How countries define climate action in the Paris Agreement pledge, and why standard forms help assess outcomes

As the world is working on how it tackles climate change, countries that signed the Paris Agreement outline their commitment to reducing emissions in documents called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). These are the official climate action plans that countries submit to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) every five years, detailing reduction targets and strategies to achieve them. The NDCS, the foundation of the Paris Agreement, is designed to track global progress and promote increasingly ambitious climate action over time. Although they are often scrutinized for their emissions targets, new research suggests that they contain more and more – reform the country’s broader priorities, challenges to sustainability, and approaches.

Our team, including researchers from the ESCP Business School and the University of Barcelona, ​​applied it from computational linguistics, which uses machine learning to analyze texts, to over 300 NDCs submitted by nations around the world. Our study identified 21 important topics in the document. This was grouped into seven broader themes, including development, mitigation targets and the impacts of climate change.

The story of two worlds: how climate priorities differ from country to country

One of the most prominent findings of this study is the contrast between how high-income and low-income countries frame their climate pledge.

Wealthy countries such as the US, Japan and the EU (speaking 27 member countries) tend to focus on emission reduction targets, but often lack a detailed roadmap of policy or regulatory measures to achieve them. For example, the EU’s first NDC consists of a brief statement of emissions targets with a table of technical information and a short “follow-up” section. With around 1,000 words, this document is one of the shortest pledges. The updated NDC of the block provides some summary of the policy and legislation, but there is a lack of details on how these contribute to hitting the target. The text includes general statements such as “Sustainable transport fuels can play a key role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Similarly, the US updated NDC for 2021 has set a target to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, 50-52% below the 2005 level, but there is no specific policy details in the two-page section that outlines the plan to achieve this goal.

In contrast, developing countries often adopt a broader approach and embed climate policies in the Sustainable Development Goals. Their NDC emphasizes adaptation to climate impacts along with economic growth, social justice and mitigation. Many emphasize that financial and technical support from wealthy countries is needed to meet their commitments. Venezuela’s updated 2021 NDC is perhaps the most extreme example of this. Over 76,000 words, the longest of all submissions, incorporating climate action into the broader environmental socialist “the political vision of the country’s sustainable development.”

Some developing countries are producing transparent, clear and detailed NDCs despite limited resources. Ethiopia’s updated 2021 NDC provides sector-specific forecasts of emissions under various scenarios and clear policy interventions to achieve targets. Vanuatu’s updated 2022 submission systematically links policy actions to relevant sustainable development goals and specifies the level of international financial support required for implementation. These examples show that some low-income countries not only integrating climate action into broader development plans, but also outline specific pathways for implementing them.

The contrast between these NDCs and NDCs submitted by high-income countries raises fundamental questions about climate justice. For example, who should place the economic burden of climate policy? This question challenges the fairness of imposing unified climate policies on countries with vastly different economic capabilities and historical contributions to global emissions. More questions include: How can climate policy ensure a legitimate transition for industries and regions that are disproportionately affected by emission reductions? How can you design your policies to minimize social costs while achieving environmental goals? The NDC in developing countries reflects these issues and urgently balances climate behavior with economic and social challenges.

How did the climate pledge change over time?

Our study tracked how the country’s NDC evolved. Early NDCs were often broad-based statements of intent that focused on general commitments rather than concrete actions. More recent updates tend to be more detailed, with some countries categorizing sectoral mitigation strategies such as energy, agriculture and transportation. However, transparency remains a problem. Many pledges still lack details and details on how governments plan to fund or implement climate targets, leaving uncertainty about whether the pledge will be translated into action.

Which countries share similar priorities?

By using topic modeling, we identified nine countries groups with similar approaches to the climate covenant identified in the map below.

One cluster, including Brazil, Russia and other former Soviet countries, emphasizes the implications of climate action for economic development. Meanwhile, small island developing countries (SIDS), which are extremely vulnerable to the effects of climate change, emphasize the need for adaptation and international support.

These clusters highlight the complex trade-offs faced in balancing emission reductions with economic and social priorities. But I think they also highlight the deeper ideological and political divisions that shape climate commitments. For wealthy and market-driven economies, this challenge often lies in adjusting the impact and emission reductions of growth-dependent models, competitive industrial policies, and strong fossil fuel interest. Meanwhile, in a less capitalized and state-controlled economy, social priorities such as job security, affordable energy and political stability can create resistance to positive decarbonization. In this sense, NDCs do not only reflect practical trade-offs. The divergence of climate commitments reflects how governments with different governments define their responsibilities, equity and role in shaping economic transformation.

Why standardization of NDCS is important

The lack of a standardized form of NDCS is a major challenge. Countries submit their documents in their own format, making it difficult for researchers to assess which policies are effective and how much progress is actually being made. Some countries provide highly structured, detailed reports, but others only provide a brief summary. Many pledges still lack transparency, particularly in terms of funding and implementation.

Developed by the UNFCCC, a general report format based on lessons from the best examples of NDCs, allows for better comparisons of climate commitments and increases transparency. Such forms include standardized emissions baselines, sector-specific reduction targets, timelines for policy implementation, and clear methodologies for measuring progress. They can also request that the country report or provide the financial and technical support needed to ensure a legitimate transition. These factors not only make NDCs more comparable, but also help identify gaps, best practices and potential areas of international cooperation.

As the next global climate negotiations approach, clearer commitment and greater accountability will be required. Without them, the Paris Agreement’s goals could only remain on paper.

This article will be republished from the conversation under a Creative Commons license. Please read the original article.