High road to Dubai COP28: 6th Technical Expert Dialogue on New Collective Quantified Goal held at Bonn

The $100 billion climate finance goal, which developed countries committed to in 2009, will be succeeded by the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) in 2025. 

Climate finance is a key issue in climate negotiations this year. It has also gained traction as a key issue over the last year, in light of the growing debt-crisis in the Global South and parallel discussions around the urgent need to reform the global financial architecture in order to address systemic barriers that are hindering green transitions in developing countries.  

The 100 billion goal, which has been described by some as a magician’s hat trick, was more of a politically conceptualised number and was not rooted to specific climate finance needs of developing countries. However, the current deliberations on the NCQG are promising and indicate that the new climate finance goal will be based on more concrete rationale and well-defined criteria.

The Sixth Technical Expert Dialogue (TED 6) of the ad hoc Work Programme on the New Collective Quantified Goal was held at the 58th Subsidiary Body Meetings in Bonn, where details on ways to determine the quantum of as well as options of framing the mobilisation and provision of financial sources were discussed.

On the first day, discussions focused on ways to determine the quantum of the NCQG. Attendees deliberated on options such as determining the quantum through increasing provisions of climate finance from a baseline of existing provisions by either doubling or tripling previous goals, whether the new quantum should be based on the needs of developing countries; whether it should be tied to specific outcomes and outputs to be achieved in the context of Article 2 of the Paris Agreement; whether the new quantum should be based on a scope and structure of the NCQG; or if it should be based on the breadth of contributions including the private sector and philanthropies, among other options.

On ways to determine the NCQG quantum, meeting participants broadly agreed that it should be based on the needs of developing countries, it should be backed by science, and that it should be tied to specific outcomes and outputs. 

It was also pointed out that instead of one quantum, a future goal could be structured into separate quanta for different sub-goals on mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage. 

Participants also mentioned that the NCQG should have an element of dynamism so that it is able to respond to changing needs of developing countries, and that finance for adaptation and loss and damage should be given in the form of grant-based public funds. 

In their submissions leading up to TED 6, Zambia, on behalf of the African Group of Negotiators, the Least Developed Countries group, India on behalf of the Like Minded Developing Country group (LMDC), and Costa Rica on behalf of the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean group have also said that the needs of developing countries should be a primary criterion in deciding the new quantum.

On the second day, TED 6 focused on options that reflect potential sources of finance within the NCQG in line with Article 9 of the Paris Agreement, and ways to reflect the relationship between the NCQG with Article 2.1c of the Paris Agreement.

‘Although Article 9 states that developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing countries with mitigation and adaptation, there has been an increasing focus on private finance. One reason for this is that estimates of climate needs for developing countries are now in trillions of dollars. 

In its submission leading up to the TED 6, Sweden and the European Commission on behalf of the EU and its member states said that the NCQG should “take into account the needs and priorities of developing country Parties, not be based on in terms of covering all needs and priorities”. 

Norway has also echoed this opinion, indicating that achieving a ‘developing country needs-based approach’ is likely to be a politically uphill task. 

Last week, in response to the EU’s new Mitigation Work Program (MWP) proposal, which seeks to accelerate climate mitigation action across all countries, Bolivia, on behalf of the LMDC group cited articles 4.5, 9.1 and 9.3 of the Paris Agreement to bring attention to financial support obligations of developed countries, which they are required to deliver in order to support enhanced climate ambition in developing countries.

Participants discussed the question of potential sources of finance and how these sources align with Article 9 of the Paris Agreement. They broadly agreed on the point that public funds from developed countries should play a significant role, and that accountability and transparency were key concerns in regards to finance flows from private finance and philanthropies, especially since ‘climate finance’ currently lacks a clear definition. Additionally, they also pointed out that systems for reporting and tracking of private finance flows need to be improved. 

Views on the relationship between NCQG with Article 2.1c were divergent. Some participants expressed that there isn't enough understanding of or definition of Article 2.1c currently and what it means to “make finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development” Some others pointed out that the NCQG process provided an opportunity to further refine the understanding on Article 2.1c.

Subscribe to Daily Newsletter :

SUPPORT US

We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.