Adaptation experts from Africa and the Global South have contested the text on Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) and the draft text of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), describing them as insufficient and underwhelming for lacking clear targets on adaptation and loss and damage and for including ‘‘extreme proposals’’ that go against the Paris Agreement.
The experts have also faulted the text for failing to link the GGA and the NCQG to climate finance. Overall, the text falls short of expectations on many fronts for a ‘‘finance COP’’, they say.
Millions of communities in the Global South have borne the harshest effects of climate change, including ferocious floods, dreadful droughts and cataclysmic cyclones.
Many had hoped that this COP29 would yield the much-needed finance to enable populations in vulnerable countries to adapt to and build resilience against climate shocks.
Contention with the GGA text and draft on the NCQG
Specifically, they have raised the following issues with the text saying it:
● Lacks a specific figure on the climate finance goal
● Lacks the quantum of the provision and mobilisation goal
● Lacks clear targets for adaptation and loss and damage
● Includes proposals that violate the principles of the Paris Agreement
● Fails to mention women as a vulnerable segment of society on social inclusion
● Contains weak statements like grant financing being used for adaptation and loss and damage ‘‘to the largest extent possible’’
● Lack of linkage between the GGA text and the draft on the NCQG
● Fails to connect resources to solutions like the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience.
In a reaction to the new text on the NCQG on climate finance, Mohamed Adow, executive director of Power Shift Africa, called it a blank cheque and asked developed countries to put actual figures on the table.
According to him, it is only by putting specific numbers to the goal that negotiations at COP29 will move forward smoothly.
He 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. You measure money with numbers. We need a cheque but all we have right now is a blank piece of paper.
“The text 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.”
Amy Giliam Thorp, Senior Adaptation and Resilience Policy Advisor, Power Shift Africa, said: ‘‘The latest NCQG text falls far short of expectations for a ‘finance COP’, particularly on adaptation and loss and damage. Without clear, quantified goals with no sub-goals for adaptation, mitigation or Loss & Damage, developed countries have glaringly failed in their leadership role at this COP. While the text mentions grant-based finance and non-debt instruments, the language lacks the strength needed to drive real adaptation action.
“Alarmingly, it remains silent on financing the Global Goal on Adaptation and the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience. The NCQG must include a quantified adaptation sub-goal and a strong reference to the finance needed to achieve GGA targets lest adaptation finance is deprioritised again.’’
Juma Ignatius, Senior Adaptation Policy Advisor, Africa Group of Negotiators, said: ‘‘Even as we come to the homestretch of COP29, we must not forget that the Global Goal on Adaptation remains a key priority. The means of implementation (MoI) is crucial for the full implementation of the GGA targets in line with the commitments of the climate dialogue. Developed countries have an obligation to provide the means to implement climate action by providing finance that is adequate, predictable and based on grants.
“All financing for adaptation must also be compatible with and responsive to the evolving needs of developing countries. This COP was supposed to bring parity between adaptation and mitigation. We did not get that.’’
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, adaptation and loss and damage. This could further reduce funding for adaptation.
“There is some good language on qualitative elements and calls for a floor for adaptation for LDCs and SIDs from all relevant actors and financial mechanisms. There are 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.”
Bertha Argueta, Senior Advisor, Climate Finance and Development, Germanwatch, said: ‘‘The text presented is still far from the outcome we had hoped for from this COP. It lacks the key elements of the quantum of the provision and mobilisation goal. Without this key piece of the puzzle, very little progress can be made elsewhere. Developing countries have put their proposal on the table, but developed countries are still holding back, making a compromise difficult to reach.
“Clear targets for adaptation and loss and damage are also missing. However, there is still time to work on a goal that respects the Paris Agreement; a goal that is responsive to the needs and priorities of developing countries, particularly for adaptation and loss and damage.’’
