A new streamlined draft text was published on Friday, November 22, 2024, at COP29 for the new climate finance goal. For the first time, the text includes a proposal for a provision of climate finance: $250 billion per year in climate finance by 2035.
Assessed against climate finance needs and demands from civil society and countries of the Global South, the number provided falls significantly short. Furthermore, provision in grant-equivalent was dropped.
The decisions made now will determine whether the Global South will have the resources to adapt, recover, and transition to a sustainable future – or will be left behind. Today’s text is not expected to be the final text, so it is now up to wealthy countries’ governments to put their money on the table and provide a higher support quantum.
Reactions have however trailed the publication, with activists describing the text as “a joke” as, according to them, the proposed $250 billion falls short of expectations.
Tasneem Essop, Executive Director, Climate Action Network International, said: “This latest draft text on the New Collective Quantified Goal is not just a joke – it’s an insult to the billions of people in the Global South living on the frontline of the climate crisis. The $250 billion per year in public finance is peanuts, doubling a failed $100 billion goal instead of addressing real needs.
“The Global South must not carry the burden of historic emitters’ failure to act. No deal is better than a bad deal – but we are not done yet. To essentially shift the responsibility to developing countries and the private banks with the $1.3 trillion by 2035 mobilisation goal just adds insult to injury. In the meantime, millions of people’s lives are at risk. We are angry, but we will keep fighting until the end.”
Namrata Chowdhary, Chief of Public Engagement at 350.org, said: “The Global North must stop playing poker with people’s lives and pay their overdue debt. We need real leadership – from wealthy nations and the Presidency – to land this deal. If they can’t deliver, they must step aside, because we will not accept a bad deal that fails to meet the moment.
“As the world watches what should be the final day of this year’s climate talks, the agreement we came here for remains elusive. This new climate finance goal is three years in the making, and the global majority remains leaps and bounds ahead of the governments who are continuing to stall and let progress slip away in the name of profits. But we will not be silenced. At COP29, we hold the line in our demand for more climate finance, not this bare minimum offer.”
Dr Sindra Sharma, Senior Policy Advisor, Pacific Islands Climate Action Network, said: “This draft text reflects the backroom secrecy that was used to concoct it. As it stands, the text fails to honour the spirit of the Paris Agreement, shirks the responsibility of historical emitters to pay for the harm they’ve caused and falls far short of the ambition needed to protect our people and planet. $250 billion mobilised per year by 2035 is both inadequate and shameful. If finance is the realisation of ambition, then we are still asleep. There’s still time to wake up and push – negotiations must continue!”
Dr. Wafa Misrar, Campaigns and Policy Lead, CAN Africa, said: The new NCQG text is a profound disrespect to the people on the frontlines of the climate crisis – those losing their lives, homes, and livelihoods every day. It is disheartening to witness the lack of commitment from Global North countries, who seem willing to disregard our realities. Our demands were clear, and let it be known: the proposed $250 billion is not just inadequate – it’s unacceptable. This is our message to developed countries: go back to your homes, revisit your priorities, and come back with real solutions that reflect the urgency of this crisis and the dignity of those most affected.
Shailendra Yashwant, Senior Advisor, Climate Action Network South Asia, said: “The NCQG number of $250 billion in the latest ministerial text is not a joke, it’s an insult to the people of the global south salvaging their belongings and trying to rebuild their lives from floods, heatwaves, cyclones, landslides or forest fires and other climate change induced disasters. We wanted to see minimum of $1.3 trillion in public finance but what we have instead is a measly $250 billion that is being pushed as a hybrid of loans and private sector investment. This is unacceptable and will not only fail to deliver climate ambition but also completely undermine the principals of Paris Agreement.”
Fidelis Stehle, President FIMCAP Europe, FIMCAP (Youth), said: “We have to achieve the 1.5 degrees of Paris to save human lives, therefore this multilateral process is crucial. The EU has trillions dollar climate debt to pay. The current texts and the NCQG are unacceptable and far from what we need to save the planet and human lives. From a youth perspective, it is unacceptable to have a bad deal for a decade that leaves the most vulnerable on a burning planet.”
