Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary, UNFCCC
“It has been a difficult journey, but we’ve delivered a deal. This new finance goal is an insurance policy for humanity, amid worsening climate impacts hitting every country. This deal will keep the clean energy boom growing and protect billions of lives. It will help all countries to share in the huge benefits of bold climate action: more jobs, stronger growth, cheaper and cleaner energy for all. But like any insurance policy – it only works – if the premiums are paid in full, and on time. No country got everything they wanted, and we leave Baku with a mountain of work still to do. So this is no time for victory laps. We need to set our sights and redouble our efforts on the road to Belém. Even so, we’ve shown the UN Paris Agreement is delivering.” 

Avinash Persaud, Special Advisor on Climate Change to the President of the Inter-American Development Bank

“It was hard fought over, but at $300bn per year led by developed to developing countries, we have arrived at the boundary between what is politically achievable today in developed countries and what would make a difference in developing countries. But what lies around that number in the agreement is critical. It will only work if this money is primarily to help vulnerable countries become more resilient to climate change, compliments other efforts by the IMF and Multilateral Development Banks to reduce the foreign exchange risks and other disabilities that block the flow of finance for the energy transition in developing countries, and is separate from new international levies to respond to climate loss and damage in the most vulnerable communities.” 

Li Shuo, Director China Climate Hub, Asia Society Policy Institute

“The protracted end game at COP29 is reflective of the harder geopolitical terrain the world finds itself in. During the difficult final hours, climate justice suffered an unprecedented test. The result is a flawed compromise between donor countries and the most vulnerable nations in the world. The careful coordination between the EU and China provides stability in Baku. Trump’s election victory only makes the hotline between Brussels and Beijing more consequential for global climate politics in 2025. China is becoming more transparent about its financial support to global south countries. This should propel the country to play a larger role in the future. This COP process needs to recover from Baku. It requires more leadership to deliver an outcome in line with 1.5C next year in Brazil. For all countries, the logic of the transition hasn’t changed. The opportunities offered by the green economy and urgent climate impacts make inaction self-defeating.” 

Manjeev Puri, former Indian ambassador to the European Union and Distinguished Fellow, TERI
“Deeply disappointing that the world couldn’t agree on a goal reflecting at least a modicum of ambition for financing action in developing countries on climate change, the biggest challenge facing humankind. India, rightly, underscored this inadequacy and the process of adoption. While the outcome reflects the current state of geopolitics as well as domestic politics in some countries in the globe. The developing countries did well standing together – the effort for mobilization of far more resources for climate change must go on.” 

Shailly Kedia, Senior Fellow and Associate Director ,The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)

“It takes courage to stand up for what’s right. Great to see India’s statement and opposition to the paltry quantity of climate finance from the NCQG outcome at #COP29 closing Plenary at the weekend hours today. This was followed by a show of solidarity by Bolivia (o/b G77), Nigeria and Malawi (o/b LDCs). #NCQG outcome was supposed to restore trust in multilateralism, sadly it has only eroded it.” 

Laura Sabogal, Senior Policy Advisor, E3G
“After a long and challenging negotiation process in an increasingly volatile geopolitical landscape, the adoption of the NCQG marks a critical yet imperfect step forward. While it falls short of equipping developing countries with the tools they urgently need to transition to climate resilience and contains significant gaps in adaptation, it nonetheless underscores a shared commitment to multilateralism. At the same time, its glaring shortcomings cannot be ignored, with many arguing it reflects a troubling lack of urgency and ambition in addressing the deep inequities at the heart of global climate finance.”

Dipak Dasgupta, Author, IPCC AR6 WG3 and UNEP Emission Gap Report; Distinguished Fellow, Earth Science and Climate Change, TERI

“Hope was the last item remaining in Pandora’s Box. The $300 billion agreed, if absolutely firmly in form of grant or highly concessional public money from developed countries as a group and not from loans from MDBs or private sources, as was also agreed, is welcome. That would make a difference. Second, if the goal of $1.3 trillion remains firmly intact, again as agreed, and to be now spelled out concretely in the Baku to Belem roadmap, that is welcome, especially as it incorporates many other critical paragraphs spelled out explicitly in the agreement—from first loss to guarantees and other innovative financing, and to search for additional climate financing revenue instruments. Third, as the transition out of fossil fuel was agreed along with initiatives for cross-border carbon trade reduction measures, if these become credible, are also welcome.” 

