BAKU: The latest COP29 Presidency draft decision text on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance has once again failed to specify a concrete funding target, leaving a placeholder “USD [X] trillion” in place of an actual figure.
This has frustrated developing nations, which had hoped for a firm commitment to address their escalating needs for climate adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage.
The NCQG, set to replace the USD 100 billion per year commitment under the Paris Agreement, is critical to scaling up financial support from developed to developing countries post-2025.
Developing countries, which are disproportionately impacted by climate change, have repeatedly spoken about the need to bridge the growing finance gap. Their demands for trillions of dollars in annual support have been met with reluctance from developed nations.
“There is a clear obligation for developed countries to support poorer countries, but up to now, we don’t seem to have a figure,” said Ali Mohamed, chair of the African Group of Negotiators.
The draft offers two competing options for the NCQG. The first proposes a goal of “[X] trillion dollars annually” from 2025 to 2035, focusing on non-debt-inducing mechanisms such as grants. This proposal also suggests burden-sharing among developed countries, based on historical emissions and GDP per capita. However, its reliance on a placeholder figure suggests the lack of consensus on the scale of funding required.
The second option advocates for scaling up global climate finance to “[X] trillion dollars per year” by 2035, drawing from public, private, and innovative sources. While this approach, the critics argue it dilutes the responsibility of developed countries.
“Developed countries whose legal obligation is to provide finance continue to shift their responsibility to developing countries,” said Diego Pacheco, spokesperson for the Like-Minded Developing Countries group.
Amid discussions, developing countries reiterated that voluntary contributions from nations like China should not be conflated with the NCQG.
“It is voluntary and there is no obligation on developing country parties to contribute to NCQG,” said Adonia Ayebare, chair of the G77 plus China bloc.
“The Paris Agreement clearly states that money will flow from developed to developing countries. We are not here to renegotiate that.”
Without a concrete commitment, the NCQG risks being perceived as a symbolic exercise rather than a transformative framework to address the climate emergency.
Harjeet Singh, Global Engagement Director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, said: "The revised draft text, while more streamlined, presents a spectrum of options—some good, some bad, and some outright ugly. We must focus not only on the vast sums required—trillions, as acknowledged—but on ensuring these funds are provided as grants, not loans, to shield nations most impacted by climate change from further financial burdens. Alarmingly, the text lacks clear financial sub-goals for mitigation, adaptation, and addressing loss and damage—areas where needs have skyrocketed while resources remain scarce. True support for a just transition away from fossil fuels must include robust public finance, not hollow words."