Pegah Moulana, Secretary General, Youth and Environment Europe, said: “We cannot believe it: the new NCQG text fails us all. The $1.3 trillion target by 2035 puts all actors into the same box, when developed countries – those we, civil society, urge to pay are only called to mobilise $250 billion annually. Still nowhere near addressing the urgent needs of the Global South. Moreover, where is the funding for loss and damage? Where is any consideration of human rights, workers, gender and youth? This text is injustice in slow motion. Keep negotiating. We demand and deserve better!”
Camila Mercure, Climate Policy Officer, FARN, said: “There is no room for ambiguities and unclear responsibilities at this point: developing countries are already facing the impacts of the climate crisis and are in no position to address loss and damage not adaptation measures without good quality finance in adequate amounts. Many countries from the Global South are already indebted and are in no position to finance the adaptation to a climate crisis they themselves have not caused. Rich countries have to commit to a good quality and quantum for this NCQG in order for developing countries to be able to implement their NDCs.”
Marlene Achoki, Global Climate Policy Lead, CARE International, said: “The new quantum proposed by developed countries is unbelievable! It is wholly inadequate, to say the least. It does not show any care to the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations, fighting against the escalating climate crisis. It’s alarmingly insufficient, with proposed funding falling far short of climate needs. The quality is also faulty, as it leans on loans and private investments – approaches that have consistently failed to deliver for those most in need. A bad deal that sets the bar too low.”
Bertha Argueta, Senior Advisor for Climate Finance and Development, Germanwatch, said: “This proposal is a complete abdication of the responsibility of the Global North, as the largest historical polluters, to ensure a liveable planet for all, particularly those most affected by the climate crisis, largely in the Global South. That Global North countries are willing to put their political priorities and self-interest above the survival of millions of people in the Global South is shameful. We need developed countries to come back to the table with a deal that is truly ambitious and just, and to live up to their obligations to the Global South and the world.”
Claudio Angelo, head of International Policy at Observatório do Clima, said: “At least the NCQG text put forward by the Azeri presidency on Friday afternoon answers an important question formulated this week by developing country diplomats: ‘Is this a joke?’, they asked. It is, indeed.”
Mariana Paoli, Global Advocacy Lead, Christian Aid, said: “It is baffling that despite everyone knowing all year that this was the ‘finance COP’, rich countries are still refusing to put substantial enough funding pledges on the table. This is irresponsible, immoral and risks condemning both people and planet. Developing countries would be better walking away from the table than signing up to this garbage.
“With hours to go, unless significant changes are made to the text, especially the amount of finance to be provided, developing countries will be left behind. The funding that the global south is fighting for here is a lifeline and will lay the groundwork for climate action over the next decade.”
Kelly Dent, Global Director of External Engagement and Media, World Animal Protection, said: “The current NCQG text is a disgrace and must be rejected – it fails utterly in both quantity and quality, abandoning small farmers, ecosystems and wildlife to their fate. In these final hours, we need a massive surge in grant-based financing, or we face an irreversible ecological collapse. The world doesn’t need empty promises; it demands bold action. Those who feed the world deserve justice, yet billions of animals remain condemned to profit-driven factory farms, and the devastation of our biodiversity only accelerates. Enough with the shallow excuses – it’s time to act.”
Marjorie Pamintuan, Finance Campaigner, Recourse, said: “There is still no new real money on the table. Instead of paying the climate finance they owe, developed countries are sanctioning the multilateral development banks’ abandonment of their development mandate, enabling private sector profit-making out of the climate crisis and continued support for fossil fuels. It is crucial that the new climate finance goal is not handed over to the multilateral development banks, which are not set up to deliver grant-based, public finance for those who need it most: women, workers, young people and vulnerable communities.”
Fred Njehu, Pan-African Political Strategist, Greenpeace Africa, said: “While developed nations continue to dodge their responsibilities, our communities are drowning, starving, and losing their homes to a crisis they didn’t create. We refuse to accept a hollow finance deal that betrays climate justice and mocks the polluter pays principle. To my African colleagues – this is our moment to stand united. No deal is better than a deal that condemns our continent to further climate devastation. Developed nations must pay their fair share now.”
