What Could the New Climate Finance Goal Look Like?

This briefing by the World Resources Institute outlines seven key elements under negotiation for the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG), which is intended to replace the previous $100 billion annual goal. The document details the tensions between developed and developing nations regarding the target amount, the list of contributing countries, the time frame for achievement, and the inclusion of loss and damage funding.

• Developing countries require significant annual funding to meet climate goals, with estimates varying by source. The UN Conference on Trade and Development estimates annual needs at $1.55 trillion by 2030, while the Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance (IHLEG) suggests emerging markets and developing countries (excluding China) need nearly $2.4 trillion annually by 2030, with approximately $1 trillion coming from international sources.
• There is a dispute over which countries should contribute to the NCQG. Developed nations argue that the global economic landscape has changed since 1992 and that additional nations should contribute based on their current income and greenhouse gas emissions. Conversely, developing countries maintain that the contributors are already defined by the UNFCCC and Article 9 of the Paris Agreement.
• Negotiators are debating the time frame for the NCQG, with proposals ranging from five to 20 years. A five-year cycle would align with the Paris Agreement's NDC and Global Stocktake processes, whereas a 10-20 year window would offer more stability but make financial projections more difficult due to inflation and shifting technology costs.
• Whether the NCQG will include 'loss and damage'—impacts beyond what communities can adapt to—remains contested. Developing countries advocate for the NCQG to cover loss and damage with specific subgoals, noting that economic costs could reach $447-$894 billion per year by 2030. Developed nations argue that this funding is voluntary and handled in a separate negotiation process.
• The NCQG's relationship to Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement is a point of contention. Developed countries suggest a 'global investment goal' where the NCQG is embedded in a broader commitment by all parties to align financial flows. Developing countries argue that shifting these broader flows should be discussed in separate negotiations specifically for Article 2.1(c).
• The quality of climate finance is as critical as the amount, focusing on four pillars: concessionality (attractive rates for debt-distressed nations), accessibility (reducing complex processes), predictability (clear targets and timelines), and effectiveness (measurable impact on emissions and resilience).
• To avoid the accountability failures of the $100 billion goal, the NCQG is expected to use the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) to track progress. This would require developed countries to provide information on financial support, including methodologies and definitions, potentially with the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) developing progress reports.

APA

World Resources Institute (2024). What Could the New Climate Finance Goal Look Like? https://www.wri.org/insights/ncqg-key-elements

Chicago

World Resources Institute. What Could the New Climate Finance Goal Look Like? 2024. https://www.wri.org/insights/ncqg-key-elements.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=World Resources Institute |title=What Could the New Climate Finance Goal Look Like? |date=29 May 2024 |url=https://www.wri.org/insights/ncqg-key-elements |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{worldresourcesinstitute2024what, author = {{World Resources Institute}}, title = {{What Could the New Climate Finance Goal Look Like?}}, institution = {World Resources Institute}, year = {2024}, month = may, url = {https://www.wri.org/insights/ncqg-key-elements}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }