1 Executive Summary
1.1 The current system – an overview
1.2 Improving tracking of IEG funding
1.3 Improving coordination and coherence
1.4 Improving the amount, predictability and stability of public sector funding
1.5 Improving private sector involvement and use of innovative financing mechanisms
1.6 Improving the link between policy and funding
1.7 Refocusing the current debate

2 Zusammenfassung
2.1 Das gegenwärtige System – ein Überblick
2.2 Verbesserte Erfassung der Umweltfinanzierung
2.3 Verbesserung von Koordination und Kohärenz
2.4 Mehr, vorhersehbarere und stabilere Finanzmittel aus dem öffentlichen Sektor
2.5 Verstärkte Beteiligung des Privatsektors und Nutzung neuer Finanzquellen
2.6 Eine engere Verbindung von Politik und Finanzen
2.7 Neuausrichtung der Diskussion

3 Introduction

4 The existing system of IEG finance
4.1 Types of funding and their legal basis
4.2 Current system for tracking
4.2.1 DAC statistics and the Creditor Reporting System (CRS)
4.2.2 AidData
4.2.3 Climate Funds Update
4.2.4 UN Financial Tracking Service (UN FTS)
4.3 Quantitative overview
4.3.1 A cautionary note on current data availability
4.3.2 Trends in funding for environment
4.3.3 Trends in environmental funding depicted by other research efforts
4.4 Contributions by the largest donors
4.5 An overview of multilateral environmental trust funds
4.6 Share of administrative costs  Rio+20: Financial Resources for Improved International Environmental Governance IV
4.7 In-depth analysis of some mechanisms for disbursing funds and their performance
4.7.1 UNEP Environment Fund
4.7.2 Global Environment Facility (GEF)
4.7.3 Multilateral Fund (Montreal Protocol)
4.7.4 Adaptation Fund
4.7.5 Climate Investment Funds
4.7.6 Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
4.8 Other mechanisms
4.8.1 UNDP
4.8.2 World Bank
4.8.3 Regional Development Banks

5 Shortcomings of the existing system and reform needs
5.1 Lack of consistent and comprehensive data
5.2 Fragmentation of the funding landscape
5.3 Lack of sufficient, stable, balanced and predictable funding
5.4 Disconnect between policy priorities and funding

6 Existing reform proposals
6.1 Political reform debate
6.2 Academic debate

7 Design choices and trade-offs
7.1 Ecosystem vs. sectoral approaches
7.2 Mainstreaming environmental funding vs. separate environmental funding institutions
7.3 Build new institutions or reform existing ones?
7.4 Centralize, coordinate, or… ?

8 Scenarios for the system of IEG funding
8.1 Scenarios
8.2 Implications of the different scenarios
8.2.1 Better coordination and greater transparency?
8.2.2 Sufficient and more predictable funding?
8.2.3 More efficient funding procedures?
8.2.4 Improved link between policies and finance?

9 Reform options

Rio+20: Financial Resources for Improved International Environmental Governance V
9.1 A unified system to track environmental funding
9.2 Improving cooperation and coherence among financing mechanisms and funds
9.3 Increasing IEG funding and making it more predictable and stable
9.3.1 Reforming donor contributions to IEG funding
9.3.2 Mobilizing private funding
9.3.3 Conclusions
9.4 Improving the policy/funding link

10 Looking towards Rio+20

11 Conclusions and recommendations
11.1 De-mystifying and better linking debates
11.2 Improving tracking of IEG funding
11.3 Improving coordination and coherence
11.4 Increasing public funding and making it more predictable and stable
11.5 Improving private sector involvement and use of innovative financing mechanisms
11.6 Improving the link between policy and funding

12 Annex: Methodological note on data used in Section 4.3.2

13 References