Felix Finkbeiner, Founder of Plant-for-the-Planet, said: “Nobody is paying up for the rainforest. At the beginning of 2024, the US pledged $500 million for the Amazon Fund. Since the US election we know, at most $100 million will actually be paid. We desperately need other countries to step in to fill this essential gap.The 2022 IPCC Report laid out that it is impossible to limit temperature rise to 1.5°, without vastly improving forest conservation.
“Despite holding out hope until the last minute of this Finance COP, we have not heard any meaningful commitments from global north countries to fund the preservation of the world’s rainforests.”
Soomin Han, Climate Finance Policy Analyst, Climate Action Network Canada, said: “This latest text is a limp, disappointing word salad with zero nutritional value or seasoning. It contains no commitment for public, grant-based non-debt-inducing finance, or for scaling up efforts on adaptation and loss and damage. Contrary to the spirit of the Paris Agreement, the new text shifts responsibility to the Global South and shows no real effort to restore the trust that had been broken by the failures of the $100 billion goal. This mess of a text isn’t what we ordered, and Parties here need to send it back to the kitchen.”
Dr. Rachel Cleetus, Policy Director for the Climate and Energy Programme, Union of Concerned Scientists, said: “With a paltry climate finance offer of $250 billion annually, and a deadline to deliver as late as 2035, richer nations including E.U. countries and the United States are dangerously close to betraying the Paris Agreement. This is nowhere near the robust and desperately needed funding lower income nations deserve to combat climate change. The central demand coming into COP29 was for a strong, science-aligned climate finance commitment, which this appalling text utterly fails to provide.
“Wealthier nations seem content to shamefully renege on their responsibility and cave in to fossil fuel interests while unjustly foisting the costs of deadly climate extremes on countries that have contributed the least to the climate crisis. Instead of actions to undermine trust and thwart progress, it’s urgent for developed countries to agree to a meaningful scale of funding that treats people on the frontlines of climate change with humanity and respect.”
Hari Krishna Nibanupudi, Global Climate Change and Agieng Adviser, Help Age International, said: “The latest text, New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance, falls short of the spirit and will of the Paris Agreement. Specifically, Section 8 and its clauses allow for alternative sources, creating potential escape routes for developed countries to avoid the real cash guarantee of $250 billion. Additionally, the recall of transparency commitments in Sections 27 and 28 undermines the principles of transparency and accountability critical to ensuring the equitable implementation of climate finance goals.”
Catherine Pettengell, Executive Director of CAN-UK, said: “Developed countries have once again failed their maths homework. The $250bn on the table from them makes no sense in the context of the actual and escalating costs of the climate crisis and fails any test of fairness. It is completely unacceptable and an insult to countries and communities on the frontline of the climate crisis not of their making. How can this proposal be considered an ambitious ramping up of action to match the scale of the crisis? Must do better.”
Salomé Lehtman, Project and Advocacy Advisor, Mercy Corps, said: “The latest text on the NCQG is unacceptable. Agreeing a figure of $250 billion mobilised per year by 2035 would not only be inadequate but shameful. Adjusted for inflation, it represents virtually no increase in public finance from developed countries beyond the $100 billion commitment made 15 years ago.
“Worse still, the proposal shifts responsibility to the private sector to mobilise trillions, despite overwhelming evidence that private finance cannot be relied upon to deliver equitable climate solutions. This text is a betrayal of trust, a betrayal of science, and a betrayal of rich countries’ legal obligations.
“The failure to put loss and damage on par with mitigation and adaptation is a glaring omission. Communities on the frontlines of climate change need reliable, accessible finance to recover from climate-induced disasters – not vague mentions in a text.
“This text would lock in insufficient climate action for the next decade at a time when incremental measures are no longer enough. It is time for rich countries to step up and pay up.”
Laurie van der Burg, Global Public Finance Campaign co-Manager, Oil Change International, said: “This text is an absolute embarrassment. It’s the equivalent of governments handing the keys to the firetruck to the arsonists. The vague $1.3 trillion investment target is not to be relied on and the $250 billion goal is not debt-free. Previous suggestions to end fossil fuel handouts and make polluters pay have all been axed. This amounts to a cop-out for polluters and allows rich countries to dodge their responsibilities by relying on the private sector and even developing countries to cover the bill, creating a debt-trap for countries most vulnerable to the climate crisis.
