Options on temporal scope of the NCQG

On the temporal scope, participants could discuss, among others:

1. What would be options for the timeframe or temporal scope of the NCQG? E.g. should the NCQG be framed as an annual goal by a certain target year e.g. 2030, an annual goal to be reached over a time period e.g. from 2025 to 20xx or as a cumulative total goal over a time period, or in another way?
2. What other UNFCCC or external processes could inform the timeframe of the goal to maximize its impact?
3. What are challenges and opportunities associated with each option?

Options on the structure of the NCQG including quantitative and qualitative elements

On the structure of the goal, we heard from last year’s discussions that the NCQG could have multiple elements and possible sub-elements or sub-goals relating to principles, thematic scope, sectors, geographic scope, sources of climate finance and instruments that could be framed as quantitative or qualitative elements of the goal. There are the three key decision points with respect to working out options on the structure of the NCQG:

1. Firstly, on the overall structure of the NCQG, it may be framed in terms of an overarching goal only (in a similar way to the current USD 100 billion per year goal), or it could be accompanied with underlying principles and/or a series of sub-goals, objectives and contexts which could be structured in multiple ways.
2. Secondly, the focus of the goal and sub-goals may reflect various elements accordingly. In addition to the temporal scope discussed earlier, these elements could vary by theme (mitigation, adaptation etc.); sectors or technology solutions (e.g. renewable energy or early warning systems); geographic focus (e.g. by region, LDCs, SIDs etc.); sources of finance (e.g. public, private), channels (e.g. bilateral, multilateral, multilateral climate funds) and recipients (government, communities, non-government);  and instruments (e.g. grants, concessional loans, etc.).   
3. Thirdly, how the goals may be framed as indicators of success, for example in terms of quantitative monetary values (e.g. USD of finance provided, per cent of overall finance provided, a multiple against an existing baseline year); other quantitative values (e.g. number of countries with early warning systems, progress against temperature goal, emissions reduction goal etc.); or qualitative framings (e.g. increase in adaptive capacity).

Some example options that combine these various elements which we heard include:

1. Overarching goal of collectively mobilizing X USD per year by 20XX to developing countries;
2. Overarching goal of collectively mobilizing X % of gross national income in climate finance;
3. Overarching goal of collectively mobilizing X USD to developing countries with sub-goals for mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage;
4. Overarching goal of collectively mobilizing X USD from public sources from developed countries and X USD from other sources (e.g. private sector);
5. Overarching goal of collectively mobilizing X USD from public, private, domestic and international sources of finance;
6. Overarching goal of shifting financial flows in line with Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement;
7. Overarching goal of achieving net-zero/1.5/X GHG emissions reduced;
8. Focus sub-goal on providing X % of finance to adaptation;
9. Focus sub-goal on providing X % of adaptation finance to vulnerable groups;
10. Focus sub-goal on providing X USD in grant/concessional finance from public sources;
11. Focus sub-goal on providing X % of finance provided through multilateral climate funds;
12. Focus sub-goal on improving capacities to implement climate action.

In identifying potential options, participants may wish to consider the following guiding questions:

1. Which option(s) do you support, and why?
2. How does the option incentivize the acceleration of climate action?
3. What are challenges associated with implementing each option?