mitigation Institution (CCMI), that specializes in building local capacity by leveraging external capacity
as well as facilitates the integration of African countries into global climate change mitigation efforts
by improving capacity, strengthening research and development, forming partnerships, and coordinating
the disbursement of financing.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction $1 billion is available for mitigation in African economies through

Meeting global climate change mitigation goals requires action
from both developed and developing countries (IPCC, 2015). In
most of Africa, climate change mitigation means slowing green-
house gas (GHG) emissions increases as incomes rise. Low-
carbon development pathways (LCDPs) aimed at stabilizing the
global climate must break the link between income growth and
carbon dioxide emissions experienced in the past (Tyler, Boyd,
Coetzee, Torres Gunfaus, & Winkler, 2013). For example, the Chi-
nese government has incorporated low-carbon development
strategies into its development policy (Wang & Chang, 2014).
Without the implementation of LCDPs in the developing world, cli-
mate policy goals cannot be met (Inman, 2008; IPCC, 2015). While
essential to achieving mitigation goals, LCDPs likely imply higher
costs than conventional development pathways.
The key challenge associated with achieving LCDPs in develop-
ing countries, particularly in Africa, is financing. While more than
the Global Environment Facility (GEF) (Barnard, Caravani,
Nakhooda, & Schalatek, 2015), much less has been disbursed for
LCDP initiatives (AfDB, 2015). Therefore, identifying explanations
for this gap can direct policy and institutions toward more effective
use of scarce mitigation resources. Very little research has focused
on identifying barriers affecting low-carbon development, includ-
ing infrastructure projects (Granoff, Hogarth, & Miller, 2016). In
this paper, we use semi-structured interviews to investigate poten-
tial causes of this gap between the use and availability of funding
for mitigation projects in Africa. We identify key hindrances to suc-
cessful implementation of mitigation projects and propose poten-
tial pathways for reducing barriers.
The results of stakeholder interviews reveal a broad lack of
institutional capacity that limits mitigation project implementa-
tion in many African countries. To quantitatively confirm the his-
torical importance of institutional capacity in obtaining
mitigation funding, we use data from the Global Environment

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.07.033
0305-750X/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
124 A.A. Adenle et al. / World Development 100 (2017) 123–132
Facility (GEF) and the World Bank to explore the relationship
between institutional capacity and GEF funding in African coun-
tries. This analysis corroborates our findings from the semi-
structured interviews that improved institutional capacity is asso-
ciated with a higher number of GEF projects.
We argue that a capacity shortage could prevent African coun-
tries from fully accessing and utilizing available funds, making
mitigation ultimately more expensive for the global community.
Based on interview responses, we describe the essential compo-
nents of a climate change mitigation institution (CCMI) that
could begin to bridge developed world climate financing with
African countries that have a supply of relatively cost-effective
mitigation projects. An effective institution requires four key
areas of focus: 1) capacity building, 2) research and development,
3) partnership development, and 4) disbursement of financial
resources.
2. Background
In order to achieve international climate change mitigation
goals, there is a need to develop Nationally Appropriate Mitigation
Actions (NAMAs) across Africa (Linnér & Pahuja, 2012). In the con-
text of developing countries, including Africa, climate mitigation
does not necessarily mean a reduction in emissions compared to
current levels. Instead, mitigation in the African context requires
placing countries on a development pathway that weakens the
connection between income generation and carbon emissions
experienced with economic development in the past. Therefore,
mitigation implies lower emissions compared to a business-as-
usual baseline and not necessarily a decrease compared to current
emission levels.
NAMAs must balance the need for shared mitigation responsi-
bility with distributional concerns around the costs of mitigation
action. Defining NAMA, as part of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), requires recognition of
the need for GHG emission reductions in developing countries.
NAMAs could include entirely voluntary initiatives by developing
countries, suggesting that funding commitments from developed
countries could play a role in financing emission reductions. In
many cases, the concept of NAMAs remains unclear, leaving room
for better definition of the role developing countries should play in
global climate change mitigation (Tyler et al., 2013). In South
Africa, there is evidence that NAMAs can be identified successfully,
but are not always effectively carried out (Tyler, Boyd, Coetzee, &
Winkler, 2014). Nevertheless, according to (Chandler et al., 2002),
South Africa has successfully reduced emissions from a no-
mitigation baseline, though challenges in estimating a counterfac-
tual make assessment difficult.
In many cases, African countries have prioritized adaptation
over mitigation activities (Adenle et al., 2017; Carvani, Watson, &
Liane, 2016). While this improves the resilience of developing
economies in the face of increasing weather and climate uncer-
tainty, mitigation activities can often complement adaptation
(Duguma, Minang, & Van Noordwijk, 2014) (Mbow, Smith, Skole,
Duguma, & Bustamante, 2014). Furthermore, many African coun-
tries have made commitments to reduce emissions under the Paris
Agreement, creating demand for institutions that can raise funds
and implement climate mitigation projects across the continent.
Information on factors leading to successful mitigation project
implementation in the past can inform successful implementation
of objectives declared as part of the Paris Agreement. There exist
some examples of institutions that distribute climate mitigation
financing in Africa. For example, the KawiSafi Ventures Fund,
jointly with Acumen, has received $25 million from the Green Cli-
mate Fund for investment in the clean energy sector in East Africa.
As African countries continue to experience growth in income,
meeting climate mitigation goals will require external financing.
For example, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA),
to meet national targets, African countries must spend $2.7 trillion
on low-carbon technologies by 2030. To cover these expenses,
many countries have begun to seek developed-world financing
(Kumar, 2016). While many African countries have dedicated
resources to this problem, meeting funding requirements from
bilateral and multilateral donors remains difficult (Gujba, Thorne,
Mulugetta, Rai, & Sokona, 2012; Ringius, 2002; Timilsina, de
Gouvello, Thioye, & Dayo, 2010). Timilsina et al. (2010) find that
limited capacity, weak institutions, and a lack of clear framework
are key barriers to better access to climate financing in Africa.
Moreover, scholars have argued that current institutions are insuf-
ficient to attract foreign investors and to allow adequate participa-
tion of key actors in low-carbon development programmes in
Africa (Ringius, 2002). Hence, strengthening institutions will play
a role in facilitating the implementation of mitigation projects in
Africa.
Several studies have indicated that investment in strong institu-
tional frameworks is required to manage mitigation programs
(Barbier, 2010; Hultman, Malone, Runci, Carlock, & Anderson,
2012; Ringel, Schlomann, Krail, & Rohde, 2016). Mitigation man-
agement often involves coordination of research and development
(R&D) as well as the adoption of new technologies and practices. In
many developed countries, including Germany, the United States,
Japan, and Sweden, climate policy has emphasized strong institu-
tional capacity (Hughes & Urpelainen, 2015; Nilsson, Nilsson,
Hildingsson, Stripple, & Eikeland, 2011). A recent study argues that
Germany’s rapid implementation of new energy efficiency policies
is largely driven by the presence of strong institutions (Ringel et al.,
2016). According to Hultman et al. (2012), a strong institutional
framework was fundamental to increasing renewable energy out-
put to more than 60% in Sweden.
In developing countries, there is evidence that strong R&D pro-
grams in countries such as South Africa, China, India, and Brazil
play a significant role in the fast increase in renewable energy as
well as adoption of sustainable agricultural practices
(Amatayakul & Berndes, 2012; Rong, 2010). In 2013 alone, China
invested $53 billion on renewable energy projects (Perkowski,
2014), suggesting that public support can play a key role in the
adoption of low-carbon technologies. Furthermore, Rong (2010)
and (Dechezleprêtre, Glachant, & Ménière, 2009) argue that suc-
cessful implementation of the Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) (established under the Kyoto Protocol, 1997) in Brazil,
China, India, Mexico, and South Africa was aided by relatively good
institutional frameworks and infrastructure, both of which are key
criteria to attract CDM projects. While there were some successes,
the majority of developing countries, including countries in Africa,
failed to attract or implement CDM projects, partly due to weak
institutional capacity and a lack of legal frameworks (UNEP, 2010).
The Paris Agreement of the Conference of Parties’ Twenty First
session (UNFCCC, 2015) reflects new mechanisms that go beyond
project-based institutions such as the CDM. Unlike the Kyoto Pro-
tocol, the Paris Agreement requires a commitment to emission
reductions in both developed and developing countries, where
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) form the basis for
implementing mitigation action. NDCs have great potential to
lower GHGs and establish LCDPs in Africa moving forward. In this
study, we focus on barriers and successes related to previously
implemented mitigation programs, with a focus on the GEF.
While many countries have set goals under the agreement in
Paris, previous experience suggests that the majority of African
countries will lag behind in implementing measures to achieve
desired emission goals. Therefore, it is imperative to identify
underlying factors or barriers responsible for the failure of such
 A.A. Adenle et al. / World Development 100 (2017) 123–132
mitigation programs in Africa in the past. Currently, there exists a
lack of information on the key factors that have prevented coun-
tries in Africa from fully utilizing existing climate funds, including
the CDM. Data constraints mean that there is little documentation
of successes and failures in this arena. Therefore, this paper
attempts to fill this gap by highlighting factors that impede the
financing and implementation of climate mitigation projects across
Africa. This will contribute timely and valuable information to help
solve the challenges faced by African countries seeking to achieve
LCDPs and implement NDCs.
We are not aware of any study that systematically assesses the
existing institutional capacity to implement mitigation projects in
Africa. This information provides real value in identifying factors
that can lead to successful implementation of the Paris Agreement
moving forward. Our research adds to the existing literature on the
barriers to climate change mitigation using both qualitative and
quantitative methods to explore the factors limiting access to
existing mitigation funds in Africa. Both approaches confirm an
institutional gap in Africa, requiring investment in institutional
capacity to ensure that all countries participate in cost effective cli-
mate change mitigation.
3. Methods
We investigate the factors that have prevented successful miti-
gation projects by conducting interviews and analyzing qualitative
responses. To confirm conclusions from the qualitative analysis, we
use data from the World Bank Country Policy and Institutional
Assessment (CPIA) database and the Global Environment Facility
(GEF) to measure the importance of institutional capacity in pre-
dicting the use of existing mitigation financing opportunities.
(a). Interview data analysis
In order to identify key factors that have prevented the financ-
ing of more mitigation projects across Africa, we conducted semi-
structured interviews with 65 stakeholders that worked in the area
of African climate change issues during 2013–15. Respondents
included representatives from local, national, regional, and inter-
national organizations.
The semi-structured interview approach allows us to assess the
perspectives, concerns, and personal experiences of the partici-
pants (Patton, 1990). Top government officials, donors, non-
governmental organizations, UN organizations, and academics
were interviewed (see the supplemental information for more
detailed characteristics of the participants). Skype interviews
(n = 25) and face-to-face interviews (n = 40) were used to elicit
the views of the participants. Face-to-face interviews took place
during the 3rd and 4th annual conferences on climate change
and development in Africa (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 21–23 October
2013; Marrakesh, Morocco 8–10 October 2014) and the ‘‘Beyond
Rio+20: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities” conference (18–
22 November 2013, Accra, Ghana). Conferences were targeted as
they bring together policymakers and representatives from the
research community. Other participants were identified because
of their expertise in climate change across different African coun-
tries as described in earlier work (Adenle et al., 2017). Experts from
advanced countries were chosen based on several years of research
experience on climate change in Africa. For example, Professor X
(Ohio State University) had been conducting research for over
30 years on issues related to climate change mitigation and carbon
management in African countries. Experts working for bi-and mul-
tilateral institutions had between 5 and 20 years of experience in
coordination of climate change projects (including capacity build-
ing) across many countries in Africa.
125
While not a randomized sample of climate change stakeholders,
the interview participant expertise covered a wide range of disci-
plines and countries. Therefore, we cautiously apply the lessons
learned from the interviews to African countries more generally.
When interpreting results, it is important to consider that intervie-
wee experience and perceptions may be disproportionately influ-
enced by work in a subset of African countries.
Our interview questions focused on barriers to implementing
mitigation strategies that would transition African economies to
low-carbon development pathways. The participants were asked
similar questions, with follow-up tailored to the expertise of each
respondent. The following four questions were asked: 1) why
should mitigation activities be prioritized?, 2) what are the key
barriers to transitioning to a low-carbon economy?, 3) how do
these barriers affect the implementation of mitigation projects?,
and 4) what are the possible ways to address these barriers?
The lead author conducted the interviews, which lasted 45–
90 min each, in English. Interviews were audio-recorded and notes
were taken simultaneously. The audio recording was later
transcribed.
The questions analyzed for this study involved the key fac-
tors that have limited mitigation project success thus far. To
systematically analyze responses to these questions, we identi-
fied and quantified categories of barriers that emerged during
the interviews. It is important to quantify qualitative data in
order to provide better insight into the questions asked
and to draw conclusions from open ended responses (Green,
2001).
Using HyperRESEARCH software for coding (Hesse-Biber, Paul,
& Scott, 2000), we looked for emerging patterns in terms of similar-
ity and distinctions among respondents, especially as they relate to
barriers to the implementation of mitigation projects. This was fol-
lowed by reading and re-reading transcripts that run over 19,000
words (see supplemental information for full interview tran-
scripts). At this point, open code was used to identify general pat-
terns that led to the ideas that emerged from the interviews (Braun
& Clarke, 2006). In this process, the co-authors subjectively labeled
and highlighted notable content in the interview transcripts. This
open coding allowed us to compare and refine the data systemat-
ically and focus on relevant points. One disadvantage of open cod-
ing is its demanding and laborious time requirements. It can be
difficult to decide when to stop line-by-line coding, and omissions
of relevant information can occur. After the open code analysis was
complete, closed code, which assigned responses into a finite num-
ber of categories, was used to identify overarching themes preva-
lent in the open coding, leading to the following six response
categories for barriers to climate change mitigation in Africa indi-
cated by interviewed participants:
1) Limited Institutional Capacity
2) Lack of finance
3) Technology Limitations
4) Lack of Awareness
5) Weak Physical Infrastructure
6) Unfavorable Politics
In the categorization process, we focused on negative cases
where each category was cited as a hindrance to project imple-
mentation using HyperRESEARCH coding.
