The pulling power of Paris: Unpacking the role of ‘pledge & review’ in climate governance (PullP)

Delays in nationally determined contributions often reflect credibility efforts and not weakening ambition

Fashionably or fatally late? exploring NDC procrastination in the UNFCCC

The current global climate change mitigation regime established by the Paris Agreement rests on a “pledge-and-review“ mechanism with the cyclical submission of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to progressively increase climate ambition. Following the 2023 collective review, the so-called Global Stocktake (GST), Parties were required to submit updated NDCs by February 2025. Yet compliance has been strikingly low: only 16 of 198 Parties met the deadline, and even after an extended September cutoff, just 64 submissions were recorded, covering roughly 30% of global emissions. We examine the phenomenon of NDC procrastination – the widespread delay in meeting procedural obligations – and its implications for the climate regime. Drawing on 23 country case studies, compliance reports, and fieldwork at the climate summit in Bonn, we identify four clusters of factors behind delayed submissions. Financial and institutional capacity challenges include resource constraints, reliance on external technical assistance, and complex whole-of-government coordination requirements. Technical and data-related challenges stem from gaps in emissions inventories, modelling expertise, and recalibration needs when baselines shift. Political and governance challenges range from domestic uncertainty (elections, coalition changes) to geopolitical shocks, armed conflict, and instances of ‘green backlash,’ where governments actively obstruct climate policy. Finally, procedural and strategic dynamics encourage states to delay pledges for performative or tactical reasons. While these factors can explain why many parties were late with their submissions, the question of what NDC procrastination means for the future of global climate action is more complex. While NDCs are visibly treated more seriously by many, and considerable resources are channeled into the work on pledges, the scale of non-compliance underscores the fragility of procedural norms. Furthermore, the post-GST round of delayed pledges highlights the tension between detailed, economy-wide pledges aligned with domestic policies and ratcheting up mitigation ambition at a pace needed to tackle dangerous climate change.

The uneven influence of the Global Stocktake on national climate policy and the NDCs

The Global Stocktake (GST), concluded at the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP) in Dubai in 2023, is seen as a central component of the Paris Agreement’s ambition cycle, as it is meant to assess collective global progress, which should inform future Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Many commentators and Parties put significant hope in the Stocktake’s ability to ratchet up ambition in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process. Following the Dubai COP, which resulted in the impressive “Outcome of the global stocktake” (Decision -/CMA.5) spanning almost 200 detailed paragraphs, some Parties expected the GST to become a new impulse for collective efforts to combat climate change. More critical voices, however, expressed unease and concern about “replacing the Paris Agreement with the Global Stocktake” – which meant departing from the nationally determined and diversified approach that was agreed in 2015. This policy brief takes a closer look of the influence on national climate policy and the NDCs.

Gender equality in global climate governance

Gender equality is now formally embedded in global climate governance. Yet in practice, climate policy reflects a divided agenda. Developed countries tend to perform better on gender-balanced participation in climate negotiations, while developing countries more consistently integrate gender into their pledges under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). This divide is driven by differences in incentives, financing structures, and how countries use their NDCs. For many developing countries, integrating gender into climate policy is closely tied to accessing international climate finance and demonstrating alignment with donor expectations. For developed countries, gender equality is often addressed through domestic policy frameworks, but is less visible in international climate commitments. The result is a fragmented approach in which participation and policy evolve separately, limiting the effectiveness of gender-responsive climate action and reducing opportunities for shared learning across countries.

Strategic Climate Balancing: What the International Community Can Do as the United States Steps Back

The United States’ withdrawal from international climate institutions under the second Trump administration poses a serious challenge to global climate cooperation. Given the scale of US emissions and the dismantling of federal climate capacity, the international community cannot depend on a future policy reversal in Washington. Instead, this policy brief advances a strategy of “climate balancing” that seeks to sustain decarbonisation by working around the US federal government. Climate balancing focuses on three priorities: direct engagement with US states and cities that continue to pursue ambitious climate action; the construction of industrial alliances that leverage clean energy constituencies through tools such as coordinated carbon pricing and border adjustment mechanisms; and reframing climate action as a matter of energy security and geopolitical competition, particularly in light of China’s growing dominance in clean energy supply chains. Together, these measures aim to limit free-rider dynamics, preserve momentum in global climate governance, and keep the conditions for eventual US re-engagement open, demonstrating that effective climate cooperation can persist even in the absence of US federal leadership.

Reconciling Indonesia’s Climate Ambition: Who Gets to Shape the Policymaking Process?

Indonesia entered COP30 in Belém, Brazil, with more ambitious pledges, but the governance that produces those commitments has changed little. Successive Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) show greater ambition on paper yet remain shaped by a narrow technocratic circle, limited public participation, and growth-first economic assumptions. This expert-centered approach reveals a persistent tension between development priorities and the Paris Agreement’s goals. To strengthen credibility, ambition, and delivery before the next pledge-and-review cycle, Indonesia should: • Expand NDC involvement beyond the existing expert group. • Build a climate action coalition to coordinate national and local efforts. • Invest in capacity building while maintaining national control. • Publish comprehensive implementation roadmaps with well-defined targets and milestones. • Reduce reliance on FOLU and land-use sinks by accelerating energy and industrial decarbonization. • Rebuild strategic climate diplomacy to guide focused coalitions at COPs.