# data[].attributes.body
The structure of the NCQG should reflect the real needs in thematic areas: mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, not only in the quantum defining subgoals for each thematic area but also in a more cross-cutting manner on the channels and instruments through which funding will be received according to the needs and priorities of developing countries.

# data[].attributes.body
Article 9(7) is instructive. There should be coherence of NCQG and reporting and the GST (9(6)).

# data[].attributes.body
Paris Agreement would define the linkage between sources and the overall content of the NCQG. So if operationalizing 9(1) international public sources would be addressed to the actor in this article. In the case of 9(3) regarding mobilization, here again the sources can be wider but notably public funds remain key.

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate finance vs mainstreaming climate in development

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate finance vs mainstreaming climate in development

# data[].attributes.body
Development and climate finance are increasingly becoming interlinked. Therefore, most of development finance that is not traditionally "climate" will have some climate linkage moving forward. To ensure the scope of reporting do not overlap or mix different concepts, it would be good to distinguish reporting between direct investment in climate mitigation and adaptation activities vs. climate-aligned development finance.

# data[].attributes.body
Sub goals can help with providing a targeted approach to support implementation of the Paris Agreement. As recognized under the Paris Agreement, support for implementation relate to mitigation, adaptation, responses to loss and damage, CBTT, transparency. There may be different approaches to articulating a sub-goal and the relationship to quantum. A critical linkage also would be the timeframe, science informed, country driven, needs based.

# data[].attributes.body
The longer the timeframe the higher the quantum and the greater ambition we can demonstrate to scale up finance. The quantum must be realistic and so to be able to agree one that can both be agreed and demonstrates the ambition we want to see a timeframe that can compliment this. It is possible however to have aspects of the timeframe that won’t be directly related to the quantum e.g. a shorter term (10 year) quantitative timeframe to represent the urgent need to scale up, and a longer-term timeframe (e.g. to 2050) that demonstrates our long term objective to keep 1.5 within reach.

# data[].attributes.body
The question is not in line with how contributors are defined in the Paris Agreement. Contributors under the Agreement refer specifically to States that are Parties to the Agreement.

Pursuant to Article 9(1) developed countries have an obligation to provide financial resources to support developing countries with climate action. Others are encouraged 9(2). Contributors are not defined as public and private.

# data[].attributes.body
While there is wide agreement that mitigation and adaptation are to be covered in the NCQG, this is not the case for addressing loss and damage. Whether or not to include that obviously has a huge impact on overall needs (for all three areas), which in turn should have an imact on the final quantum.

# data[].attributes.body
There is an integral relationship of financial resources to support developing country parties with implementation of the Paris Agreement. Realizing the long-term temperature goal, ensuring resilience including ability to respond to loss and damage, is time sensitive. Here science is relevant as well as the timeframes that developing countries have indicated in their NDCs NAPs or other adaptation communications.

# data[].attributes.body
Underpinning the links across the elements is the Paris Agreement and specifically Article 9.

9(4) speaks to scaling up (quantum), balance between mitigation and adaptation (e.g. of sub-goals), country driven strategies priorities and needs of developing countries, especially those that are particularly vulnerable (recipient, quantum and quality), need for public and grant-based resources for adaptation (source and quality)

# data[].attributes.body
Contributor base should be inline with Article 9.1, and responsabilities to mobilize finance (Public or Private) independent of the financial instrument, should remain aligned with this article, and the convention.

# data[].attributes.body
Missing here: the link between instruments/sources and quantum. For instance, a private investment goal will deliver little for adaptation since adaptation will mostly need public finance. We may want to break down the quantum by, at least basically, into different sources and instruments, to ensure e.g. sufficient public grants for adaptation and addressing loss and damage while at the same time also committing enough effort to mobilise private finance for e.g. energy transition.

# data[].attributes.headline
Kamal (AGN Finance Team) No additional transparency modalities and procedures needed since ETF covers very well transparency of supports (FTC) provided and received,in addition to the existing transparency under the UNFCCC with NatComs. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Kamal (AGN Finance Team) No additional transparency modalities and procedures needed since ETF covers very well transparency of supports (FTC) provided and received,in addition to the existing transparency under the UNFCCC with NatComs. 

# data[].attributes.body
The Temporal scope of the goal (time span) should be 5 years – e.g. 2025-2030; then it be reviewed in 2030 to ensure that it is aligned to the current needs.

# data[].attributes.body
The question is circular. I do not see the relevance given that the overall elements of the NCQG constitute the structure.

# data[].attributes.body
Teh 100bn expierience shows that the mixing of public and (mobilised) private finance was not a good idea. Better: a separate goal for the provision of public finance, and then a separate goal for the mobilisation of private finance - this can then also be complemented by a wider investment goal (to which the mobilisation goal would contribute).