Lina Yassin, Adaptation Negotiator, IED, said: ‘‘It is deeply concerning to see the NCQG missing from the GGA text. This COP process has turned its back on the very communities these climate negotiations are meant to protect and provide for. How can we not connect resources to real solutions like the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience at a ‘finance COP’? Without this link, we risk walking away from COP29 with empty promises while vulnerable communities in Africa and elsewhere in the Global South continue to suffer the harshest consequences of the climate crisis.”
Ndivile Mokoena, Project Coordinator, Gender CC, said: “From the text, it looks like developing countries might have to spend their resources to finance climate adaptation. The language on gender and support for vulnerable members of society is also very weak. Women take care of their families, communities and environment. Shockingly, however, women are not mentioned in the paragraph on social inclusion. The context-specific nature of adaptation action and national circumstances have not been recognised either. The goal and vision of this text are not clear, and neither is the timeframe.’’
Fredrick Otieno, Programmes Associate, Power Shift Africa, said: ‘‘Adaptation has been relegated to the backburner in the climate discourse and in financing. As a result, whatever quantum Parties will agree on may not resolve the endemic underfinancing of adaptation. The current GGA text lacks a clear linkage with the draft on the NCQG. It appears that negotiators from Global North consigned all finance items, including the means of implementation (MoI), to the NCQG.
“It is equally disturbing that the current text lacks a specific figure on the climate finance goal. This puts ambitious climate action in jeopardy. Only indicators for tracking finance flows towards the GGA targets would catalyse more ambitious adaptation investments.’’
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 recognises the need to prioritise grants but remains silent on the critical scale of the new finance goal, instead shifting pressure onto developing countries to mobilise 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.”
Tasneem Essop, Executive Director, Climate Action Network International, said: “The latest draft NCQG text remains glaringly incomplete without the concrete numbers for the finance goal – the very cornerstone of any agreement at COP29 and the unwavering demand of developing countries throughout this summit. Developed countries knew they were expected to arrive in Baku ready to agree on a meaningful climate finance goal. Instead, they continue to play games with the lives of people on the frontlines of climate disaster, manipulating and undermining these critical negotiations. They need to put the numbers on the table now, or we run the risk of not getting an outcome.
“Developing countries should push to ensure that public grants-based funding is prioritised by developed countries, and that there is robust architecture for the monitoring and accountability for the delivery of these public funds. After 10 days, we’re still stuck at the starting line. But the race isn’t over yet – there’s still time to cross the finish line. Everything is still to play for.”
Joseph Sikulu, Pacific Director, 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.”
Sanjay Vashist, Director, Climate Action Network South Asia, said: “We are disappointed to see no clear NCQG numbers in the draft text that has been streamlined and includes some strong options and good elements, however our biggest concern is that this text explicitly tries to erode all references to historical polluters’ obligation to pay under Paris Agreement and is an attempt to prepare the ground for a private sector led global finance goal with minimal accountability on developed countries. That said, as always the good elements are bracketed, and we hope that in the next 48 hours the developed countries demonstrate ambition and commitment to deliver at least $1.3 trillion the 1.5 C goals of the Paris Agreement.”
Gerry Arances, Executive Director, Centre 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.”
Anthony Wolimbwa, National Coordinator, Climate Action Network Uganda said: “Our hope as most vulnerable and countries at risk lay in the magic quantum. As it turns out, we may only count the number of endless meetings and not the much-needed financial numbers. Our hope is deeming, and we need the world to act in solidarity and move beyond rhetoric to real action. The Global North must Pay up their climate debt.”
Marlene Achoki, Global Policy Lead, CARE International, said: “The presidency proposal draft text offers a range of options, and it lacks specific numerical targets to establish a quantified goal, the VERY purpose of COP29! Where is the number? This is the finance COP: it is about a clear and ambitious commitment that would enable vulnerable communities to address the impacts of climate change. We need developed countries’ concrete quantum proposals that show leadership and ambition, with a high percentage to provision of grant based climate finance as opposed to mobilisation and channelling climate finance through MDBs that increase the debt status of developing countries.”
Olha Boiko, Network Coordinator, CAN EECCA, said: “The draft text on the NCQG fails to guarantee a successful outcome of COP29, the main expectation of which was a decision on a concrete quantum. The Parties are making baby steps in the right direction, but they are walking on air, as long as there is no final sum agreed on. We are expecting the final decision to respond to the urgent need of having clear quantified goals for mitigation, adaptation, as well as loss and damage. We urge the Parties not to waste another year while failing billions of people, who are suffering from the climate crisis.”
Stela Herschmann, Climate Policy Specialist, Climate Observatory, said: “The new text brings two diametrically different options, reflecting the deadlock we have seen since negotiations started. It also lacks the level of ambition of the NCQG. Without numbers on the table and with opposite views of what a new goal should look like, it is unclear how parties will find a common ground. The presidency needs to step up its game to make parties move to a positive outcome.”
Javier Andaluz, Climate and Energy Head, Ecologistas en Acción, said: “The hypocrisy with which the negotiations are moving forward is evident with the new text. While the numbers on the needs of the global South are clear with the new text, the inability of the Global North to come to this summit with its homework done, having increased its contribution significantly puts the fight against climate change even more at risk. In this crucial decade there is no room to fight between mitigation and finance. In these final hours of COP29 we demand climate reparations that will enable fast, fair and forever decarbonisation.”
Erin Ryan, Senior International Campaigner, Climate Action Network Australia, said: “This isn’t a game. The Global South are here in good faith, plainly telling us what’s needed to action the agreed transition away from fossil fuels, adapt to the climate crisis and recover from loss and damage in their communities. By failing to put a figure on the table and assuring us that the private sector will fill in the chasmic gaps, high income and high polluting countries like Australia are first and foremost failing the people. But they’re also failing the process by treating it like a win-lose game. There are no winners in a climate crisis, and the only way to end the stalemate is to pay up to action the urgent transition away from deadly coal, oil and gas.”
On the role of Australia’s minister as co-chair specifically, Erin Ryan, Senior International Campaigner, Climate Action Network Australia, said: “As co-chair of the COP climate finance negotiations, Chris Bowen has guided the world to a crossroads. One path upholds the obligations of the Paris Agreement, the other leaves them in the dirt. His mandate now is to listen to those who have come to COP29 to talk earnestly about the finance needed for their communities to action the agreed transition away from fossil fuels, adapt to the climate crisis and recover from loss and damage. Without a dollar figure on the table he’s navigating without a north star, but we still have options in front of us. Only by listening to those here in good faith can he guide the world to the ambitious finance outcome it urgently needs.”
Kelly Dent, Director of External Affairs, World Animal Protection said: “The NCQG text unveiled at COP29 is an alarming betrayal. Developed countries are once again dodging their responsibilities and hoarding the critical climate finance that the Global South desperately needs. As well keeping 1.5°C alive – this is about justice for small scale producers, family farmers and the millions who sustain our world and yet remain abandoned with mere scraps of the promised funds. Even less is invested in sustainable, agroecological practices that could revolutionise our fight against climate collapse.
“This failure isn’t just a human tragedy – it’s an ecological catastrophe. Entire ecosystems, already buckling under the weight of climate change, are on the brink. Wildlife faces obliteration. Biodiversity loss accelerates. Without substantial, grant-based financing now, we’re hurtling towards irreversible habitat destruction and an ecological collapse that imperils every living being. The world is watching and demands leaders do better – or bear the blame for a planet undone.”
Petra Kjell Wright, Campaigns Manager, Recourse, said: “Developed countries need to step up and provide climate finance. But channelling it through multilateral development banks and the private sector is not the way forward. It will remove national ownership over climate actions, add debt, and take urgently needed resources far away from the most climate-vulnerable communities — basically handing them to big business. The development banks have a poor track record on delivering climate finance to people and communities that need it most, and as neither they nor the private sector are accountable to the UN climate convention, they should not be counted in the COP29 climate finance goal.”