Dhruba Purkayastha, Director, CEEW
“It basically acknowledges the need for $ 1.3 trillion and then talks of reaching $300 billion by 2035 from $100 billion earlier commitment – kicks the can down the road. The outcome has good intentions and affirmative verbs which are non-committal. There is also no description of what constitutes NCQG nor is there any mention of how and from where the finance will come.” 

R R Rashmi, Distinguished Fellow, TERI

“The goal of USD 300 bn adopted yesterday by CoP 29 in the face of categorical objections of countries including India, Nigeria, Bolivia, Cuba and walk out staged by AoSIS and LDCs bodes ill for the future of the NCQG and the collective efforts to address climate change. The multilateral process has not emerged in good light in this event. The declared goal is clearly a prisoner of the geopolitics of the present times and is paltry compared to the financing needs of mitigation and adaptation faced by the developing world. The 300 bn USD commitment of developed world is further diluted by the inclusion of debt funds routed through the multilateral development banks. The only positive feature is that the developed countries have agreed to triple the amounts to be channelled through the Global funds like GCF, AF etc while recognising the need to reform the institutions for easier access to finance, and agreeing to drop the insistence on counting voluntary contributions of developing countries as part of NCQG.” 

Tina Stege, Marshall Islands Climate Envoy
“We came in good faith, with the safety of our communities and the well-being of the world at heart. Yet, we have seen the very worst of political opportunism here at this COP, playing games with the lives of the world’s most vulnerable people. Fossil fuel interests have been determined to block progress and undermine the multilateral goals we’ve worked to build. This can never be allowed to happen. Despite the barriers, we’ve fought hard and secured something for our communities. We are leaving with a small portion of the funding climate-vulnerable countries urgently need. It isn’t nearly enough, but it’s a start, and we’ve made it clear that these funds must come with fewer obstacles so they reach those who need them most. We have also rejected those who sought to undo the agreements we made on phasing out fossil fuels. Countries seem to have forgotten the reason why we are all here. It is to save lives. It is to save lives. We have to work hard to rebuild trust in this vital process.” 

Linda Kalcher, Executive Director, Strategic Perspectives

“This was a hard fought two weeks amid challenging geopolitics that resulted in a step change for financial reforms. Public finance from a growing set of contributors, especially multilateral development banks, and new forms of finance, will help to unlock $1.3 trillion by 2035. A new leadership group around Kenya, Colombia, the EU, least developed countries and island states has emerged that helped broker this deal. The outcome in Baku shows countries are willing to engage constructively in multilateral negotiations on climate despite the hurdles in their way. The litmus test on fossil fuel phase out will be whether national climate plans due by February show clear pathways to reduce coal, oil and gas consumption.” 

Nick Mabey Co-CEO of E3G 

 “The fact that tough negotiations in Baku finally resulted in a comprehensive new finance goal shows that countries will make hard compromises to keep multilateralism working. Despite worsening geopolitical tensions COP29 shows the Paris Agreement remains the core of global climate action.” 

Rob Moore, E3G Associate Director, E3G 

“The goal is undeniably lower than many hoped for and throughout COP29 the process has not been clear, key steps have been taken to strengthen previous proposals – a Baku to Belem roadmap to close the gap to $1.3tr, a review by 2030 that could enhance the goal and a new aim to triple the size of the dedicated UN climate funds that provide high quality finance to developing countries.” 

Aarti Khosla, Director, Climate Trends

“The decision to have a new climate finance goal that replaces the 100 billion dollars per year has been marred with the difficulties of squeezing any money out of the developed world, which is under obligation to provide resources. The 300b from all sources by 2035 remains uncertain and unclear but the best possible in times of geopolitical tensions existing across the world. The final agreement was objected to by India. It has been inadequate in the amount of funding and a tough pill to swallow.”