This Climate Policy Initiative analysis of the current climate finance landscape seeks to track the scale and route of the various types of finance available. Three main types of data sources were used in the study: existing databases and tracking mechanisms, third-party experts and the researchers own estimates (where data was inadequate or missing).The paper found that an estimated 97 billion US dollars per annum of climate finance was provided in the timeframe covered by the study (2009/2010). Although seemingly close to the 100 billion US dollars promised in the Copenhagen Accord, most cannot be classified as new and additional. The empirical analysis covers in depth each step of the climate finance taxonomy, from source to recipient. Findings include the following.

Sources: private sector finance is almost three times greater than finance from the public sector; despite high ambitions, carbon markets account for just 2 billion US dollars.
Intermediaries: bilateral and multilateral agencies account for the distribution of around 40 per cent of climate finance, with the majority going through government agencies and development banks.
Instruments: about 74 to 87 billion US dollars of the total 97 billion US dollars can be classified as investments; due to the need to repay such finance, it cannot be classified as aid.
Disbursement channels: public sector channels are highly dominant in the disbursement of bilateral funds.
Recipients: the share of climate finance is heavily skewed toward mitigation over adaptation.

The paper makes four recommendations for overcoming key issues in finance tracking:

definitions and labelling in climate finance must be standardised to allow for comparison and data-tracking
transparency and clarification can help mitigate the complexity arising from the various objectives of specific climate finance tracking systems
a common platform for tracking initiatives would improve coordination in utilising the vast wealth of data available and to aid identification of gaps in data collection.

The paper concludes that efforts to fill these gaps are required, particularly concerning domestic and South-South finance flows.