“We know rich countries can pay up the trillions they owe to the Global South by ending fossil fuel handouts, taxing the super-rich, and changing unfair global financial rules. We need a dramatic change in direction if we want a fighting chance to leave Baku with a finance deal that can support the fair fossil fuel phaseout that we need to avoid breaching 1.5°C.”
Teresa Anderson, the Global Lead on Climate Justice at ActionAid International, said: “This new text is absolutely heartless.
“The developed countries most responsible for causing climate destruction have turned their backs on climate-hit nations. The document offers no guarantees of real grant-based finance to those on the front lines. Instead of holding the developed countries that caused the climate crisis accountable, it shifts the burden onto developing countries and the private sector. Essentially, this draft text says ‘sorry, you’re on your own,’ to those on the frontlines.
“The Global South needs to keep up the fight. The whole planet needs them to stand up for the trillions of dollars in grants each year needed to keep the planet safe.”
Safa’ Al Jayoussi, Climate Justice Lead, Oxfam International, said: “This is a shameful failure of leadership. The COP29 Presidency’s top-down ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ approach has sidelined progressive voices. All the while rich countries boycott climate justice by refusing to pay up and putting only false solutions on the table. No deal would be better than a bad deal, but let’s be clear – there is only one option for those grappling with the harshest impacts of climate collapse: trillions, not billions, in public and grants-based finance.”
Alun McDonald, Islamic Relief Worldwide, said: “This new draft is an insult to people all over the world. We need a bold new finance deal, but instead rich countries are offering pocket change. The gap between the daily reality for people on the frontlines of the climate emergency and the negotiation rooms here at COP has never been so wide.
“Given inflation, this proposed new goal isn’t even an increase on old deals. Commitments to phasing out fossil fuels and keeping global heating below 1.5 degrees are being watered down. There’s far too much emphasis on profit-driven private finance. Overall, this latest draft is still a million miles away from what is needed.”
Dr. Maria Ron Balsera, Executive Director at the Centre for Economic and Social Rights, said: “After three years and two weeks of negotiations, the derisory $250 billion financial commitment offered is a profound betrayal, particularly for developing countries, which are bearing the brunt of a crisis they did not create. This was the Finance COP – the moment for developed countries to to rise to their moral and historical responsibility and fulfil their obligations. Instead, we’ve seen empty promises, lame excuses and infuriating delays. Let’s get a decent NCQG deal done!”
Harjeet Singh, Global Engagement Director, Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, said: “It is a disgrace that despite full awareness of the devastating climate crises affecting developing nations and the staggering costs of climate action – amounting to trillions – developed nations have only proposed a meagre $250 billion per year. To add insult to injury, this paltry sum includes loans and lacks the crucial commitment to grant-based finance, which is essential for developing nations to both address climate impacts and transition away from fossil fuels. The trust has been shattered; developing countries must stand firm. Rejecting this is a stand for dignity – no deal is better than a bad deal, especially when it disrespects those bearing the brunt of a crisis they did not create.”
Erin Ryan, Senior International Campaigner, Climate Action Network Australia, said: “Pacific Island negotiators have spines made of steel. Any developed countries who accept this finance deal have hearts made of the same stuff. $250 billion annually, with a 2035 deadline to deliver, is a pittance compared to the costs of actioning the transition from fossil fuels, funding adaptation and recovering from incalculable loss and damage in our region – let alone the wider Global South. Any acquiescence to this deal is a betrayal of the frontline negotiators here fighting in good faith, a betrayal of the world’s existing agreement to transition away from fossil fuels, and most importantly a betrayal of the people.”
Ann Harrison, Climate Justice Adviser, Amnesty International, said: “This is a shameful proposal that is torching the human rights of those on the front line of climate harms. High income states that are the most responsible for the mess we are in are failing to meet their legal obligations to provide adequate international cooperation and assistance to states in need of support. The money is there – eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, taxing polluters and the very rich is the way to provide the much higher levels of grants based public finance that lower income states have shown they need for mitigation and adaptation to protect the planet for us all, and to respond to ever increasing loss and damage.”