# data[].attributes.headline
Kamal (AGN Finance Team)Sources are the central element for an expected ambitious NCQG that can respond to the highly ambitious NDCs as well as the finance needs under Article 4 of the UNFCCC. This is why NCQG mandate must be extended to Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement & Article 4 of the UNFCCC to secure and broaden sources to provide (not mobilize only) financial resources,  in particular from developed countries'public sources. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Kamal (AGN Finance Team)Sources are the central element for an expected ambitious NCQG that can respond to the highly ambitious NDCs as well as the finance needs under Article 4 of the UNFCCC. This is why NCQG mandate must be extended to Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement & Article 4 of the UNFCCC to secure and broaden sources to provide (not mobilize only) financial resources,  in particular from developed countries'public sources. 

# data[].attributes.body
While of course welcoming any additional sources.

# data[].attributes.headline
Shifting harmful finance, including fossil fuel subsidies and military expenditure, which according to new numbers published by SIPRI on the 22.04 increased in the ninth consecutive time to $2443 billion - to mobilise public finance by developed countries. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Shifting harmful finance, including fossil fuel subsidies and military expenditure, which according to new numbers published by SIPRI on the 22.04 increased in the ninth consecutive time to $2443 billion - to mobilise public finance by developed countries. 

# data[].attributes.body
Timeframe should align to NDC cycles, allowing for the review of the goal in respect to updated ambitions from Parties, taking into consideration the fact that different from this cycle, the NCQG review should come after the development of the next NDCs vs Before. Considering results from the GST as a means to track efforts towards achieving the required targets set on both mitigation and adaptation.

# data[].attributes.body
relationship between recipients and quantum

# data[].attributes.headline
layered approach can take several sources into account

# data[].attributes.subject
layered approach can take several sources into account

# data[].attributes.body
a core with public finance, and finance mobilised by public finance. then an outer layer which includes additional sources, private investments, innovative sources of finance, domestic resource mobilisation etc.

# data[].attributes.headline
longer timeframe => need inbetween monitoring

# data[].attributes.subject
longer timeframe => need inbetween monitoring

# data[].attributes.body
A longer timeframe (e.g. 10 years) would probably require more inbetween transparency and monitoring to keep a closer tab on whether we're achieving the quantum, whether it achieves the desired impacts etc. Perhaps provide a mandate for the SCF to continuously monitor progress to provide transparency over the longer time frame?

# data[].attributes.body
Important to provide public funding in form of non-debt creating grants for adaptation and loss and damage.

# data[].attributes.headline
Kamal (AGN Finance Team)NCQG must be developing countries needs based not contributors based. We see very well the very low resources provided to Adaptation Fund under contributors based ... less ten 1 billion USD for more then ten years, not responding at the minimum Adaptation needs. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Kamal (AGN Finance Team)NCQG must be developing countries needs based not contributors based. We see very well the very low resources provided to Adaptation Fund under contributors based ... less ten 1 billion USD for more then ten years, not responding at the minimum Adaptation needs. 

# data[].attributes.body
The ETF is under review in 2028, it makes sense to include experiences with the first couple of years f the NCQG in this review.

# data[].attributes.headline
layered approach enables more ambitious quantum

# data[].attributes.subject
layered approach enables more ambitious quantum

# data[].attributes.body
the structure will impact the quantum. Suggest a layered approach. In addition to a international public finance target, the goal should emcompass public private, domestic nd international finance and a strangthening and implementaiton of enabeling envrionments.

# data[].attributes.body
Quantum to be adjusted on a GST-aligned timeframe.

# data[].attributes.body
Contributor base is a key parameter for setting the quantum. An ambitious quantum is impossible to achive with out a (public) contributor base that represents how the world have evolved since 1992, and if it doesnt include private actors

# data[].attributes.body
The sum of subgoals (for adapation, mitigation, addressing loss and damage) would constitute the 'quantum' - and do so in a manner that automatically means 'balance' in the allocation, since the subgoals would be set by consensus.

# data[].attributes.body
Interlinkages btw NCQG and Timeframe/Quantum are the most important elements that will secure climate finance availability and predictability for NDCs implementation as climate investments plans. However, if only determined in accordance with the sole finance needs in NDCs, NCQG will not cover needed climate action (mitigation, adaptation and L&D), in particular as defined under Article 4 of the UNFCCC.

This why NCQG must be aligned to the five years NDCs timeframe but also to the NAPs, NatComs, TNAs as well as National Climate Stratégiesand Plans (that are much broader then NDCs) timeframes to cover and fund needed climate action (projects,programs...).

On the Quantum, NCQG must be needs based, determined and decided in accordance with:

Globally with NDRs (SCF needs report) findings

Nationally or Individually with NDCs+TNA+last NatCOm+NAPs -(avoiding double counting) to ensure developing countries are eligible and getting Individually access to

# data[].attributes.headline
A shorter timeframe may allow the (regularly reviewed & adjusted) quantum to be more consistently alligned with evolving needs than in the case of a longer timeframe.

# data[].attributes.subject
A shorter timeframe may allow the (regularly reviewed & adjusted) quantum to be more consistently alligned with evolving needs than in the case of a longer timeframe.