In order to generate a frequency count for the six categories, we
counted the number of negative responses that applied to each cat-
egory through the coding system described above. At least one
code (based on identified theme) was assigned to each respondent.
If more than one code applied to a given response, all relevant
codes were assigned to the respondent, for a total of 551 barriers
mentioned.
126 A.A. Adenle et al. / World Development 100 (2017) 123–132
For example, limited institutional capacity was defined as a
theme emerging from HyperRESEARCH coding that included defi-
ciencies in the sub-categories of regulation, legal frameworks, edu-
cation, experience, technical competence (e.g., skills, expertise),
and creativity. These concepts (negatively framed) were grouped
into a single category labeled Limited Institutional Capacity. With
this approach, we were able to count the number of times each
of the sub-categories of barriers (concepts) was mentioned. The
concept was identified in a response based on how a respondent
described the cases in which a project’s implementation was neg-
atively affected.
While some interviewees raised issues regarding adaptation
strategy programmes, we limit our focus to mitigation actions in
Africa as some part has been addressed in a different study
(Adenle et al., 2017).
And we leave further analysis of adaptation program barriers
for future work.
4. Results of interview analysis
(a). Stakeholder perception of mitigation projects
Among interviewees, there is broad consensus that across
Africa, sustainable agricultural practices and renewable energy
sources provide substantial opportunities for climate change miti-
gation and LCDPs. At the same time, only a limited number of
countries take full advantage of mitigation opportunities as men-
tioned among UN mitigation experts and this is largely due to lim-
ited institutional and human capacity.
The respondents perceived institutional capacity as the most
important barrier to the implementation of mitigation actions in
Africa. Figure 1 demonstrates the percentage of barriers mentioned
by respondents that fall into each of the 6 categories defined above.
The 65 respondents mentioned 551 total barriers, for an average of
8.5 barriers mentioned per person. The most notable observation
in Figure 1 is the large number of mentioned barriers to climate
change mitigation that relate to a lack of institutional capacity.
Almost half of barriers mentioned fall into this category, suggesting
Figure 1. Percentage of identified barrier category (negative responses) to imple-
mentation of mitigation actions in Africa (N = 551).
that it is the single most important barrier to mitigation project
implementation in Africa.
In follow-up questions, key elements to building stronger insti-
tutional capacity include demand-driven strategic training and
long-term capacity development programs aimed at specific types
of mitigation projects. Ideally, these projects must align with avail-
able resources (including human capacity and infrastructure) and
government development priorities, consistent with NAMA. For
example, as mentioned by a respondent, an individual country
can only implement mitigation projects if capacity exists to do
so. Given that many mitigation tools are new and there is often lit-
tle experience with market-based frameworks, many opportunities
have been missed. Respondents also felt that mitigation projects
should be based on a country’s demand and consider existing capa-
bilities. In practice, many African countries have specific capacity
barriers that hinder them from implementing mitigation actions.
These must be addressed when designing and implementing miti-
gation projects.
In addition to a lack of capacity, most respondents felt that lack
of technical support, lack of fiscal instruments, limited access to
markets and credit, and limited expertise also constrain higher
rates of participation in mitigation programs. In many cases, miti-
gation project goals are not clearly defined and there do not exist
structures for program implementation.
Poor implementation of fiscal instruments, including carbon
taxes and incentives to promote low-carbon development, were
cited as barriers in countries such as South Africa and Morocco.
For example, in South Africa, private sector participation in solar
energy is limited because a government-owned coal company lar-
gely controls the production of electricity. Morocco faces similar
problems because the government is yet to devise a robust fiscal
strategy that would help facilitate adoption of renewable energy
in low income households. One respondent argues that, without
targeted support, many poor households are unlikely to adopt
new technologies. Similarly, an agroforestry expert explained that
a lack of local expertise and management has limited the scalabil-
ity of an agroforestry project.
Moreover, one UN mitigation expert argues that REDD+ could
experience similar problems to the CDM financial mechanism
because of weak institutional capacity in many African countries.
The respondent stated, ‘‘CDM, a Kyoto Protocol-based mechanism,
was supposed to bring in lots of money [for] mitigation. . . but we
have not been able to develop enough capacity due to very little
interest and other factors which make it difficult to achieve. . .
success”.
In addition to capacity concerns, financial, technological, and
infrastructure barriers (see Figure 1) were seen as the biggest chal-
lenges to mitigation in Africa. In many cases, these challenges were
linked to the institutional capacity problem. For example, one UN
expert pointed out that many African countries with lower institu-
tional capacity can barely access mitigation finance due to lack of
technical expertise and limited facilities. He argued further that
these countries often struggle to meet the procedures and stan-
dards for project approval in a wide range of project areas (e.g.,
transport projects). Moreover, failure to establish and maintain
efficient institutions for technology transfer discourages collabora-
tion, particularly among private sector technology owners and
investors. Overall, most respondents agree that the establishment
of funds for various mitigation activities has been very limited
and directed toward a small number of countries in Africa.
Finally, Figure 1 demonstrates that unfavorable politics and a
lack of awareness represent important barriers in Africa. For exam-
ple, as noted by a respondent, lack of awareness of the benefits of
biogas limited adoption in Rwanda. One further concern raised by
another respondent is the limited R&D on renewable energy tech-
nologies, especially when national governments benefit from fossil
 A.A. Adenle et al. / World Development 100 (2017) 123–132
fuel rents. This suggests a lack of political will to move away from
dependency on fossil fuel by resource-dependent governments.
One respondent indicated that a lack of awareness among the pub-
lic and policymakers regarding the importance of pursuing a low-
carbon economy remains a serious challenge, and thus makes it
difficult to advocate for mitigation action at the national level.
Moreover, some respondents suggested politics at the interna-
tional level as the main reason why adaptation gains more priority
over mitigation in Africa, without proper assessment of how the
former may affect the latter. In this regard, one respondent
explained that priority should be given to mitigation as part of a
drive to encourage economic development in Africa.
Finally, many respondents advocated for viewing adaptation
and mitigation as joint activities. One respondent stated that ‘‘the
number one adaptation strategy should be mitigation.” According
to this viewpoint, adaptation and mitigation could be promoted
as synergistic activities (Mbow et al., 2014), possibly relieving
some of the political opposition to mitigation.
5. Secondary data analysis
The analysis of interviews with experts performed here sug-
gests that institutional capacity has the most prevalent role in hin-
dering the implementation of climate mitigation projects in Africa.
In order to test if these qualitative observations can be observed in
data on the current use of available mitigation funds, we examine
the relationship between a country’s institutional strength and the
number of mitigation projects in a country using data from the
World Bank and the GEF. Based on interview responses, we expect
to see a positive correlation between institutional capacity mea-
sures and the number of GEF projects implemented.
(a). Secondary analysis methods
To obtain a count of mitigation projects in each African country,
we reviewed 298 mitigation projects financed by the GEF during
1992–2014 in 51 African countries. We choose to use GEF data
on projects because of its dominant role in mitigation financing
over the past decade. While other institutions, such as the Green
Climate Fund may play larger roles in the future, GEF has funded
more projects than any other institution, according to Barnard
et al. (2015), with investments worth over $2 billion since 2003.
The mitigation activities in the GEF data are either country- or
region-specific projects. Country-specific projects were only imple-
mented within the individual country, while region-specific pro-
jects span more than one country (for example, a solar energy
project in Kenya and Uganda was classified as a regional project
in East Africa). Using the grounded theory approach (Glaser,
1994), mitigation activities were classified into 12 categories,
including agriculture, bioenergy, capacity building, geothermal,
hydro-electric, solar, and other energy-related projects. According
to (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), grounded theory is a methodological
technique that can be used to build theory in an inductive process
so as to conceptualize, identify, define, and develop categories
based on their dimension and properties in the data. This approach
also allows us to examine the relationship and patterns across the
categories identified within the data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Moreover, (Charmaz, 2006) describes grounded theory as the stan-
dard ‘‘way of sifting, sorting, and synthesizing data” (p. 71).
Through the approach, we were able to identify and measure the
patterns and frequency of projects occurring in different countries
across Africa based on the 12 categories described presented in
Figure 2. For each country, we record the number of projects
implemented in each year during 1992–2014, counting regional
127
projects as implemented in all countries where the project took
place.
Figure 2 demonstrates that the GEF projects are spread across
51 countries but that there is significant variation in the number
of projects per country. Countries such as South Africa, Kenya,
and Egypt have greater than 10 projects while several countries
have just 1 GEF project. The majority of projects are energy-
related but there are also many that involve capacity building
programs.
The goal of the quantitative analysis is to explore if countries
with better institutional capacity have a greater number of mitiga-
tion projects. To test this, we combine the GEF data with country-
level information from the World Bank CPIA, which provides
indices of institutional capacity for most African countries. CPIA
measures range from 1 to 6, where a 6 indicates strong institutions.
A statistically significant positive relationship between institu-
tional capacity and the number of mitigation projects provides evi-
dence in favor of the hypothesis generated from our interviews
that weak institutional capacity is associated with lower participa-
tion rates in climate mitigation financing programs.
We assume that the CPIA measures provide a reasonable proxy
for the institutional capacity referred to during stakeholder inter-
views. Since the CPIA measures institutional capacity in a different
way than the definitions that emerged from stakeholder inter-
views, some caution is required when making the comparison, as
the correlation between CPIA capacity and interview capacity
may be imperfect. Nevertheless, the CPIA measures capture the
quality of institutions and policy in a given country. The strength
of regulation and legal frameworks, as referred to by the intervie-
wees, is likely accounted for in the CPIA measures. We therefore
believe that the CPIA measures relate to the institutional capacity
referred to in interviews. The institutions most relevant for climate
mitigation are included in the CPIA category of Policy and Institu-
tions for Environmental Sustainability, and so we examine correla-
tion between this measure and the number of GEF projects.
In addition to CPIA measures, we obtain population estimates
and real GDP per capita from the World Bank World Development
Indicators database. A summary of CPIA and GEF data used to mea-
sure institutional capacity can be found in Table 1. The mean num-
ber of GEF projects in country i in year t is 0.34. To measure
institutional capacity, we use country average CPIA scores as well
as the score specific to policies and institutions related to environ-
mental sustainability.
In order to measure the relationship between the number of
GEF projects in country i in year t, yit and the CPIA score in the
same country-year, CPIAit , we estimate the following model:
yit ¼ ai þ bCPIAit þ d0 xit þ
it ð1Þ
where CPIAit is either a country’s average CPIA score or the envi-
ronmental institution-specific score. xit is a vector of controls that
potentially includes country-year information on population, real
GDP per capita, and a time trend. Controlling for population is
important because some evidence exists that the successful imple-
mentation of Clean Development Mechanism projects in China was
largely due to economies of scale (Freitas, Dantas, & Iizuka, 2012).
In addition, GDP per capita controls for the possibility that higher
incomes increase demand for GEF projects and also improve insti-
tutional capacity. ai , b, and d are coefficients to be estimated and
it
is a random error term. If b is positive, this indicates that stronger
institutional capacity is associated with more GEF projects. In order
to test for the robustness of model results, we estimate this model
using both pooled OLS and a panel random effects model (Cameron
& Trivedi, 2005) that allows for country-specific intercept terms.
The OLS model assumes a constant slope ðaÞ for all countries in
the data while the random effects model allows the slope parame-
ter to be country-specific and recognizes that some countries may
128 A.A. Adenle et al. / World Development 100 (2017) 123–132
Figure 2. Number of Global Environment Facility Mitigation Projects by African Country.
Table 1
Summary statistics, variable mean, and standard deviation across county years
Variable
mean
Number of GEF Projects 0.34
(0.67)
CPIA: Policy and Institutions for Environmental 3.04
Sustainability (0.54)
CPIA: Mean 3.15
(0.5)
Population 2,00,00,000
(2,79,00,000)
Real GDP per Capita (2010 USD) 2322
(3706)
Variable standard deviation presented in parenthesis.
have a higher number of projects than others for reasons unrelated
to the independent variables of the model. If, after allowing for
country-specific intercepts and country-level controls, variation
in CPIAit is exogenous, then b provides an estimate of the change
in the number of GEF projects as a country’s CPIA score increases.
If we have omitted variables correlated with both the CPIA scores
and the number of GEF projects, then our coefficients do not cap-
ture causal impacts of changing capacity. To examine model
robustness, we estimate Eq. (1) with and without the controls, xit .
