As COP29 in Baku entered its final days, negotiations over the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance reached a fever pitch.
While developed nations offered an annual $250 billion commitment as part of a broader $1.3 trillion by 2035 target, African negotiators and civil society groups decried the proposal as inadequate and inequitable.
For the African Group of Negotiators (AGN), the draft text highlighted systemic flaws in how climate finance is designed and delivered.
The initial proposal of $250 billion annually sparked immediate backlash. Civil society groups, including Climate Action Network Europe, dismissed the figure as “breadcrumbs.” Chiara Martinelli, the network’s director, was blunt in her criticism.
“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 puts the burden on the most vulnerable.”
The draft also failed to clarify how these funds would be mobilized, whether through grants, loans, or private investments. Delegates from developing nations argued that vague language and undefined mechanisms undermined the credibility of the commitment.
“This is not a real deal; it’s a delay tactic,” said Kelly Stone from ActionAid International. “The Global North must pay its climate debt to the Global South.”
The proposal did not sit well with African ministers either. Ambassador Ali Mohamed, chair of the AGN, was unequivocal in his critique. “We need predictable, accessible, and adequate financing.
This draft does not deliver that,” he said. For the AGN, the NCQG must represent a substantial departure from the failed $100 billion annual target, which has yet to be fully realized despite being set in 2009.
Throughout the negotiations, African nations and small island states consistently emphasized the need for equity and fairness in climate finance. They argued that developed nations, which have historically contributed the most to global emissions, must take the lead in providing funds.
Rohey John, The Gambia’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change, framed the issue as one of justice rather than charity. “This is not about handouts. This is about accountability for the damage caused by the actions of industrialized nations,” she said during a press briefing.
Namrata Chowdhary from 350.org described the proposal as “an insult to developing nations.” She added, “The rich countries are gambling with the lives of people in small island states and Africa. It’s shocking that this is where we are after two weeks of talks.”
Civil society organizations were a vocal presence in Baku, staging protests inside and outside the conference venue. Activists taped pieces of paper reading “Pay up!” to their foreheads, symbolizing their demand for tangible commitments from the Global North.
Lidy Nacpil from the Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development criticized the reliance on loans within climate finance. “Climate finance should not come in the form of loans because this will add to the debt burden,” she said. “One of the issues preventing the Global South from taking urgent climate action is the crippling debt burden.”
Jacobo Ocharan of Climate Action Network International urged developing nations to stand firm in the negotiations. “We need courage. This deal is terrible, and no deal is better than a bad deal,” he said.
The NCQG draft text called for mobilizing $1.3 trillion annually by 2035. However, it framed this as an aspirational goal rather than a binding commitment, leaving much of the financial burden to voluntary contributions from countries “in a position to do so.”
This language drew sharp criticism from African negotiators, who argued it diluted the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” enshrined in the Paris Agreement. “This draft perpetuates inequities. It shifts the burden to those least responsible for the crisis,” said Zambia’s Green Economy Minister, Mike Elton Mposha.
The draft also emphasized innovative financial instruments such as blended finance and debt-for-climate swaps. While these mechanisms can mobilize private sector funds, African leaders warned they could exacerbate debt burdens for already fiscally strained economies. “We cannot borrow our way out of the climate crisis,” said Angola’s Environment Minister.
The AGN and other Global South representatives called for enforceable benchmarks in the NCQG. They insisted that at least half of the proposed funds come as grants or concessional finance, ensuring that vulnerable nations are not further burdened by debt.
“The NCQG must be more than a number. It must be a pathway to climate justice,” Ambassador Mohamed said.
Simplifying access to climate finance was another key demand. African nations criticized the current system for being overly complex and inaccessible. “We spend years navigating red tape while our communities suffer,” said Kenya’s representative. “This cannot continue.”
Despite the contentious debates, COP29 saw progress in other areas. The adoption of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which establishes a global carbon market, was hailed as a major achievement. This mechanism allows countries to trade carbon credits, incentivizing emission reductions and climate-friendly investments.
The World Bank and other multilateral development banks also pledged significant increases in climate finance, committing $120 billion annually by 2030, with an additional $65 billion mobilized from the private sector. However, these commitments fall short of the $4 trillion annually that climate experts estimate is needed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
The Azerbaijani presidency defended the draft as a “balanced and streamlined package” but acknowledged that significant adjustments might be needed. “We will further engage with parties to collectively agree on final adjustments to the few outstanding issues,” the presidency stated.
For African nations, the stakes could not be higher. With adaptation costs projected to rise to $387 billion annually by 2030, the continent cannot afford another round of empty promises. “This is about survival,” said Rohey John. “Without adequate finance, our people will suffer, and our progress will be erased.”
Civil society groups vowed to continue their fight, both inside and outside the negotiation halls. As Namrata Chowdhary from 350.org put it, “We will not settle for breadcrumbs. We will keep pushing until justice is served.”
