As the second week of the 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change draws to a close, negotiations on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance drag on, with limited convergence between developed and developing countries.
The latest iteration of the draft decision text was released by the COP Presidency in the early hours of November 21, 2024. This shorter, 10-page document is a streamlined version of earlier drafts. It includes options emanating from the Ministerial consultations held during the second week, in place of negotiations open to observers.
The latest draft has been restructured into specific sections, including context, goal formulation, sources, instruments, channels, access, transparency, disenablers and a call to action. The section on goal formulation is particularly significant, as it separates the major differences between developed and developing countries into two distinct Ministerial Options for negotiation. These options outline what exactly the goal will look like.
Ministerial Option 1 aligns largely with the G77 and China bloc’s demands. It focuses on the provision and mobilisation of climate finance from developed to developing countries. While it does not explicitly mention the $1.3 trillion quantum demanded by developing countries — referenced in a previous draft — it frames the NCQG as requiring trillions of dollars annually, along with a provision component of billions of dollars annually in grants or grant-equivalent terms.
The option also adds a reference to voluntary contributions by developing countries, though these contributions would be excluded from the NCQG — a position G77 and China did not want included and responded to later in the day.
In contrast, Ministerial Option 2 employs the language of scaled-up finance and increased investment, framing the NCQG as “global finance for climate action.” This approach sets a global finance goal in the trillions of dollars annually, with a mobilisation target only in the billions. Moreover, it refers to domestic resource mobilisation as one of several methods to meet the global investment target. This framing completely contradicts the developing country stance that the NCQG must align with Article 9 of the Paris Agreement, requiring climate finance flows from developed to developing nations.
This divergence is concerning and provides a starkly different framing to the NCQG, risking the dilution of responsibilities of developed nations to support the Global South in achieving their immediate climate needs.
Additionally, the section on sources, instruments and channels mentions debt-for-climate swaps and voluntary carbon markets, which are problematic instruments and should not be included in the mandate of the NCQG. The text also targets phasing out substantial climate subsidy packages in developed countries by 2028, raising fears of adverse impacts on developing countries in the near future.
The section on disenablers addresses an important concern by mandating the assessment of the negative impacts of unilateral trade measures and mitigating their impacts. It also includes language on the need for reforming the broader financial architecture.
After its release, countries and non-Party actors responded to the text. The absence of a specified quantum or amount remains the biggest concern for developing countries and several civil society organisations alike. Developed countries have not engaged directly on the issue of the quantum from the outset and with one day left, the urgency has never been higher.
Nevertheless, Samoa (on behalf of Alliance of Small Island States), Uganda (on behalf of G77 and China), Zambia, Peru (on behalf of Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean) and Bolivia (on behalf of the Like-Minded Developing Countries) all agreed that the latest iteration better captured developing country views overall.
Conversely, developed countries, including the European Union, Japan, Poland, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, expressed deep disappointment and frustation. Norway, speaking at the plenary, said that it is difficult to talk numbers (quantum) without clarity on other elements of the goal, a sentiment echoed by Canada.
Developing countries across the board reiterated the need for a just outcome on NCQG to ensure COP29’s success. Speaking on behalf of G77 and China, Diego Pacheco of Bolivia said that developed nations cannot continue demanding mitigation from the Global South without providing the means for implementation to raise those ambitions. The provision of finance (at least in the billions) and a clearly defined overall goal (trillions) is going to be key to keeping the 1.5 degrees Celsius target within reach.
The COP Presidency is expected to release another iteration of the text on November 22 after further consultations with ministers. Colombian environment lead Susana Mohamed pointed out that the need for a public provision component specified in the text is crucial to pave the way for bridging the rest of the component (in trillions) of the overall goal. At best, the new text reflects this ‘realistic ambition’ and receives widespread consensus.