CPI discusses the difficulties involved in defining what should be included as “climate finance” in the report (see pp.1-2) and clearly states that the study adopts a broad definition of what could be considered climate finance, including finance from both public and private sources, incremental and capital flows, provided through a range of instruments (including grants, concessional and non-concessional flows) and presented as gross not net values (meaning indeed that the amount which has to be paid back is not reflected).

In fact, no one else has attempted to map out the full range of existing flows so far. All the intermediate figures used to come up to that number are to be found in the report. The research team went to a great deal of effort to bring together the best information available on the existing flows of climate finance, also interacting closely with a number of organizations and leading experts responsible for producing that information, aiming to iron out any double counting as far as possible and to present information transparently. It is made clear in the report that the figure represents the mid-point of a range of estimates from various intermediate flows. Beyond the headline number, the report is more about international climate finance linkages and getting a sense of the relative magnitude of flows than getting to an “accounting grade” figure.

CPI’s key findings (p.v) highlight various issues encountered during this exercise, calling for improvements needed in climate finance tracking, including clearer definitions and labeling as well as filling of information gaps (primarily private finance flows, domestic and ‘South-South’ flows and data at the instrument, disbursement and use levels).

On the first page of the report CPI points to a number of definitional uncertainties that mean that the report’s findings cannot be used to to assess how close the international community is to meeting its commitment to mobilize USD 100 billion per year by 2020 to help developing nations tackle climate change:

“An optimist might suggest that the USD 97 billion total in climate finance is close to the USD 100 billion promised by developed countries in the Copenhagen Accord. Yet, we have to recognize that this might not be correct for multiple reasons:

*Not all of the USD 97 billion is necessarily additional to climate finance available prior to the Copenhagen Accord. The reality is that while climate finance has increased quickly over the past 10 years, a significant share of the USD 97 billion was already being provided prior to the Summit.

*Many countries and commentators have interpreted the USD 100 billion climate finance to originate from public sources, rather than partially provided by the private sector (although the Copenhagen Accord does mention private sources).

*Many have also argued that the finance provided should cover incremental costs rather than capital investment.

*Furthermore, the USD 97 billion total includes some developing countries and domestic sources, although to a limited extent.” (p.i)

CPI is an independent, non-profit organization that is linked to leading research and policy institutions around the world. CPI is staffed by reputed analysts in climate policy research who come from world-class institutions. We solicit and incorporate input from both the private and public sector to ensure our analysis is rooted in real-world experience and we rely on an internal and external review process for our studies. Our mission is to help policymakers understand which policies work and which don’t, and in climate finance, how nations can spend their money wisely.