Understanding the Paris Agreement and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)

Susana Paola Navas
Jan 1
5 min read

Updated: Jan 3

In the previous post, I explain the foundational architecture of UNFCCC negotiations: how the Party driven process works, why the Secretariat facilitates without imposing, and how science enters the negotiating room.

One critical question I am trying to answer here is: how do these negotiations actually translate into binding climate commitment?

The answer is the Paris Agreement, specifically the innovation it brought: Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). A new architecture that allows every nation to define its own path toward collective global climate goals.

This post explores that innovation and why it matters for understanding how climate ambition actually increases over time.

From Kyoto to Paris: The Evolution of Global Climate Agreements

To understand why Paris is a milestone, we need to understand what came before.

The Kyoto Protocol (1997) was the first binding climate agreement. It created emission reduction targets for developed countries only (Annex I nations). Developing countries had responsibilities under the UNFCCC, but no binding targets. The ideas was that industrialized nations, who were historically responsible for most emissions, should bear the primary burden of fixing the problem. This was based on the principle of “Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities” (CBDR-RC).

Kyoto worked partially. But it had a flaw: it excluded major developing-countries emitters. As the economies of major developing countries like China grew (1990s-2000), their emissions skyrocketed. By 2005, China was the world´s second-largest emitter but had no binding target under Kyoto. India, Brazil, Indonesia followed similar trajectories. Developed nations´targets became meaningless if major emitter were not cutting.

For almost 20 years negotiations were stalled for a successor to Kyoto: developed countries wanted binding targets for all emitters, and developing countries resisted, citing historical responsibility and equity.

Then came Paris (2015) and brought innovation through a paradigm shift: it created a systems of universal commitments where every country determines its own commitment, known as a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).

Inside the Paris Agreement: A Universal Framework for Climate Commitment

The Paris Agreement, which entered force in 2016 and replaced Kyoto, establish that all 198 parties have binding climate commitments. This means no imposed targets, no more “you must reduce 40% by 2030”. Instead, countries submit what they consider their fair share of global climate action.

This flexibility is why Paris achieved universal buy-in. No country was forced into a target it considered unfair. This shift was the core innovation: because it crated a mechanism that allow 198 countries to commit at their own pace, their own resources, and interests while still driving collective progress toward 1.5°C.

However, if every country sets its own target, how does the agreement ensure that collective ambition is high enough to meet the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. This is when the NDC enters the room.

Nationally Determined Contribution (NDCs): The Core Implementation Tool

NDC can be described as a country's climate commitment. It specifies the following:

Mitigation target: How much will emissions be reduced (and by when)?
Coverage: Which sectors are included (energy, agriculture, transport, industry, waste, etc). Most countries don not cover all sectors equally.
Baseline and timeframe: What year is the baseline? What is the target year? (usually 2030, sometimes 2050 for long-term vision)
Conditional vs. unconditional targets: Some countries submit “unconditional” targets (we will do this regardless of international support) and “conditional” targets (we will do more if we receive finance and technology). This distinction reveals how much support developing countries need.
Supporting policies: What national laws, incentives, and regulations will achieve the target? (carbon pricing, renewable subsidies, energy efficiency standards, etc.)
Adaptation component: How will the country adapt to climate impacts? (water security, agriculture resilience, coastal protection, etc)

Once the NDC is submitted to the UNFCCC it becomes part of the official record. However, the key of its design is that are reviewed every 5 years.

The Five-Year Cycle and Global Stocktake

The NDC is built-in a 5 year review cycle, which help to build regular opportunities for countries to increase their ambition.

The first NDCs were submitted between 2015 and 2020. The second cycle (2020-2025) expected countries to submit new, more ambitious NDC. You can check the updated list here: NDC Registry

This process repeats, creating an institutional rhythm designed to “ratchet up” commitments over time, pressuring for countries to improve their pledges for several key reasons:

The science gets more urgent: New IPCC reports released between cycles reveal worsening climate impacts and a rapidly shrinking carbon budget, making weak targets harder to justify.
Political pressure increases: activists, vulnerable nations, and youth movements demand stronger action, making inaction politically costly.
Previous targets expire: a country with 2030 target cannot simply resubmit it in the next cycle; it must set a new, post-2030 goals, which implies progression.
The Global Stocktake provides objective feedback: This formal review process assess collective progress against the 1.5°C, creating a clear mandate to close in the next round of NDCs

Flexibility with Accountability: Balancing Sovereignty and Ambition

The Paris Agreement balances two competing principles:

Sovereignty: countries have flexibility to choose their own targets based on national circumstances.
Accountability: But that flexibility is not unlimited. The systems has clear rules that create a framework of transparency and credibility.

This framework is built on four key accountability mechanisms:

Countries must submit targets to the UNFCCC, making their commitments public and transparent.
They must report progress toward those targets biennially, ensuring accountability for their promises.
Their progress reports are reviewed by technical experts, which provides an independent credibility check
They must participate in the Global Stocktake process, which assess collective progress and holds everyone accountable to the global goal.

With this process, countries choose their own targets, but within a process that makes weak targets politically costly and absent commitments impossible.

Means of Implementation & Support: Finance, Technology, and Capacity Building

But where equity enters the Paris architecture in a concrete way?

The Paris Agreement address an unresolved debate over fairness and historical responsibility by hardwiring equity into its architecture through a framework known as “Means of Implementation and Support”

The agreement explicitly recognizes that developing countries cannot achieve ambitious climate action without help. It established three pillars of support from developed to developing nations:

Finance: Developed nations committed to providing financial resources to help developing countries transition to clean energy and adapt to climate impacts. While the initial goal was $100 billion per year, COP29 raised the target to $300 billion per year by 2035 (still insufficient according to developing nations)
Technology transfer: The agreement includes mechanisms to facilitate sharing of green technologies, from renewable energy systems to climate-smart agriculture. Challenges: intellectual property barriers, cost, lack of domestic capacity.
Capacity Building: This involves providing training and institutional support to help experts in developing countries design and implement effective climate policy, participate fully in negotiations.

This support system is what makes many developing country NDCs viable.

Conclusion: Why the Paris Agreement Matters for Future Climate Ambition

The Paris Agreement did not solve climate change with a single document. Both, including its NDC systems provided a flexible yet accountable framework that keep global climate policy moving forward.

The Party-driven process gives legitimacy.
The flexibility gives countries ownership.
The 5-year cycle creates regular opportunities to step up.
The Global Stocktake provides feedback.
The explicit recognition of equity prevents the agreement from being seen as imposing unfair burdens.

However, this system is far from perfect. The same flexibility that secured universal buy-in allows some countries to submit weak targets. The reliance on “Means of Implementation” becomes a critical vulnerability when finance from developed nations falls short of commitments. Implementation gaps remain enormous.

Therefore, this makes us question: where should our collective efforts go next? Toward stronger targets, greater access to climate finance and technology, or deeper capacity building?