(b). Results of secondary analysis
Table 2 presents a measure of the relationship between the
number of GEF projects and the quality of existing public institu-
tions. It presents these results using country average CPIA scores
and using just the component of the CPIA score that is driven by
a country’s institutions for environmental sustainability. Impor-
tantly, higher measures of institutional capacity consistently corre-
spond with a higher number of GEF projects ðb > 0Þ and this
relationship is statistically significant in all regressions. For exam-
ple, a 1-unit improvement in the mean CPIA rating corresponds to
a 0.22 increase in the number of projects implemented in a
country-year (column 4). Similarly, a 1-unit increase in the quality
of policy and institutions for environmental sustainability relates
to an increase of 0.194 mitigation projects in the country (column
8). To place the results in context, the average scores for the CPIA
mean and environmental institutions are 3.15 and 3.04 respec-
tively. If a country with a mean CPIA score of 1.4 (the minimum
in the data) improved to 4.16 (the maximum in the data), the
expected number of GEF projects observed in the data would
increase by around 0.60 projects per year. Over a 10-year period,
this translates into 6 additional GEF projects. Similarly, increasing
from the lowest to highest observed environmental sustainability
score increases the expected number of projects by 0.39 per year
or almost 4 projects over a 10-year horizon. These results suggest
a correlation between institutional capacity and the number of GEF
projects and provide suggestive evidence that building capacity is
necessary for widespread implementation of mitigation projects.
These econometric results confirm the qualitative insight that
higher quality institutions lead to more mitigation projects. Con-
versely, lower institutional capacity is associated with fewer miti-
gation projects. Taken together with our qualitative analysis, the
World Bank and GEF data support the conclusion that improving
institutional capacity could lead to better participation in mitiga-
tion programs in Africa.
6. Discussion
According to the stakeholders interviewed for this study, a lack
of institutional capacity was the biggest barrier to climate mitiga-
tion project implementation in Africa. This finding is supported by
secondary data on institutional capacity and the number of suc-
cessfully implemented GEF projects at the country-year level.
The quality of public institutions is associated with a statistically
significantly higher number of mitigation projects. Follow-up dis-
cussion indicated that common causes of institutional weakness
include weak regulation, limited expertise, a lack of transparency,
and poor public management. Timilsina et al. (2010) report a sim-
 A.A. Adenle et al. / World Development 100 (2017) 123–132 129

Table 2
CPIA indicator and the number of GEF mitigation projects

CPIA: Country Average CPIA: Policy and Institutions for Environmental Sustainability
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Variables OLS OLS Country Random Country Random OLS OLS Country Random Country Random
Effects Effects Effects Effects
CPIA Score 0.250*** 0.220*** 0.250*** 0.220*** 0.219*** 0.186*** 0.218*** 0.186***
(0.0604) (0.0616) (0.0618) (0.0616) (0.0564) (0.0575) (0.0593) (0.0576)
Population 3.14e09*** 3.14e09*** 3.26e09*** 3.26e09***
(1.07e09) (1.07e09) (1.07e09) (1.07e09)
Real GDP Per Capita (2010 2.99e05 2.99e05 2.22e05 2.22e05
Dollars)
(3.88e05) (3.88e05) (3.89e05) (3.90e05)
Year 0.0196* 0.0196* 0.0171 0.0171
(0.0106) (0.0106) (0.0107) (0.0107)
Constant 0.478** 39.70* 0.478** 39.70* 0.357** 34.65 0.354* 34.65
(0.193) (21.34) (0.197) (21.34) (0.174) (21.49) (0.183) (21.49)

Observations 388 385 388 385 388 385 388 385

R-squared 0.043 0.086 0.038 0.083
Number of Countries 40 40 40 40

Standard errors in parentheses.

***
p < 0.01.
**
p < 0.05.
*
p < 0.1.

ilar result when examining challenges associated with the imple-
mentation of CDM projects in African countries. Given an inability
to implement CDM projects during the Kyoto era, the lack of insti-
tutional capacity at various levels of government in Africa could
prevent access to existing mitigation funds for financing LCDPs
as laid out in the Paris Agreement.
Consistent with our results, the ability to build human capacity
and establish effective institutions remain crucial in the successful
implementation and evaluation of CDM projects in developing
countries. There are important criteria, including the adequate for-
mulation of policies, availability of human resources, a strong legal
framework, adequate institutional resources, and facilities
required to participate in CDM investment around the world
(UNEP., 2002; Winkler, Davidson, & Mwakasonda, 2005). Here,
these criteria form essential components of strong institutional
capacity to attract potential CDM projects. For example, Brazil
and Mexico, the countries with the most CDM projects in Latin
America, created institutions that helped register CDM projects
(Watts, Albornoz, & Watson, 2015). Similarly, China and India cre-
ated an enabling environment to attract CDM projects (Gaast, Begg,
& Flamos, 2007). (Ganapati & Liu, 2009) suggest that China and
India’s ability to set up Designated National Authorities (DNAs)
on renewable programs facilitated the approval and implementa-
tion of CDM projects. According to (Zhang, 2006), the presence of
DNAs and favorable government policies strengthens the standard-
isation and regulation of CDM markets and encourages the country
to adopt renewable energy technologies. Countries that have suc-
cessfully implemented CDM projects have strong institutions when
compared to many African countries. This provides an environ-
ment that attracts finance, encourages participation of the private
sector, and facilitates transfer of appropriate technologies.
While lessons drawn from other regions should be interpreted
with caution when applied to Africa, the experiences in China
may provide insight into the type of institutional capacity that
would facilitate climate mitigation. For example, effective imple-
mentation of mitigation projects in China is largely due to the pres-
ence of climate-relevant capacities and the effectiveness of its
governance system (Richerzhagen & Scholz, 2008). While Freitas
et al. (2012) point out the importance of scale in implementing
CDM projects in China, they also state that success would not have
been possible without the presence of existing technological and
institutional capacity, particularly at the national level.
As CDM-type programs are designed, adequate attention must
be paid to the national capacity for implementing such programs
(Subbarao & Lloyd, 2011; Timilsina et al., 2010). There is currently
no mechanism for assessing specific institutional capacity in Afri-
can countries both before and during the implementation of miti-
gation projects. This has led to the failure of CDM projects in
practice and suggests challenges for achieving mitigation targets
for African countries under the Paris Agreement.
The impact of weak institutions is likely to be exacerbated by
other barriers to project implementation identified here, including
poor infrastructure and a lack of technology. A study by Clough
(2012) argues that poor road infrastructure continues to limit the
distribution of improved cooking stove technologies (designed
for emission reduction) because most villages are located in
remote rural areas and are cut off from many markets.
In addition, a number of studies have found that climate-
friendly technology is often lacking or subject to low adoption
rates, frequently because of low public expenditure on R&D
(Adenle, Azadi, & Arbiol, 2015) and a lack of well-trained personnel
for the maintenance of advanced technologies (Karakosta &
Psarras, 2013). Moreover, there is a barrier to investing in new
technologies because of a lack of access to financing from multilat-
eral donors and local banks. This is often due to limited awareness
at many levels of government (Karakosta & Psarras, 2013; Suzuki,
2015).
Climate mitigation in Africa also has many co-benefits that can
be realized by improving access to financing. For example, invest-
ment in low-carbon energy technology has the potential to
improve local air quality and health (Balbus, Greenblatt, Chari,
Millstein, & Ebi, 2014; Nemet, Holloway, & Paul Meier, 2010;
Smith & Haigler, 2008). Better public transportation infrastructure
can reduce GHG emissions while also reducing congestion and
improving the quality of life for increasingly urban societies.
