No NCQG quantum yet from the rich world as COP29 comes to a close

Just hours before a new draft iteration of the text on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) was to be released by the COP29 Presidency on its final day, civil society members and some developing country negotiators said developed countries had still not put in numbers of the NCQG quantum and how much of that will be in grants, on the table for discussion.

This could even mean a “no deal” from Baku, civil society members suggested as they recommended that a “bad deal” would lock in poor finance for the developing world and hence not address climate change mitigation either, climate activists said in a press conference on Friday.

“Goverments of rich countries can style themselves to champions of climate action but continue to refuse to put a number on the table to which they will contribute in the form of grants, not in the form of loans... We cannot be made to commit to climate actions that do not have any clear indication that there will be climate finance available. We are not begging for assistance. This is part of the reparations of the global North for a crisis they have primarily caused. We are not going to accept a bad deal,” said Lidy Nacpil, Filipino Human Rights activist and environmentalist.

“They (developed nations) have still not shown their cards. So, there is nothing to respond to,” a negotiator from a developing country said.

Some members of the civil society also said there are efforts to weaken the unity of developing countries, especially the G77 and China.

“In the last few hours of this COP, we are really appealing and challenging our governments in the South to hold their ground. They need to stand and stay strong and unified to even have a semblance of the recognition of the rights of the Global South. We cannot accept this,” said a member.

“On this last official day of COP29, we are frustrated, angry, and exhausted by decades of games played by developed countries. This was supposed to be the ‘Finance COP’ — a moment to agree on new climate finance goals critical for our planet’s survival. Instead, we’re trapped in deadlock and deep divisions. Developing nations are demanding $1.3 trillion annually to confront the climate crisis, and even the latest draft acknowledges the need for trillions. Yet, after three years and countless high-level meetings, developed countries have offered nothing — not a single figure. Their priority remains profits, profits, and more profits, all at the expense of global equity and justice,” said Climate Activist and Global Engagement Director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative in a statement.

HT reported on Friday that a deep divide over climate finance erupted into the open on Thursday at the UN climate summit COP29, as developed nations and developing nations roundly rejected a new draft proposal that offered two starkly different options for funding climate action, leaving the talks in disarray with barely a day remaining.

Among the controversial proposals is a plan to count developing countries’ domestic resources as part of climate finance, which sparked fierce opposition.

The 10-page draft, slimmed down from an earlier 25-page version, presents two starkly different approaches to the NCQG on climate finance, the deal that was at the heart of this year’s talks. The NCQG refers to the next step of funding for climate crisis. While one option maintains traditional flows from developed to developing nations, the controversial alternative suggests counting “all sources of finance, including domestic resources” toward climate funding goals.

The first option establishes an annual climate finance goal of “at least USD [X] trillion” from 2025-2035, specifically flowing from developed to developing countries. It emphasises grants or grant-equivalent terms and includes provisions for adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage support.

The alternative proposal, backed by developed nations, sets a similar trillion-dollar target but delays implementation until 2035 and includes the contentious “domestic resources” provision. It also aims to “gradually improve the global data available to track financial investments in climate action, including data not currently captured under formal reporting systems.”