Dr. Rachel Cleetus, Policy Director for the Climate and Energy Programme, Union of Concerned Scientists, said: “The latest text shows nations still alarmingly far apart. Without urgent course correction, countries are careening towards a dismal and unjust COP29 outcome. They must use these final days to bridge harmful trust gaps and secure an ambitious and fair climate finance agreement. The clarion call to rich countries is to lead on providing adequate climate finance to low-income nations on the order of at least $1trillion per year in grants and low-interest loans. The science is clear: this funding is crucial for countries to transition rapidly away from fossil fuels to clean energy, protect people, economies and ecosystems from extreme climate impacts, and cope with mounting loss and damage.”
Teresa Anderson, Global Lead on Climate Justice and Head of Delegation for ActionAid International, said: “Rich countries are failing this moral test. Developing countries have come to Baku with the hope that this COP would finally deliver the funding they need to cope with climate impacts and cut emissions. But the developed countries most responsible for causing climate destruction are turning a deaf ear to the reality faced by frontline nations. This draft doesn’t provide the trillions in grants that are needed to keep the planet safe.
“Instead of actually increasing their climate finance contributions, rich countries just want to increase what counts as climate finance. With all the loans and corporate investment being pushed into this new goal, this text could end up being a pretext for corporate profit under a climate veneer. The whole world needs COP29 to deliver trillions in grants every year for urgent climate action.”
Stephen Cornelius, WWF Deputy Global Climate and Energy Lead, said: “The text is narrowing, but so is time to reach a final agreement. Negotiators and ministers need to pick up the pace, ramp up their diplomacy and drive consensus around an ambitious climate finance deal. The lack of a finance target in this draft is a worrying sign that the most challenging decisions are being left to the last minute. This agreement will decide the climate finance landscape for years to come. We simply can’t afford to get this wrong. Without adequate finance for climate solutions, we won’t be able to prevent catastrophic climate impacts. It is essential we get an outcome here capable of unleashing climate action at speed and scale around the world.”
Andreas Sieber, Associate Director of Global Policy and Campaigns, 350.org, said: “The new climate finance and mitigation draft texts presented at COP29 today fail to deliver what is needed to transform the lives of those most impacted by the climate crisis. Will governments recall this moment too, when the next climate disaster hits their country? A fast, fairly funded fossil fuel phase out is what we need reflected in these texts. 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.”
Soomin Han, Climate Finance Policy Analyst, Climate Action Network (CAN-Rac) 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 the 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.”
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.”
Hari Krishna, Global Climate Change and Ageing Adviser, Help International, said: “The document highlights progress in equitable climate finance. Still, it must explicitly recognise the need to address global financial asymmetries that hinder low-income nations’ ability to fund critical climate actions. Section 18 notably overlooks older people disproportionately affected by climate extremes like heatwaves and floods. By 2050, the global population aged 60+ will reach 2.1 billion, with 426 million aged 80+. This demographic shift requires urgently including older people in climate finance policies to ensure their vulnerabilities are addressed, and the inevitable challenges of ageing populations in the context of climate change are recognised.”
Chiara Martinelli, Director at Climate Action Network Europe, said: “The new text on climate finance is like a bridge half-built. It gives the illusion of progress but leaves us stranded when we need to cross. The lack of even a proposed scale for the quantum sends a troubling signal about the level of ambition. The EU came to COP29 knowing they needed concrete numbers, yet withholding them now feels like gambling with the future of our planet. The elements for a strong outcome are still on the table, and the money exists. The clock is ticking, we need to turn vague ideas into a concrete proposal that meets the urgency of this moment.”
Catherine Pettengell, Executive Director, Climate Action Network UK (CAN-UK), said: “The draft text includes one option for an ambitious global climate finance goal that’s fit for purpose, and one option that frankly isn’t even an option. Option two doesn’t reflect the spirit or responsibilities of the Paris Agreement – and including it is an insult – it is simply a compilation of all the very worst things developed countries have suggested during this process.”