Finally, investment in LCDPs improves livelihoods while also build-
ing green economies that allow development to occur with mini-
mal impact on environmental quality.
7. Recommendations
Our quantitative analysis suggests that institutional capacity is
associated with more mitigation projects on average but improving
130 A.A. Adenle et al. / World Development 100 (2017) 123–132
capacity alone is not likely to drastically increase African countries’
participation in climate mitigation. Therefore, based on the key
barriers to climate change mitigation identified by the interviewed
stakeholders, we propose a regional institution that can begin to
better match climate mitigation projects with available financing.
This institution could be coordinated at the regional level and must
address capacity building, research and development, strategic
partnership development, and financing. It could help national
governments and the private sector to access existing mitigation
funds. We describe these four elements below, including the
insights provided by the experts interviewed for this analysis.
Improvements in these four areas can lead to better integration
of African countries into global climate mitigation efforts.
Four Components of Effective Institution for Facilitating Climate
Change Mitigation
(a). Institutional capacity building
Most importantly, an effective climate change mitigation insti-
tution (CCMI) in Africa must provide the necessary capacity to
allow individual governments to build local institutions that facil-
itate the implementation of mitigation projects as outlined under
NAMA. It is apparent from the experts interviewed that a lack of
coherent nationally appropriate mitigation policies, including local
capacity building is one of the major obstacles to project imple-
mentation. Moreover, both the UN and academic stakeholders
interviewed argue that capacity building programs coordinated
by existing bilateral or multilateral donors represent short-term
training which often does not reflect realities on the ground. They
conclude that ‘‘one-off capacity building workshop[s]” are not suf-
ficient to bring African countries into future climate change mitiga-
tion, including under the Paris Agreement. Building institutional
capacity should not be driven by either bilateral or multilateral
donors, but rather national and regional institutions and can be
complimented and reinforced by the donors’ partnership. With
the assistance of a CCMI, local expertise and experience can be
identified by building local capacity to conduct assessments and
implement mitigation projects. Importantly, national governments
can work with the CCMI to develop local institutions and the
capacity to coordinate and implement mitigation projects within
the country. Therefore, an effective CCMI must support building
strong mitigation-relevant capacity and the development of NAMA
policy that supports the country-level goals agreed upon as part of
the Paris Agreement. This involves outreach to many different
stakeholders, ranging from local communities (Peredo &
Chrisman, 2006) to federal governments.
Next, the CCMI could provide assistance in enabling existing
institutions to address climate mitigation. As one respondent
pointed out, climate change mitigation requires working with agri-
culture, industry, transport, energy, and planning. All of the areas
have current institutions that could be supported by a CCMI.
In addition to supporting policy and institutional development,
the CCMI could provide support as countries build their own
capacity. There is clearly a need to fill the gap, particularly where
the UNFCCC and other UN agencies struggle to implement mitiga-
tion actions (O’Brien, O’Keefe, Rose, & Wisner, 2006) and provide
trainings over a sufficient period of time to truly build capacity.
A logical starting point would be for the CCMI to assist with
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of mitigation projects. This sup-
port would instill trust that mitigation financing achieves its
intended goals. It would also expose local agents to the require-
ments associated with successful project implementation. The
credibility of NAMA as part of a national mitigation strategy will
depend on the robustness of institutional capacity-building pro-
grams, which can be strengthened by the presence of a CCMI. With
political buy-in at the national and regional levels, and strong lead-
ership at the international level, a CCMI can overcome challenges
that are currently associated with mitigation capacity building in
African countries.
(b). Research and development (R&D)
The CCMI should also encourage local researchers from African
universities and research institutes to engage in R&D that develops
mitigation technologies appropriate for the African context. This
could be achieved by encouraging subsidies for the development
of low-emission technologies, leading to lower costs over time
(Tawney, Almendra, Torres, & Weischer, 2011). Helping to build
local expertise supports the mission of building capacity and can
facilitate the adoption of mitigation practices. Public support plays
an important role in empowering local researchers (Suzuki, 2015).
To encourage R&D, the CCMI could also work with national govern-
ments to design a legal framework that protects intellectual prop-
erty while encouraging competition and technology innovation
and transfer. Finally, mitigation funds could be used to research,
implement, and finance policies (e.g., renewable energy feed-in-
tariffs) that facilitate the adoption of new technologies.
(c). Strategic partnership development
Next, the CCMI should focus on building regional partnerships.
While the CCMI could officially be part of an existing organization
(e.g., the African Development Bank), it should coordinate with
many African development institutions, including universities,
the African Union-New Partnership for African Development (AU-
NEPAD) and UN agencies such as UNFCCC and UNEP. Current part-
nerships at the regional level are fragmented among these institu-
tions, with many overlapping projects aimed to promote
sustainable development and minimize climate change impacts.
In fact, many African universities currently have little or no
engagement with existing regional development institutions
(Cloete, Bailey, Pillay, Bunting, & Maassen, 2011). Thus, there is a
need to form strong partnerships to streamline finance and
improve collaboration within the continent and beyond. Moreover,
strategic partnerships can also involve research collaborations
with developed country researchers that will help build sustain-
able research capabilities, especially in planning and assessing mit-
igation priorities, market-based mechanism, and technology and
knowledge transfer.
(d). Coordination of financing
Finally, ministries of finance could coordinate international
financing with the CCMI and leverage domestic financing sources
across various sectors and other ministries. The CCMI should also
aid national governments and private sector actors in accessing
existing financing that could facilitate and promote LCDPs. For
example, if emission free electricity is a national priority for cli-
mate change mitigation, the CCMI could work with the country
to identify funders interested in the clean energy sector. It could
also provide assurance to the funders that alternative energy pro-
jects are successfully implemented and administered by working
with national governments to ensure proper oversight. This pro-
vides one example but the exact components of an LCDP depend
on the circumstances and demands of each country.
The CCMI could also assist with creation of an organization that
can collect and distribute climate mitigation funds. This goal com-
plements the strengthening of institutions. For example,
FONERWA, in Rwanda, makes funds from multiple donor countries
available for local projects that have a positive environmental
impact. While not solely focused on climate change mitigation,
the institutional structure of FONERWA, which is part of the Min-
 A.A. Adenle et al. / World Development 100 (2017) 123–132
istry of Natural Resources, could provide a model for future
mitigation-oriented institutions. An institution such as FONERWA
may also provide an opportunity to disburse Green Climate Fund
money in the future. Another lesson provided by FONERWA is that
setting up the institutions could require outside assistance (for
example the British aid organization, Department for International
Development (DFID), provided assistance in evaluating potential
projects), which could be provided by a CCMI.
Moreover, a CCMI can enhance the effectiveness and disburse-
ment of the existing African Climate Change Fund (ACCF), adminis-
tered by the African Development Bank. A CCMI will have a
complementary role in harmonizing efforts across different finance
ministries.
