Ten years ago, the Paris Agreement managed to strike a difficult balance: require all countries to take some climate action, while maintaining their flexibility about how to do so.

That flexibility was essential to reach consensus. Negotiations prioritized ownership over imposed targets, while a shared global goal of limiting global temperature rise  to 1.5ºC established a clear direction and sense of collective responsibility. This approach helped mobilize finance and markets by sending a strong signal that all countries would contribute to the global effort, each to the extent possible.

The ensuing years, however, have made clear the limitations of this bottom-up approach. Even with the submitted updates, the level of ambition in countries’ nationally determined contributions (NDCs) remains far below what is required to meet the goals. An excessive focus on long-term goals has delayed near-term actions and increased reliance on immature technologies, such as carbon capture, usage and storage. All of this shifts the burden onto future generations.

The current NDC update cycle also highlights these limitations. Fewer than 10% of countries submitted their updated NDCs by the original February deadline, and even after the deadline was extended ahead of COP30, many still struggled to deliver. As of 8 December 2025, only 61% of countries had submitted their updates, according to Climate Watch Data. These widespread delays, not just the content of the submissions, point to persistent capacity challenges, competing national priorities, and, in some cases, limited political attention to climate planning. Together, they reflect commitments that are both slow to deliver and insufficiently ambitious.

Technological and political trends

In 2015, key enabling conditions aligned to make the global agreement possible: falling renewable energy costs, a favorable geopolitical climate, and a surge in public awareness and scientific momentum. Since then, technologies have become cheaper and more accessible than ever, but the political context has become far more challenging. Growing geopolitical fragmentation, lack of trust, and competing crises (wars, security, economic instability, and the politics of migration) have diverted attention from climate priorities, even though many of these issues are directly linked to climate.

The Paris Agreement established a regular update cycle, designed to sustain momentum for countries to keep moving forward with their commitments, the NDCs. In practice, however, many countries treat this as a box-ticking exercise or a political statement rather than as a genuine opportunity. Submissions are sometimes prepared at the last minute, and heavily outsourced to external consultants, who often fail to set science-based and implementable targets, or to meaningfully engage domestic stakeholders. Targets are announced but not widely owned or endorsed by civil society, the private sector, or subnational actors. Without ownership and clear implementation plans supported by stakeholders and endorsed at the highest level, momentum often fades after the announcement.

Building capacity for meaningful change

From our experiences supporting many countries on their NDCs, it is clear that limited institutional capacity and insufficient international support remain major barriers, particularly for low- and middle-income countries. Consultant-driven submissions may meet short-term deadlines, but they do little to strengthen in-country capabilities, which should be a key outcome of the process.  Sometimes, commitments are set out in ways that appear more ambitious on paper than they are in practice. For example, if a country increases the percentage of its emissions-reduction target relative to a figure that has been favourably adjusted, it calls into question the meaning of the whole exercise. Credibility and accountability are at stake.

The binding nature of the Paris Agreement lies not in its targets but in the procedural obligations to submit, maintain, and strengthen countries’ commitments over time. To progress on commitments implicitly means countries should progress in increasing analytical capacity, reducing dependence on external consultants, and ensuring that their NDCs are nationally owned, locally driven processes that can sustain momentum over time.

At the same time, governments alone cannot deliver the transformation that is needed. Pressure must now extend beyond national government to others: the private sector, financial institutions, cities, local governments, civil society, and individuals. All have a critical role in implementing solutions, influencing markets, and ensuring accountability. The Paris Agreement principle of common but differentiated responsibilities among countries should extend beyond governments to these other actors. All must act at their highest possible level of ambition, with mechanisms to track progress, enhance transparency, and share responsibility for global outcomes. 

Demanding more from climate plans

The NDCs themselves must also evolve to go beyond mitigation. There is growing agreement that the NDCs should also include adaptation, loss and damage, means of implementation (finance, technology, capacity-building), and just transitions towards low-carbon, climate-resilient development. Although no new formal decision was adopted at the Baku Climate Change Conference in November 2024, the direction is clear. Moreover, even if these elements are not yet mandatory, countries that are part of the Paris Agreement are strongly encouraged and increasingly expected to incorporate them – particularly in light of calls for more ambitious, integrated, and holistic climate action. Future NDCs should require mandatory implementation plans and adaptation commitments, ensuring that countries are accountable for progress and that adaptation ambition grows over time, alongside mitigation.

We’ve spent too much time setting targets that look good only on paper. The next phase must focus on doing what was agreed and doing it faster!