This explainer looks back at the NCQG decision, the context of its adoption and the significance of the goals set. It also discusses the criticism raised concerning the substance and adoption process of the NCQG decision and looks towards the following steps that will lead Parties to Belém.
16 June 2025
All reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of this information at the time the advice was produced (please refer to the date produced below). However, the materials have been prepared for informational purposes only and may have been superseded by more recent developments. They do not constitute formal legal advice or create a lawyer-client relationship. You should seek legal advice to take account of your own interests. To the extent permitted any liability is excluded. Those consulting the database may wish to contact LRI for clarifications and an updated analysis.
Explore similar content
New Quantified Collective Goal Decision and Loss and Damage - Alternative legal opinion
This advice is provided by third parties in response to Query 107 & 108/24
Queries:
Can paragraph 5 of the Decision adopted at CMA...
12 June 2025
Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T
Legal analysis of the mandate and possible outcomes of the “Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T,” established under Decision 1/CMA.6 on the new collective quantified goal on climate finance, outlining implications for COP 30/CMA 7 deliberations.
30 September 2025
Relevance of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework for the New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance
Query:
Please provide a summary of the framework for finance under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework under the Conventio...
4 July 2024