Bridget Burns, Executive Director, Women’s Environment and Development Organisation (WEDO), said: “The NCQG text reeks of cowardice – a monument to the hypocrisy of the COP process. In 2024, global military spending exceeds $2.4 trillion, yet climate action receives a pittance. Feminist organisations, Indigenous Peoples, and women and girls in all their diversity hold communities together, driving solutions systematically starved of resources. The current system doesn’t fail them – it sabotages them. Justice demands public finance – massive, unrestricted, and immediate – flowing directly to frontline communities, free from red tape. Anything less is complicity in humanity’s destruction. Redirect trillions from destruction to survival, or admit you’ve chosen profit over life.”
Liane Schalatek, Associate Director, Heinrich Boell Foundation Washington, said: “With this proposal, the Paris Agreement is essentially dead and the great bargain from Paris, that the ratcheting up of ambition for collective climate action requires a commensurate raising of the ambition of finance provided for developing countries, cancelled by heartless Global North countries abdicating their historical responsibility. Not polluters are being made to pay, but the people in developing countries.
“The proposed structure of the goal would ask the Global South instead to contribute in several ways, while only vaguely promising that developed countries take the lead in mobilising finance at an amount, which is stuck at the inadequate ambition level of 2009 when the 100 bn goal was set. With no reference to human rights and gender equality, the proposal continues the march backwards away from climate justice and will make it even harder for the most affected communities to get access to finance. No climate justice without human rights.”
Mohamed Adow, Director, Power Shift Africa, said: “Our expectations were low, but this is a slap in the face. No developing country will fall for this. What trick is the presidency trying to pull? They’ve already disappointed everyone, but they have now angered and offended the developing world. It seems that building an ambitious climate finance outcome in Baku is not the ballgame this presidency is playing. The figure of $250 billion is about 20% of what developing countries have asked for. Are we really settling for a fifth of the ambition that is needed to tackle the climate crises? We need developed countries to grab the bull by the horns and put forward a number that reflects the actual needs of developing countries. Rich countries need to bypass this president and negotiate eye to eye with developing countries.”
Gerry Arances, Executive Director, Centre for Energy, Ecology, and Development, said: “We started COP29 with alarm that the outcome of the US presidential elections would deter global climate action – apparently, the halls of COP29 are already flooded with many Trumps. The $250 billion a year is a cruel condemnation to death for the world’s vulnerable peoples – it barely begins to cover what developing nations need to adapt to worsening climate impacts, account for decades of loss and damage, and mitigate more catastrophic climate chaos. We wonder how governments of historically polluting nations still dare show their faces with claims of climate leadership and commitment. Communities of the Global South will not allow our survival to be dictated by this text. We will not allow this atrocity to trump climate action while perpetuating the many injustices done to our people by developed nations.”
Chiara Martinelli, Director, Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe, said: “This is not even breadcrumbs. A $250 billion annual target by 2035, spread across all actors, is not even breadcrumbs. With no guarantee for new grants and minimal accountability for historic polluters – it’s just putting the burden on those most vulnerable.
“At the beginning of COP29, the EU said we can count on them. Since then, we have seen only words and no action. Rich countries must return to the negotiation room to step up, pay up, and deliver real climate finance. This text is unacceptable. We will fight until the last minute for an ambitious deal.”
Gaïa Febvre, international policy coordinator, RAC France, said: “This text is disrespectful! 2024 was the hottest year on record and climate disasters continue to intensify. Climate change is killing people, rendering entire territories uninhabitable, and after three years of technical negotiations, the countries of the North dare to give us a ridiculous figure? We refuse to believe it!
“Northern countries must assume their responsibilities and pay; developing countries must stand firm and demand fairness.
“The agreement must make polluters pay to stop their emissions and make them accountable, instead of passing the burden on to the most vulnerable, who pay with their lives. The “polluter pays” principle must be brought back into the text.
“An honest agreement is still possible, developed countries: you can still leave this COP with your heads held high: just know that we, the NGOs, will be fighting right up to the last minute, alongside the most vulnerable populations!”
Maria Hammer, Campaigner, Südwind (Austria), said: “The text presented just now is an absolute disaster. $250 billion until 2035 cannot be taken seriously, it represents, if anything, an inflation adjustment of the previous inadequate financing. To only implement the figure of 1,3 trillion by 2035 seems to postpone the upscaling of climate finance for more than ten years. We call on the EU and other Global North parties to urgently step up and come up with a serious proposal reflecting their historical climate debt and responsibility for climate finance for mitigation, adaptation and loss & damage.
