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

This briefing by RMI outlines the critical questions and structural challenges facing the process to establish a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance before 2025. It argues that the NCQG must move beyond the political nature of the previous US$100 billion target to become a science- and needs-based goal that addresses the specific priorities of developing countries, including adaptation, loss and damage, and a just transition.

• The NCQG is intended to replace the US$100 billion per year commitment, which RMI describes as a "political move to rebuild trust" rather than a target based on science or the actual needs of developing countries. The process to determine the NCQG was initiated at COP26 in Glasgow via an ad hoc work program running until COP29 in 2024.
• There is a significant gap between current climate finance allocations and the estimated needs of developing countries. NDCs from 153 parties identified finance needs between US$5.8 trillion and US$5.9 trillion through 2030 as of May 2021. Additionally, adaptation needs alone are estimated by the United Nations Environment Programme to be between US$140 billion and US$300 billion by 2030, and US$280 billion to US$500 billion by 2050.
• Climate finance is currently disproportionately allocated toward mitigation. While the OECD reported that 21% of climate finance went to adaptation in 2019, the Climate Policy Initiative's Global Landscape on Climate Finance report indicates a much lower figure of 7% for adaptation in 2019/2020, with 90% allocated to mitigation.
• The quality and accessibility of finance are major concerns, specifically the reliance on loans over grants. OECD data shows that 74% of public climate finance consists of loans, with only 20% as grant funding. For adaptation specifically, Oxfam's 2020 Climate Finance Shadow report found that grants-based financing accounted for 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 a dedicated vehicle for support.

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} }