The year 2025 witnessed an unprecedented number of natural disasters, including volatile floods, flash floods, cyclones and forest fires, leading to significant loss of life and economic losses. With current climate trends projected to fall short of 2°C mark, the need to accelerate climate action is urgent and quintessential. At the landmark moment of the signing of Paris Agreement, countries had agreed to a formal submission of their National Determined Contribution (NDCs) periodically every 5 years, and in 2025, countries need to be submitting their third updated NDC since 2015, however, numbers below (See figure) indicate a persistent problem of high ambitions and inadequate deliveries. The NDC tracker by Climate Watch highlights the significant differences in country submissions timelines, lack of adherence to Paris Agreement stipulations and inadequate targets. The 10th year of the adoption of the Paris Agreement marks a decade of intense discussions, heated debates, diplomatic tussles, transformative national plans, the rise of a stronger civil society and a much more aware global citizen. Yet, the year is fraught with wars, volatile markets, and the top emitter missing from the table, casting a long shadow on the COP negotiations.

Though COP has faced significant difficulties throughout the 30 long years, nevertheless, the negotiations have delivered the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, both being significant milestones for climate action. However, there is a need to revitalise the climate discussions for stronger outcomes and robust action, and the decade of the Paris Agreement would be an appropriate place to commence the reforms.

As the more comprehensive successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement was highlighted as a significant win in 2015 for furthering climate action. The Paris Agreement consists of 29 articles, the Key articles of the Agreement from Article 2 to Article 19, focus on defining issues, focus areas, functions and operationalisation aspects. From Article 20 onwards, the focus is largely on the administration of the agreement, such as ratification, role of convention, dispute settlement, rules for its entry into force, among other aspects. However, since its inception, several modalities to operationalise the articles under the Paris Agreement are still under development, significantly f luid in their implementation or lack a clear focus on outcomes. To implement and operationalise the Paris Agreement, the Paris Rulebook was to be finalised in COP 24 in Poland. While the Rulebook was ‘signed off’ on by the countries, several aspects of the Agreement still required further discussions and were moved to the next COP for further deliberations, such outcomes in the form of conclusions. Though as Article 6 on market mechanisms. With the Agreement entering into force in 2016, half a decade had already been spent deliberating on the nuts and bolts of the Paris agreement.

This opinion piece focuses on ten key issues that need to be discussed, revitalised and reformed for a more vigorous implementation of the Paris Agreement. As the climate stakeholders are all set to gather in Belém, Brazil from 10-21 November, 2025 for COP30 for effective implementation of the Paris Agreement, as a decade of the Agreement’s adoption comes to a close.

1. Rulebook to Implementation – The development of the rulebook took significant time, and due to a lack of consensus, some articles were discussed after 2018, when the rulebook was to be finalised. For instance, in COP 22 in 2016, It was decided to develop a five-year work plan for Loss and Damage beginning in 2017, while the agenda included issues such as migration and slow onset events; however, the long, drawn-out work plan took significant time, highlighting the slow-moving pace of some key issues that needed to be implemented on a faster scale, considering the increasing risks from natural disasters was exacerbating existing socio-economic vulnerabilities.

The road from rulebook to implementation has been evidently longer than the one which was planned leading to limited to no progress in several key areas of the Paris agreement.

2. Transforming Bodies/Committees – Over 60 sessions of the Subsidiary bodies have been held since global climate discussions were undertaken by the Conference of Parties. Held annually in June, the meetings of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBASTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) that assist the governing bodies of the UNFCCC, namely, the COP for the Convention, the CMP for the Kyoto Protocol and the CMA for the Paris Agreement are designed to deliver concrete outcomes that could be adopted in the annual COP. The Bodies do not provide final decisions rather draft decisions or these bodies support in accelerating the COP discussions, the lack of decision-making powers leads to significant work being shifted to the COP negotiations, leading to long discussions during the main COP meeting.

For instance, at the COP 26, a two-year work programme on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) was launched to develop a framework for tracking and measuring progress on adaptation. This framework, known as the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience, was adopted at COP 28 to guide the achievement of the GGA and the review of overall progress in achieving it, including the Agreement on thematic targets that were identified under the framework. To take this forward, at COP 28, a two-year UAE– Belém work programme on developing indicators for measuring progress was launched. This work programme was taken up for discussion in Bonn, where developing countries highlighted the need to include finance as a target, and the question of who should be charged with developing indicators for the targets became a major issue, pushing the discussions to COP 29 without much headway at the Bonn meetings.

The subsidiary bodies need to be provided more room for decision-making to ensure faster implementation of climate actions and reduce the negotiations at the COP.