In summary, a CCMI would facilitate the matching of demand
for and supply of climate change mitigation by creating an institu-
tion to which governments, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), and the private sector (e.g., farmers and energy providers)
can turn for expertise on accessing available mitigation funds. The
CCMI would have the capacity to assess the effectiveness of poten-
tial projects in the region, assist in proposal writing, training, and
knowledge sharing, coordinate market-based financing mecha-
nisms, create platforms between public and private partnerships,
and provide appropriate monitoring and evaluation to ensure
transparent use of funds and project additionality. By integrating
regional-specific knowledge with the capacity needed to access
global climate financing, a CCMI has the potential to greatly reduce
the transaction costs currently associated with mitigation invest-
ments in Africa and make mitigation financing accessible for more
countries. Importantly, a CCMI, can assess existing capacity gaps
and identify other barriers to mitigation projects (e.g., political
challenges).
Facilitating low-carbon development through a CCMI can allow
African countries to grow while minimizing the environmental
footprint of economic development. A CCMI can ensure that all
countries in Africa have the opportunity to finance and build
low-emission economies. Regional coordination can ensure that
all African countries have access to the expertise provided by a
CCMI.
8. Conclusion
There exist many opportunities to invest in climate change mit-
igation in Africa. Existing projects include investments in energy
and waste management as well as agriculture. For example, agri-
cultural producers in Mali have explored the use of Jatropha oil
as a fuel input. Also, many renewable energy projects exist, from
mini-hydro projects in Liberia to large-scale solar in Morocco.
Finally, there exists widespread interest in rural electrification
with the use of renewable energy in areas where conventional fos-
sil fuel-powered central grids have not had success. Therefore, with
adequate access to financing, many African countries can partici-
pate in global climate change mitigation.
Our analysis reveals substantial gaps in institutional capacity
and that existing GEF-funded projects are concentrated dispropor-
tionately in countries with relatively well-established institutions
and good existing policy infrastructure. Developing capacity across
the continent through CCMI can reveal existing mitigation oppor-
tunities and increase the effectiveness of climate mitigation in
Africa. This is especially important as African countries begin to
create national strategies to achieve NDCs under the Paris Agree-
ment. Our analysis suggests that developing countries may strug-
gle to fulfill pledges due to limited financing and institutional
capacity. Evidence from the Kyoto Protocol suggests that a lack
of US participation in global climate agreements could further
131
reduce developing country participation in mitigation activities
(Greiner & Michaelowa, 2003).
Overall, we present evidence that accessing available climate
mitigation funds requires highly developed institutional knowl-
edge and capacity. The lack of a coherent application process
means that existing mitigation funds do not always find viable,
cost effective mitigation projects. We therefore propose the cre-
ation of a Climate Change Mitigation Institution (CCMI) in Africa
that specializes in building local capacity to leverage external
capacity. The CCMI can cost-effectively coordinate existing mitiga-
tion funds and facilitate developed world financing of LCDPs across
Africa. While we have described a regional institution that fills
many of the gaps identified by interviewees in this study, other
institutional structures could also effectively facilitate mitigation
project financing. Despite this, our study reveals the key features
of an institution that can lower existing barriers to mitigation pro-
ject financing.
In order for all African countries to participate fully in global cli-
mate change mitigation efforts, barriers to accessing mitigation
financing must be lowered. The analysis presented here suggests
that a lack of institutional capacity is the most important barrier
to project financing and implementation. Therefore, we outline
the elements of an African institution that could begin to build
institutional capacity within countries and facilitate access to
existing mitigation funds. Only by incorporating all African coun-
tries into global climate change mitigation efforts can we achieve
truly cost-effective mitigation that meets climate goals while facil-
itating the implementation of LCDPs across the continent.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank all participants for their contributions
to this study. We are grateful to Ashna Mukhi and Rahina S. Alare
for helping with the coding and transcribing the interviews. Special
thanks to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive
comments. The lead author is grateful for the support received
from the United Nations University during the project.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.
07.033.
References
Adenle, A. A., Azadi, H., & Arbiol, J. (2015). Global assessment of technological
innovation for climate change adaptation and mitigation in developing world.
Journal of Environmental Management, 161, 261–275.
Adenle, A. A., Ford, J. D., Morton, J., Twomlow, S., Alverson, K., Cattaneo, A., ...
Ebinger, J. O. (2017). Managing Climate Change Risks in Africa - A Global
Perspective. Ecological Economics, 141, 190–201.
Africa Development Bank (AfDB). 2015. Africa Climate Change Fund. Annual Report
https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Generic-Documents/
ACCF_ANNUAL_REPORT_2015.pdf. (Accessed July 15, 2017).
Amatayakul, W., & Berndes, G. (2012). Determining factor for the development of
CDM biomass power projects. Energy for Sustainable Development, 16, 197–203.
Balbus, J. M., Greenblatt, J. B., Chari, R., Millstein, D., & Ebi, K. L. (2014). A wedge-
based approach to estimating health co-benefits of climate change mitigation
activities in the United States. Climatic Change, 127(2), 199–210.
Barbier, E. (2010). How is the Global Green New Deal going? Nature, 464, 832–833.
Barnard, S., Caravani, A., Nakhooda, S., & Schalatek, L. (2015). Climate Finance
Thematic Briefing: Mitigation Finance. Climate Funds Update.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications.
Cambridge University Press.
Carvani, A., Watson, C., & Liane, S. (2016). Climate Finance Thematic Briefing:
Adaptation Finance. Climate Finance Fundamentals.
Chandler, W., Schaeffer, R., Dadi, Z., Shukla, P. R., Tudela, F., Davidson, O., & Alpan-
Atamer, S. (2002). Climate Change Mitigation in Developing Countries: Brazil,
132 A.A. Adenle et al. / World Development 100 (2017) 123–132
China, India, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey. Washington, DC: Pew Center on
Global Climate Change.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through
qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.
Cloete, N., Bailey, T., Pillay, P., Bunting, I., & Maassen, P. (2011). Universities and
Economic Development in Africa. Cape Town: Centre for Higher Education
Transformation.
Clough, L. (2012). The improved cookstove sector in East Africa: Experience from
the Developing Energy Enterprise Programme (DEEP). Accessed 28 August,
2016 http://www.energy4impact.org/sites/default/files/deep_cookstoves_
report_lq_for_web.pdf.
Dechezleprêtre, A., Glachant, M., & Ménière, Y. (2009). Technology transfer by CDM
projects: A comparison of Brazil, China, India and Mexico. Energy Policy, 37,
703–711.
Duguma, L. A., Minang, P. A., & Van Noordwijk, M. (2014). Climate change mitigation
and adaptation in the land use sector: From complementarity to synergy.
Environmental Management, 54(3), 420–432.
Freitas, I. M. B., Dantas, E., & Iizuka, M. (2012). The Kyoto mechanisms and the
diffusion of renewable energy technologies in the BRICS. Energy Policy, 42,
118–128.
