This blog post is cross-posted with permission from our partners at the 2050 Pathways Platform. See the original post on their website.

Moving from alignment principles to alignment assessment

Most practitioners working on climate planning would agree that nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and long-term low emission development strategies (LT-LEDS) should be aligned.  

At first glance, the logic seems simple. NDCs set out near-term climate action, while LT-LEDS provide a longer-term vision for low-emission and climate-resilient development. If both instruments are meant to guide a country’s transition, they should point in the same direction.  

The more difficult question comes once we move from principle to practice: How can we tell whether an NDC and an LT-LEDS are actually aligned?  

While existing guidance provides valuable advice on why alignment matters and how it can be strengthened, relatively little attention has been given to how alignment can be systematically assessed in practice.  

To explore this question, the 2050 Pathways Platform commissioned the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) to review existing guidance and develop a structured assessment approach that could be applied across different country contexts. The exercise was designed to translate the principles of NDC-LT-LEDS alignment into a practical diagnostic approach.

What does alignment actually mean? 

Across available guidance, a common understanding emerges: NDC-LT-LEDS alignment exists when near-term climate commitments help deliver the objectives set out in a country’s long-term strategy.  

The review also highlighted two complementary dimensions of alignment. Content alignment looks at whether the targets, measures and trajectories in the NDC support the long-term transformations outlined in the LT-LEDS. Process alignment looks at the institutional and analytical arrangements behind the two instruments, including governance, stakeholder engagement, planning timelines, data and modelling approaches, legal frameworks and monitoring systems.  

Both dimensions matter. Content alignment and process alignment are not alternatives; they are complementary components of a coherent climate planning system.  

What should an alignment assessment look for?

Despite using different terminology, many authors converge on a similar set of questions. Does the NDC explicitly reference the LT-LEDS and its long-term objectives? Are near-term targets consistent with long-term milestones? Do both documents rely on the same assumptions, data and modelling approaches? And do governance, stakeholder engagement and monitoring arrangements support coherence between the two planning processes?  

Rather than creating an entirely new methodology, the assessment framework consolidated recurring indicators from five key guidance resources on alignment into a practical set of 21 assessment questions. These questions cover both content and process alignment, and the final column of the table shows how each question is linked to the sources reviewed.

A practical lesson: alignment is not binary

A lesson learned when operationalizing the assessment framework is that alignment should not necessarily be viewed as a simple yes-or-no outcome.  

In practice, countries work within political, economic, technical and implementation constraints. Full alignment between short-term and long-term planning instruments may therefore not be immediately achievable in every context.  

This does not necessarily mean that climate planning has failed. Rather, the more useful question may be: To what extent are the NDC and LT-LEDS aligned today, and what would strengthen alignment over time?  

This perspective recognizes that ambition gaps may exist, and that planning instruments can evolve across successive planning cycles.  

Assessing alignment is therefore not only about producing a score or completing a checklist. A structured assessment can help identify where short-term and long-term planning already reinforce each other; where assumptions, targets or governance arrangements are inconsistent; where future planning cycles could be strengthened; as well as concrete actions that could improve coherence between NDCs and LT-LEDs. 

In this sense, the assessment is not an end in itself. It is a diagnostic exercise intended to support stronger climate planning.  

From guidance to application

The next challenge for the climate planning community is not necessarily developing additional guidance on alignment. The literature already provides substantial insights into what alignment means and why it matters. Rather, the greater opportunity may lie in applying these concepts consistently across country contexts and learning from practical experience.  

Ultimately, alignment is not achieved simply because two documents reference each other. It is achieved when short-term decisions help put countries on a pathway toward their long-term objectives. As more countries update both their NDCs and LT-LEDS, practical approaches for assessing that connection will become increasingly important, both for improving coherence across planning instruments and for supporting implementation of the Paris Agreement over time.