3. Carrying forward Institutional Memory – Each Conference of the Parties provides countries an opportunity to approve and agree to the items on the provisional agenda and also introduce or request the inclusion of agenda items, while this process provides significant room for introducing new agendas and areas of work for discussions and deliberations; however, contentious issues carried forward from the Bonn meetings have stalled negotiations. For instance, at COP 29 in Baku, the talks were stalled on Day 1 as countries could not agree upon the agenda items. There was significant debate on day 1 by countries on how to carry forward COP28’s pledge to transition away from fossil fuels, the inclusion of carbon border tariffs and the process by which new carbon trading rules have been approved. The first whole day was taken up on agreeing on the agenda itself. It is interesting to note that issues that have historically been agreed upon in past COPs, should not be refuted or negated in succeeding COP negotiations.

4. Building Inclusive Agendas – The discussions and acceptance of provisional agendas at COP highlight the persistent problem of the developed-developing country divide, emerging as a challenge in continuing negotiations. For instance, the modalities of Article 9.5 focusing on reporting on the financial resources that the developed countries intend to provide were not fully resolved and were postponed to intersessional work before COP24. Such delays lead to delays in the operationalisation of critical aspects such as climate finance.

5. Enhancing Transparency – The Paris Agreement was to improve and encourage transparency in the operationalisation of the agreement’s articles, especially issues such as Climate finance and Nationally Determined Contributions; however, the use of abstract and vague definitions has led to varied interpretations of the articles and their provisions. Significant focus has been provided on GHG emission inventory and mitigation-focused transparency; however, the same emphasis seems to be lacking when examining adaptation needs, which is viewed as a lesser priority in the enhanced transparency framework, with several reporting requirements being more voluntary.

6. Provision of Finance – Ensuring climate finance has been a critical point of discussion for developing economies, which need significant resources to address climate change. Climate Finance was a key Focus area at COP29, the Parties agreed on a “New Collective Quantified Goal for climate finance” to support developing countries. The new global climate finance target of $ 300 billion annually by 2035 was significantly lower than the trillion dollars sought by developing countries and it was highlighted as insufficient by them. Additionally, $1.3 trillion per year is to be “enabled” by all stakeholders. Both targets are to be met through both public and private sources, though the proportion of Source: Climate Watch public sources is still a question that needs to be answered. Additionally, while the targets are announced as yearly commitments, the progress on this commitment hasn’t been recorded, and COP 30 is already approaching.

7. Reenvisioning multistakeholder participation – The countries at COP agreed to a climate f inance target from various sources; however, multistakeholder participation in larger decision making is still minimal. Multi-stakeholder participation beyond public institutions is critical for implementing Nationally Determined Contributions and ensuring climate finance. The Paris Agreement acknowledges the role of other stakeholders, yet their role is neither defined nor have these actors been held to be accountable for their climate actions. There is a need to reenvision the role of private stakeholders and their importance in the ongoing discussions. There is a need to proactively engage with different stakeholders to ensure better climate action outcomes.

8. Ensuring Accountability – The Paris Agreement provides mechanisms for countries to withdraw from the Agreement anytime they feel the need to do so, however, the article and its provisions do not take into account the need for countries that are withdrawing to provide reports on targets achieved and actions undertaken to fulfil the promises they made. While countries have the right to withdraw, however, they should be mandated to report their progress to ensure compliance with the agreement.

9. Strengthening Monitoring and Compliance – The Paris Agreement Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC)is largely a facilitative process that encourages compliance. The focus of the committee is to monitor the progress and encourage timely submissions of NDCs. The Committee has been highlighted to be non-adversarial and non-punitive in nature. This is in stark contrast to the Kyoto Protocol Mechanism, where the enforcement branches of the compliance mechanism could “impose penalties to non-compliant Annex I parties over regarding mitigation”. The Paris Agreement falls short in this regard. There is a need for some stringent measures for compliance, as that would be necessary to ensure faster climate action.

10. Incentivising achievements – Countries that achieve better climate action outcomes or undertake strong measures in mitigation and adaptation should be incentivised with enhanced climate finance and other market and non-market measures to support and enable maintenance of status quo. In the past, several countries had shown interest in undertaking strong measures. For instance, Ecuador was the first country in the world to stop oil drilling with citizens voting against it. Even though the country has significant financial needs and seeks economic development, the citizens voted against oil drilling, marking a historical moment. Such efforts by countries should be supported through appropriate climate finance measures.

Author

Swati Ganeshan

Related Publications

Between Belém and Delhi: A Media Disconnect

The Convergence of Global South in Ethiopia

Trade and Gender Equality: A Policy Innovation in the UK–India Trade Agreement