BAKU: Developing countries at the COP29 summit fiercely rejected the revised New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) decision text, calling it “unacceptable” and a betrayal of the Paris Agreement. Delegates decried the absence of clear financial commitments, with Panama’s head of delegation Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez delivering a scathing critique.
“Why should countries like Panama bear the burden of loans to cover $250 million in losses from torrential rains this past month or $1 billion in lost revenue from the Panama Canal due to droughts? Why should any developing country finance adaptation measures with loans while others profit from our suffering? We are told the $1.3 trillion proposal from developing nations is ‘extreme.’ But what’s truly extreme is spending $2.5 trillion on wars or $7 trillion on fossil fuel subsidies while failing to commit even a fraction of that to save lives. 1.5°C isn’t a choice; it’s a lifeline. Stop the circus—it’s time to deliver,” Gomez said.
Bolivian negotiator Diego Pacheco denounced the text, saying, “Developed countries seem to be moving from zero to minus zero with the current NCQG proposal—it’s like a crab walking backward. This isn’t just disappointing; it’s an outright offense to the demands of the Global South.” He added, “We want a provision of $600 billion and mobilization of $1.3 trillion clearly reflected in the text. Anything less is a betrayal of the planet and those suffering its impacts.”
Honduras emphasised the need for new and additional funding, criticising the text’s failure to ensure accountability or prioritize adaptation. “The NCQG must deliver truly new and additional funds,” said a representative. “The text must include the Adaptation Fund as a central channel for delivery.”
Pakistan also expressed frustration over restrictive conditionality and barriers to accessing finance. “The current form of the text fails to ensure equitable access for developing countries,” said a representative.
Meanwhile, developed countries also voiced dissatisfaction with the text but from a different perspective. The European Union (EU) described the draft as "imbalanced, unworkable, and unacceptable." An EU representative urged more ambitious mitigation, stating, “We need to do more, not less, of mitigation. Public finance should prioritize adaptation and the most vulnerable, such as SIDS and LDCs.”
Germany and Poland echoed similar concerns, criticising the lack of progress on mitigation commitments. “The text offers no signals for ambitious NDCs or clear steps for energy transitions,” they said. They called for a phase-out of unabated coal and greater investment in green technologies and deforestation reversal.
Samoa and other small island states lamented the draft’s inability to address existential threats posed by climate change. The United States reiterated its stance of seeking contributions from all capable parties, while the UK deemed the text incomplete.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia refused to accept any text that targets particular sectors, including fossil fuels. The Arab bloc as a whole and China says they will not renegotiate the Paris Agreement, referring to insistence of developed countries to expand the contributors base.