Mariana Paoli, Global Advocacy Lead, Christian Aid, said: “COP29 was supposed to be the finance COP. Rich countries had one job to do: lay out how much finance they are going to provide but there’s no numbers yet. It’s like developed countries are saying the dog ate their homework.
“The text correctly talks about the seriousness of the climate crisis but it’s solutions don’t match the diagnosis. This new goal cannot be about charity, it is rather an obligation that developed countries must fulfil for being largely responsible for the climate crisis in the first place. Countries must reach an agreement that delivers public finance at scale and this option remains on the cards. The current text suggests we’re not close to a landing zone in Baku and rich countries need to get serious if we’re going to finish on Friday as the COP hosts intend.”
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.”
Safa’ Al Jayoussi, Climate Justice Lead, Oxfam International, said: “COP29 must deliver more than threadbare promises. The most polluting countries need to provide trillions, not billions, each year in public, grant-based climate finance to address their climate debt. This is not charity; it’s the bare minimum needed to protect frontline communities from climate devastation, support recovery after disasters, and ensure a just transition to a sustainable future. The world is watching and it’s past time for rich countries to act decisively and pay up —or forever be remembered as those who prioritised profit over people and complacency before courage.”
Lien Vandamme, Senior Campaigner, Center for International Environmental Law, said: “Having a draft text on climate finance without a number is like a map with no destination. The lack of clarity and consensus that this goal will also address loss and damage is symptomatic of the decades of denial of States with a historic responsibility for the climate crisis of their obligations to remedy climate harm. Leaving a loss and damage-sized hole in the climate finance goal will further escalate the harm to those on the frontlines of the climate crisis. States have legal obligations to pay up for climate finance and this means trillions, not billions, of public, grants-based finance for mitigation, adaptation AND loss and damage.”
Gaïa Febvre, International Policy Coordinator, RAC France, said: The new text remains incomplete because the taboo in the room has not been lifted: the quantum is the big absentee. Yet one option indicates that trillions are needed. The clock is ticking: the Northern countries absolutely must put a figure on the table. If they don’t, we have no idea what kind of ambition we’re talking about. They therefore refuse to accept their historic responsibility for climate change. It is also essential that the countries of the North do not give in to the siren songs of private finance and carbon markets. Giving up is not an option.”
Jamie Williams, Senior Policy Advisor, Islamic Relief Worldwide, said: “This text signals a shameful abdication of moral responsibility from rich nations. People dying from the climate emergency can’t survive on empty words, they need clear financial commitments from the countries that caused the crisis. The text recognises that trillions of dollars are needed but fails to commit any specific amount.
“The increasing shift towards private investment over public finance is extremely worrying. We can’t leave tackling the biggest crisis facing humanity to unaccountable corporations that will always put profits before people and want a return on any investment. Because of that, private finance doesn’t fund adaptation, so relying on it will leave the most vulnerable people abandoned.
“The time spent debating overall finance is distracting from moving ahead with negotiations on the quality of adaptation, meaning that money for adaptation will not only be inadequate but also less equitable, less efficient and less effective.”
Jasper Inventor, Head of COP29 Delegation for Greenpeace International, said: “The draft text has one option that rightly recognises trillions are needed, but the fact there is no number specified for the climate finance goal is an insult to the millions of people on the frontlines bearing the brunt of climate change impacts. Developing countries have clear sums in mind and developed countries need to put forward a sufficiently high enough public finance offer to build trust and for these talks to progress. There are two options: one that could unlock trillions in finance or one allowing developed countries to shirk their responsibilities onto the private sector and developing countries. Agreeing to put the bill to the fossil fuel polluting companies offers a real path forward to bridge the financing gap and it’s encouraging this is still included in the negotiating text.”
