New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) Process: Are We Asking the Right Questions?

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The briefing outlines the complexities of establishing the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance, emphasizing the need for a science- and equity-based approach over purely political targets. It highlights the lack of a common definition for climate finance and the necessity of aligning the NCQG with the Paris Agreement's articles and the actual needs of developing countries. The text argues for a more balanced allocation between mitigation and adaptation, the inclusion of loss and damage, and a focus on fair access to finance that avoids increasing the debt burden of vulnerable nations.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The original US$100 billion per year climate finance goal was a political tool to restore trust rather than a target based on scientific data or the specific needs of developing countries.
  • There is a significant discrepancy in how climate finance is allocated between mitigation and adaptation; while the OECD reported 21% for adaptation in 2019, CPI data for 2019/2020 shows only 7% was allocated to adaptation, with 90% going to mitigation.
  • Developing countries' financial needs are vast, with NDCs from 153 parties identifying needs between US$5.8 trillion and US$5.9 trillion through 2030, while adaptation needs alone are estimated between US$140 billion and US$300 billion by 2030.
  • The current structure of climate finance relies heavily on loans, which may exacerbate debt for developing nations; OECD data shows 74% of public climate finance consists of loans, and Oxfam reports that grants-based financing for adaptation was only 33%.
  • The NCQG process presents an opportunity to operationalize support for loss and damage, which is recognized in Article 8 of the Paris Agreement but currently lacks a financial target or established delivery vehicle.

Cite the original document

APA
RMI (2022). New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) Process: Are We Asking the Right Questions? https://rmi.org/resources/new-collective-quantified-goal-ncqg-process-are-we-asking-the-right-questions/
Chicago
RMI. New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) Process: Are We Asking the Right Questions? 2022. https://rmi.org/resources/new-collective-quantified-goal-ncqg-process-are-we-asking-the-right-questions/.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=RMI |title=New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) Process: Are We Asking the Right Questions? |date=7 June 2022 |url=https://rmi.org/resources/new-collective-quantified-goal-ncqg-process-are-we-asking-the-right-questions/ |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{rmi2022new, author = {{RMI}}, title = {{New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) Process: Are We Asking the Right Questions?}}, institution = {RMI}, year = {2022}, month = jun, url = {https://rmi.org/resources/new-collective-quantified-goal-ncqg-process-are-we-asking-the-right-questions/}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated