The New Collective Quantified Goal agreed at Baku reflects the persistent trust deficit between the developed and developing world in climate negotiations. Critically examine.

The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) was adopted at COP29, Baku (2024). Developed countries are to "take the lead" on at least USD 300 billion a year by 2035, replacing the USD 100 billion goal [1]. The NCQG is real progress, but its design shows the North–South trust deficit more than it repairs it.

How the NCQG reflects the trust deficit

• Quantum vs need: The UNFCCC Standing Committee on Finance estimates developing countries' needs at USD 455–584 billion a year. India told Parliament that the NCQG does not meet these needs [3]. India had sought USD 1.3 trillion, with USD 600 billion as grants [2].
• Who pays is unclear: The larger USD 1.3 trillion figure is only a call to "all actors" from public and private sources [1]. No country is answerable for it.
• Accounting disputes: India objected to counting multilateral development bank (MDB) flows towards the goal, because developing countries are themselves shareholders in these banks [3].
• Broken past promises: The Glasgow pledge to double adaptation finance by 2025 is off track. Adaptation needs exceed USD 310 billion a year, about 12 times current public flows [4].
• The Economic Survey 2024-25 judged that the NCQG offers little prospect of support for developing countries [5].

Why it is not only a trust deficit

• Nominal tripling of the earlier goal shows that consensus-based multilateralism can still deliver [1].
• The Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T keeps the higher ambition under negotiation [1].
• Developing countries are encouraged to contribute voluntarily, without any change in their obligations under the UNFCCC [1].
• Stretched budgets in developed countries mean that private capital is needed for bankable mitigation, such as solar power. However, it can bring only a small share of adaptation needs [4].

The NCQG is a compromise. It shows political will in the headline figure, but its vague wording on who pays and what counts keeps mistrust alive. The way forward:

• a grant-heavy, concessional core;
• a common definition of climate finance;
• a baseline and a yearly path for adaptation finance;
• a check on whether past promises were delivered, in the next Global Stocktake.

This would put the Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR-RC) principle and Article 9 of the Paris Agreement into practice and advance SDG 13. Delivery, not new pledges, can turn the deficit into trust.