Civil society, climate experts raise several concerns with Baku NCQG deal

The NCQG succeeds developed countries’ 2009 commitment to provide $100 billion annually to support climate action in developing countries by 2020.

Civil society groups have criticised the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) decision taken at COP29 in Baku, saying the language and quantum of finance could undermine both energy transition in developing countries and climate ambition ahead of February 2025’s nationally determined contributions (NDCs) deadline.

Civil society, climate experts raise several concerns with Baku NCQG deal

“At COP29, we lost an opportunity -- without a meaningful agreement on climate finance; both in terms of quantity and quality, large parts of the world that would have had the chance to reinvent growth to make it low-carbon intensive, will not be able to do so. What’s worse, this comes at a time when these countries are even more vulnerable due to climate change impacts,” Sunita Narain, director general, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), said at an online debriefing on Thursday.

The NCQG succeeds developed countries’ 2009 commitment to provide $100 billion annually to support climate action in developing countries by 2020.

Under the Baku climate finance deal, developed parties and other sources will provide $300 billion annually to developing countries by 2035. The deal also calls for contributions toward an overall climate finance goal of $1.3 trillion annually by 2035, including voluntary contributions from developing countries.

“The Global North has abandoned the Global South with this meagre offer. It has no right to demand mitigation ambition from our part of the world with so little finance on the table. To begin with, the deal dilutes the legal obligation of developed countries to provide the entirety of the finance under the new goal, as per Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. The ambiguities of the goal make it clear that there will be little accountability and traceability of funds,” said Avantika Goswami, programme manager, Climate Change, CSE.

The $300 billion falls short of developing country demands. The G77 and China bloc, India and Like Minded Developing Countries had sought $600 billion annually in public finance from developed countries, as part of a larger $1.3 trillion annual sum by 2030.

The UN Standing Committee on Finance’s second report found that NDCs from 142 parties contained 5,760 needs, with 2,753 costed needs from 98 parties totaling $5.036-6.876 trillion.

CSE researchers said the 10-year timeline for such limited finance could leave developing countries with inadequate resources during this critical decade. The $300 billion isn’t specified as grants-based or concessional, potentially worsening the debt crisis. The decision text also fails to distinguish between “provision” and “mobilisation.”

“There appears to be some logical fallacy in the language of the decision text. 1. It calls on all actors to scale up finance to developing country Parties for climate action from all public and private sources to at least $1.3 trillion per year which is the estimated climate investment requirement in developing countries. 2. The same decision text also states that the goal is to mobilise $300 billion per year from public and private sources by 2035 with developed country Parties from taking the lead. How are these two different? The 300 billion should have been mainly public money from developed countries and the timeline should have been per annum till 2030 at least,” said Dhruba Purkayastha, director for growth and institutional advancement, Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW).

India led opposition to what it called a “stage-managed” deal at COP29, which ended amid unprecedented acrimony. After the Azerbaijan Presidency quickly approved a contested proposal, India was first to reject it for ignoring Global South priorities – a position later endorsed by several developing countries and blocs including the Like-Minded Developing Countries and Nigeria.

“At COP29, India and other vulnerable nations boldly called out the glaring failure of developed countries to deliver meaningful climate finance under the new climate finance goal. The decision, forced through by the COP29 Presidency in Baku last week, is not only grossly inadequate but also deliberately designed to shift the financial burden onto those least responsible for the climate crisis yet most devastated by its impacts. These negotiations disregarded the urgent needs of developing countries and blatantly side-lined their rightful demands for survival and justice,” said Harjeet Singh, climate activist and global engagement director, Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative.

“Countries like India and other frontline nations must escalate political pressure and explore every legal avenue to overturn this unjust agreement. The terms of climate finance must match the scale of the crisis—a bare minimum of $1.3 trillion annually by 2030, as demanded by developing nations. As the deadline for updating Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) approaches, developing nations must stand united, insisting that climate finance and ambition go hand in hand. Developed countries have no moral authority to demand greater efforts from us while continuing to shirk their historic and financial responsibilities,” Singh added.