A new draft text on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) was released on Thursday, just a day before the end of the UN Climate Conference COP29, without mentioning any agreed yearly climate finance goal under this package, the balanced allocation of mitigation and adaptation, or a dedicated fund for loss and damage. Experts, Civil Society Organisations, and youth climate activists have reacted to the draft text. Here are some of their reactions.
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. It recognizes the need to prioritize grants but remains silent on the critical scale of the new finance goal, instead shifting pressure onto developing countries to mobilize more domestic resources. 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.”
Dr. Suborna Barua, Professor, University of Dhaka said:
Climate Finance Expert: Dr. Suborna Barua, Professor of Finance at the Dept. of International Business, University of Dhaka and a member of the Bangladesh government delegation mentioned “The NCQG document has dropped the explicit 1.3 trillion commitments from the earlier text, unfortunately. Maybe it will come back in the final document pending ministerial inputs.
I can see now uncertainty what ministerial inputs are likely to be. The document calls for only 20% of the NCQG to be mobilized through UNFCCC mechanisms, which we want to be at least 50% for ensuring credible and accountable climate finance availability. Also important to see that the text recognizes the BA report saying 1.3 trillion has been mobilized in 2022.
Again, the NCQG is also to be set at 1.3 trillion. Matching these two, I can clearly see that the NCQG is actually reflecting what developed countries are currently doing and by agreeing on this goal means they will just continue at the current scale not accelerating to new scale.
Hence the NCQG figure also must be set even much higher than 1.3 trillion considering a futurist view of the expanding cost of climate mitigation, adaptation, and LD.”
Md Shamsuddoha, Chief Executive Center for Participatory Research and Development (CPRD) said:
“The NCQG negotiations highlight significant disagreements between developed and developing countries on key issues. Paragraphs 22, 23, and 24 reflect the positions of developing countries, who demand grants and funds to implement activities related to adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage, but no specific goals have been set for how much money is needed or agreed upon.”
“Developed countries propose scaling up the NCQG from the $100 billion target to reach a trillion dollars by 2035 potentially. They aim to align NCQG funding with Article 2 of the Paris Agreement, which focuses on mitigation to support the 1.5°C target, centering efforts on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This prioritization risks reducing emphasis on adaptation, loss and damage, and other critical needs,” he added.
“While the NCQG framework may be established, the funds that developing countries seek—grant-based and sourced from public funds for implementing adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage plans—may not be adequately addressed under this setup.”
Dr. A.K.M. Saiful Islam, Professor at the Institute of Water and Flood management of Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) said:
“COP29 is still keeping the hope of limiting global warming below 1.5C which is extremely important for vulnerable countries. This COP29 should reach agreement to support the Adaptation, mitigation and loss- damage needs of more than 1.3 trillion dollars climate finance by 2030 which should be mostly grants without creating more debts.
Sohanur Rahman, Executive Coordinator of YouthNet Global said:
He expressed concerns over the lack of concrete financial commitments from the Global North. “COP29 has shown that without clear and substantial financial pledges from the developed world, the hopes of the Global South remain distant,” Rahman stated. “We need to see real commitments, not just broad proposals, if we are to meet the needs of the most vulnerable communities.”
Carola Mejía, Coordinator for Climate Justice, Transitions, and Amazonia at LATINDADD, said:
“While we’ve made progress—reducing a 25-page text to just 10 pages and narrowing down 15 options to 2—these remaining options are still vastly divergent. They reflect a divide between the Global North and South that must be bridged within the next two days. We cannot leave this COP without a robust, ambitious climate finance goal that addresses the urgent needs of Global South countries.
We welcome the latest NCQG text for its emphasis on climate justice, as this ensures that funds will be mobilized from the historically responsible parties to the Global South, where the impacts of climate change are already being felt and where critical funding is required to confront this unprecedented crisis. The recognition that we need trillions in climate finance is a step in the right direction. However, the Global South demands these resources be mobilized from 2025 to 2035, not by 2035 as proposed by the Global North. For many vulnerable nations, waiting until 2035 could mean the difference between survival and devastation.
Moreover, climate finance must support not only mitigation and adaptation but also loss and damage as a distinct, prioritized subgoal. The text also mentions that more than 50% of this financing should be through the use of non-debt creating instruments. The Global South cannot continue to rely on unjust loans. To date, two-thirds of climate finance for the South has been in the form of loans, further entrenching our external debt burden. Sixty countries are already facing crippling debt while simultaneously bearing the brunt of climate impacts, all while the historical polluters profit from these loans.
We are unequivocal in our demand that public finance be central to this goal, as a clear responsibility of industrialized nations. Relying on the private sector to fund this transition is untenable, given their profit-driven motives. Adaptation and loss and damage will not yield the returns they seek. Innovative blended finance instruments, while creative, are not a fair or reliable solution either. What we need is public, grant-based finance to address climate justice and ensure a just transition that meets the needs of the most vulnerable communities all over the world.
This is not only about increasing the volume of funding; it’s also about improving the qualitative aspects—no debt, direct access, efficiency and transparency. We know this will be a tough negotiation. There is a huge gap between the $100 billion floor that the Global North proposes and the $1.3 trillion the Global South is demanding. The clock is ticking, and the stakes are too high for any more delays.”
Mohamed Adow, Founder and Director, Power Shift Africa, said:
“The new text rightly diagnoses the climate problem, including the required finance for adaptation and energy transition, but glaringly omits what the rich countries will actually provide to developing countries.
The elephant in the room is the lack of specific numbers in the text. This is the ‘finance COP’. We came here to talk about money. The way you measure money is with numbers. We need a cheque but all we have right now is a blank piece of paper.
It includes some important signals on grant based financing, and the need to avoid debt inducing instruments. Developed countries now urgently need to fill in the blanks and put their finance card on the table to move the negotiations forward.”
Cristina Rumbaitis, Senior Adaptation and Resilience Advisor, UN Foundation, said:
“The text is very poor and disappointing, especially on adaptation. First, the floor for adaptation is out. Secondly, there is no reference to the Global Goal on Adaptation or the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience. Thirdly, there is only language around balancing between mitigation and adaptation and loss and damage. This could further reduce funding for adaptation. There is some good language on qualitative elements and call for a floor for adaptation for LDCs and SIDs from all relevant actors and financial mechanisms. But also very weak statements like grant financing should be used for adaptation and loss and damage to the largest extent possible. We had hoped for more.”
Sonia Kwami, Head of Campaigns and Organising at 350.org said:
“This draft does not go far enough to meet the demands that countries around the world, including many African countries, have come to COP29 to see delivered. Those who are experiencing the worst climate impacts, and contributed the least to the crisis, are paying a double price: not only is climate change on their doorsteps, but they are also faced with burdensome debts, interest rates, and transition costs that rich countries have evaded for far too long, through an unjust financial system.
We are demanding the text be revised to include a specific, ambitious climate finance goal of at least $1 trillion in grants, as well as a mitigation text that unequivocally states the global north’s commitment to phase out fossil fuels for good. African negotiators have traveled to Baku expecting real commitments – not go home disappointed with another missed opportunity. Africa experiences some of the world’s most severe climate impacts, but is also home to some of the most promising renewable energy potential. With the finance owed by rich countries, the continent has an opportunity to expand renewable energy capacity exponentially, and lead the charge towards the global just transition that is so desperately needed.”
Farooq Ullah, senior policy advisor, International Institute for Sustainable Development, said:
“A strong climate finance package is needed from Baku to enable an ambitious clean energy transition in the next round of national climate plans, due in early 2025. The latest draft climate finance text has some important elements, including on applying the polluter pays principle, reducing investment in fossil fuels and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. However, it doesn’t answer the questions we came to Baku with: how much money and who pays? That is what ministers urgently need to land.”
Gerry Arances, Executive Director, Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development (CEED) – Philippines, said:
“The clock is ticking for developed nations to put forward a finance goal that begins to give justice to the death and devastation suffered by vulnerable peoples of the Global South. In Southeast Asia, coal and gas still received nearly three times as much financing as renewables since the Paris Agreement, fueled largely by Global Northern firms and governments. This, despite nearly 400 GW of renewables already being proposed across the region. There’s no lack of finance to confront the climate crisis; there’s only the brazen lack of will from historical polluters to pay up on their accountabilities.”
Andreas Sieber, Associate Director of Global Policy and Campaigns for 350.org said:
“Following up from last year’s landmark decision to transition away from fossil fuels, the fight now is on to get a transformational finance goal. We don’t have a definition yet of how much those goals would include, but we do have two options: One says there will be a core of money in grants in the scale of trillions, and the other one doesn’t, and therefore doesn’t count as a viable option for real climate action. Rich nations need to present a credible and ambitious offer on finance and need to land a strong follow-up on what was agreed last year — phase out fossil fuels and triple renewable energy capacity. Right now, we only see cowardice and a void in leadership, ignoring the undeniable science. By the end of the UN climate talks, we must see at least a trillion dollars in public finance on the table.”
Joseph Sikulu, Pacific Director at 350.org and Pacific Climate Warrior said:
“We hoped to see a draft text today that would show rich nations putting their money where their mouth is and responding to the demands from the Global South. What we got is a text with no clear grant based core money. Nothing less than one trillion dollars in grants per year will be enough to see those most impacted by climate change on a just transition towards a safe, equitable future. Rich countries must stop dithering, and start delivering – this is not charity, it’s time for them to pay their debt.”
Camila Mercure, Climate Policy Officer
“The new text of the climate finance target shows improvements in terms of length and number of options. However much work remains to be done in terms of the quantity and quality of financing to be committed at this COP. On these two points, the positions between the Global North and the Global South are very far apart. Considering the little time left, it is essential that consensus is reached that adequately reflects the needs of the countries that have contributed the least to the climate crisis.”
Laurie van der Burg, Oil Change International Global Public Finance Manager, said:
“The draft climate finance deal is a mixed bag with good, bad and ugly options. Rich countries now have a last chance to step up to pay the climate debt they owe to the Global South and unlock a fair and funded fossil fuel phaseout, while barring dangerous distractions. Wealthy nations must support delivering the trillions urgently needed in public finance with the majority provided debt-free, which is currently on the table.
Labelling carbon credits as climate finance – which they are unreservedly not – should be axed from the text or risk creating a dangerous escape route for polluters. The same goes for explicitly allowing investments in fossil fuel infrastructure. This is fundamentally incompatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Instead, we need to end fossil fuel handouts, make polluters pay, and change unfair financial rules; which too is on the table. We know that by taking these steps rich countries can mobilise trillions in public funds for climate action and a fair fossil fuel phaseout. In these last hours of COP29, rich countries must meet their responsibilities and get on the right side of history.”
Nikki Reisch, Director, Climate & Energy Program, Center for International Environmental Law, said:
“The latest draft text spotlights the gulf between what science requires and justice demands, on the one hand, and the Global North’s refusal to put real public finance on the table – urgently, equitably and at scale. Finance is the key to unlocking ambition and delivering justice for those facing mounting climate harms. Without finance, there is no fossil fuel phaseout. And without a fossil fuel phaseout there is only more loss and damage. Rich countries need to pay up and phase out, not pay to pollute through carbon credits. Parties need to ditch text that relies on carbon markets and private finance. There is no shortage of money, only political will. The trillions poured into subsidies designed to keep the fossil fuel industry afloat should instead go to ensuring that we are not all under water.”
Dr Sindra Sharma, Senior Policy and Governance Advisor, Pacific Islands Climate Action Network, said:
“This text is the starting point we needed when we first arrived in Baku. Developing nations, particularly SIDS and LDCs, have championed some of the strongest positions on the New Collective Quantified Goal, clearly articulating the needs of the most vulnerable—something developed nations have failed to do. As frustrating as this process has been, for Small Island Developing States, failure is not an option.”
Soomin Han, Climate Finance Policy Analyst, Climate Action Network Canada, said:
“The lack of a bridging option within the new draft text shows the Global North’s effort to let the clock run out without real progress. While the new text includes recognition of the importance of grants at the heart of climate finance, what is needed is a real commitment to act in good faith to deliver high-quality financing that will meet the needs of those that contributed the least to the climate crisis. It’s time for the Global North to show their cards, break the cycle of inaction and delay, and adopt a fair and ambitious NCQG in Baku.”