Martin Krenn, Spokesperson for the Austrian Alliance for Climate Justice, said: “This fist number by developed countries of only $250 billion comes at the last day of the COP and it’s a slap in the face for the poorest countries and for the development of ambitious nationally determined contributions. It doesn’t represent an increase to the current goal and would exacerbate the debt crisis in the poorest countries. Furthermore, the 1,3 trillion number is meaningless as it includes every kind of finance flow and cannot be accounted for. Parties need to return to the negotiating rooms immediately and come up with a result that will actually save lives and enable the transition to climate neutrality in the Global South.”
Sinéad Loughran, Climate Justice Policy & Advocacy Advisor, Trócaire, said: “This proposal would further entrench the triple-edged injustice for climate vulnerable countries; the intensifying impacts, the bill they are left to foot in the absence of needs-based, adequate climate finance, and the diversion of money from basic services such as healthcare and education to pay for climate impacts and loan repayments. It is an insult, and reflects a step backwards in ambition, and a complete disregard for the impacts being felt by those who have done nothing to cause this crisis. It flies in the face of climate justice and the responsibilities of rich countries.”
Nadia Cornejo, Vice-présidente, Climate Coalition Belgium, said: “We thought the fog was finally going to lift over Baku but it’s the sky that’s falling. Neither the quality nor the quantity is there. The $250 billion proposed between now and 2035 is peanuts when you consider that the countries of the South will need more than twice that amount to recover from floods, heat waves and other climatic disasters. Without another string to the bow of the countries of the North, COP29 will well and truly end in failure.
Lien Vandamme, Senior Campaigner, Centre for International Environmental Law, said: “This new text is the definition of a bad deal. The peanuts committed to will deny any form of justice for those on the frontlines of the climate crisis, and push developing countries deeper into debt. The vague language on sources isn’t fooling anyone – wealthy countries do not want to pay and are shifting the burden even more onto climate-vulnerable countries.
“The new text entirely denies wealthy countries’ obligations to remedy the massive harm that the climate crisis is causing, providing grants-based finance for loss and damage and full reparation. The removal of all references to human rights is ugly and demonstrates how they are too often used as a bargaining chip in this process, rather than upheld as the obligations they are. Without human rights safeguards, a climate finance goal – especially one that encompasses private finance and opens the door to carbon markets – risks compounding harms to communities and ecosystems. Countries should reject this text.”
Marie Cosquer, Advocacy analyst- food systems and climate, Action against Hunger, said: “Global North countries should be ashamed. They have forgotten the very real weight of their climate debt. The human face of this debt is the many lives lost on climate change impacts and the rise of hunger. The finance goal cannot cynically ignore the needs and must clearly prioritise additional public finance that will be accessible by the communities, such as small-scale food producers, who, while bearing the brunt of climate change, are the ones nourishing the planet.”
Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group: “We are deeply concerned with the text released this afternoon on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance. It dilutes the existing commitments of the developed countries and does not reflect the ambition needed for global climate action. Our Group is alarmed to note that our three years of hard work is not reflected in the proposed draft text.
“The text is weak on many issues: it does not take into account the issues of most vulnerable countries, particularly LDCs and SIDS, the quantum is far less than needed, it offers no guarantee of minimum allocation for our groups. Support for Loss and Damage remains conspicuously absent in the new goal. There is also no minimum share of the goal flowing through operating entities and the funds established under the Convention and serving the Paris Agreement.
“The language on access is weak and lacks concrete commitments to improve access by the most vulnerable. Similarly, the definition of climate finance is missing, leaving ambiguity in accounting.
“The text on implementation of the Global Stocktake outcome, that we all collectively agreed in Dubai last year, requires more work. We must ensure there is a clear follow-up on implementation of all the Global Stocktake outcomes, which now includes just as an option in the text. We must implement what we all collectively agreed and ensure there is provision for the means of implementation.
“We need to ensure that our ambition to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C remains front and centre, otherwise our survival is threatened. That means a strong call for raising ambition through updated NDCs, and to ensure support for the NDC implementation. Right now, all of these features are missing from the text.”