Gaast, W., Begg, K., & Flamos, A. (2007). Promoting sustainable energy technology
transfers to developing countries through the CDM. Applied Energy, 86(2),
230–236.
Ganapati, S., & Liu, L. (2009). Sustainable development in the clean development
mechanism: The role of Designated National Authority in China and India.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(1), 43–60.
Glaser, B. (1994). More Grounded Theory Methodology. A Reader. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory; Strategies for
qualitative research Chicago. Aldine.
Granoff, I., Hogarth, R. J., & Miller, A. (2016). Nested barriers to low-carbon
infrastructure investment. Nature Climate Change, 6, 1065–1071.
Green, E. C. (2001). Can qualitative research produce reliable quantitative findings?
Field Methods, 13, 3–19.
Greiner, S., & Michaelowa, A. (2003). Defining investment additionality for CDM
projects -practical approaches. Energy Policy, 31, 1007–1015.
Gujba, H., Thorne, S., Mulugetta, Y., Rai, K., & Sokona, Y. (2012). Financing low
carbon energy access in Africa. Energy Policy, 47(Suppl. 1), 71–78.
Hesse-Biber, S., Paul, D., & Scott, K. (2000). Testing hypotheses on qualitative data:
The use of HyperRESEARCH computer-assisted software. Social Science
Computer Review, 18(3), 320–328.
Hughes, L., & Urpelainen, J. (2015). Interests, institutions, and climate policy:
Explaining the choice of policy instruments for the energy sector. Environmental
Science & Policy, 54, 52–63.
Hultman, N. E., Malone, E. L., Runci, P., Carlock, G., & Anderson, K. L. (2012). Factors
in low-carbon energy transformations: Comparing nuclear and bioenergy in
Brazil, Sweden, and the United States. Energy Policy, 40, 131–146.
Inman, M. (2008). Carbon is forever. Nature Reports Climate Change, 156–158.
IPCC (2015). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate change:
Mitigation of climate change (Vol. 3). Cambridge University Press.
Karakosta, C., & Psarras, J. (2013). Understanding CDM potential in the
Mediterranean basin: A country assessment of Egypt and Morocco. Energy
Policy, 60, 827–839.
Kumar, S. (2016). Green Climate Fund vows to up its game. Nature, 2016. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19627. http://www.nature.com/news/green-
climate-fund-vows-to-up-its-game-1.19627⁄. Accessed September 1.
Linnér, B. O., & Pahuja, N. (2012). A registry of nationally appropriate mitigation
actions: Goals, outcomes, and institutional requisites. Ambio, 41(1), 56–67.
Mbow, C., Smith, P., Skole, D., Duguma, L., & Bustamante, M. (2014). Achieving
mitigation and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry
practices in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6, 8–14.
Nemet, G. F., Holloway, T., & Paul Meier, P. (2010). Implications of incorporating air-
quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking. Environmental Research
Letters, 5(1), 014007.
Nilsson, M., Nilsson, L. J., Hildingsson, R., Stripple, J., & Eikeland, P. O. (2011). The
missing link: Bringing institutions and politics into energy future studies.
Futures, 43, 1117–1128.
O’Brien, G., O’Keefe, P., Rose, J., & Wisner, B. (2006). Climate change and disaster
management. Disasters, 30(1), 64–80.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Peredo, A. M., & Chrisman, J. J. (2006). Toward a Theory of Community-Based
Enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 309–328.
Perkowski, J. (2014). China Leads In Renewable Investment. Forbes. http://
www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2014/06/17/china-leads-in-renewable-
investment-again/#bdad3e146a98. (Accessed August 9, 2016).
Richerzhagen, C., & Scholz, I. (2008). China’s capacities for mitigating climate
change. World Development, 36, 308–324.
Ringel, M., Schlomann, B., Krail, M., & Rohde, C. (2016). Towards a green economy in
Germany? The role of energy efficiency policies. Applied Energy.
Ringius, L. (2002). Soil Carbon Sequestration and the CDM: Opportunities and
Challenges for Africa. Climatic Change, 54, 471–495.
Rong, F. (2010). Understanding developing country stances on post-2012 climate
change negotiations: Comparative analysis of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and
South Africa. Energy Policy, 38, 4582–4591.
Smith, K. R., & Haigler, E. (2008). Co-benefits of climate mitigation and health
protection in energy systems: Scoping methods. Annual Review of Public Health,
29, 11–25.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Subbarao, S., & Lloyd, B. (2011). Can the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
deliver? Energy Policy, 39, 1600–1611.
Suzuki, M. (2015). Identifying roles of international institutions in clean energy
technology innovation and diffusion in the developing countries: Matching
barriers with roles of the institutions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 98, 229–240.
Tawney, L., Almendra, F., Torres, P., & Weischer, L. (2011). Two Degrees of Innovation-
How to seize the opportunities in low-carbon power. WRI Working Paper.
Washington DC: World Resources Institute.
Timilsina, G. R., de Gouvello, C., Thioye, M., & Dayo, F. B. (2010). Clean development
mechanism potential and challenges in Sub-Saharan Africa. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15, 93–111.
Tyler, E., Boyd, A., Coetzee, K., Torres Gunfaus, M., & Winkler, H. (2013). Developing
country perspectives on ‘mitigation actions’, ‘NAMAs’, and ‘LCDS’. Climate Policy,
13(6), 770–776.
Tyler, E., Boyd, A. S., Coetzee, K., & Winkler, H. (2014). A case study of South African
mitigation actions (For the special issue on mitigation actions in five developing
countries). Climate and Development, 6(sup1), 49–58.
UNEP. (2002). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) UNEP Collaborating Centreon Energy and Environment Risø
National LaboratoryRoskilde, Denmark. https://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_
and_support/capacity_building/application/pdf/unepcdmintro.pdf. (Accessed
July 2, 2017).
UNEP (2010). Building capacities to strengthen carbon markets in African countries.
Accessed August 9, 2016 http://www.unep.org/environmentalgovernance/
Events/Buildingcapacitiestostrengthencarbonmarkets/tabid/6320/Default.aspx.
UNFCCC. (2015). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Adoption of the Paris Agreement. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/
eng/l09.pdf. (Accessed August, 2016).
Wang, N., & Chang, Y. C. (2014). The evolution of low-carbon development
strategies in China. Energy, 68, 61–70.
Watts, D., Albornoz, C., & Watson, A. (2015). Clean development mechanism (CDM)
after the first commitment period: Assessment of the world’s portfolio and the
role of Latin America. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41, 1176–1189.
Winkler, H., Davidson, O., & Mwakasonda, S. (2005). Developing institutions for the
Clean Development Mechanism: African perspectives. Climate Policy, 5,
209–220.
Zhang, Z. (2006). Toward an effective implementation of clean development
mechanism projects in China. Energy Policy, 34(18), 3691–3701.