Ten years into the Paris Agreement, the current NDC cycle comes at a moment of both scientific urgency and clear economic opportunity. Real-world progress in clean energy, electrification, and efficiency shows the transition is underway and irreversible. Yet missed deadlines and lacklustre pledges reveal a disconnect between Paris Agreement implementation, political action, and economic reality. NDCs are insufficient, and due to ongoing delays, a shared conversation on NDCs 3.0, has been impossible to have. A credible way forward must restore the core idea of NDCs under the Paris Agreement: arrangements that provide the space and time for a synthesis and meaningful discussion on how pledges add up, implementation challenges, and finance needs, while securing political buy-in and fostering a shared strategic understanding of NDCs as economic blueprints.
The extended informal 30 September deadline for countries to submit new and improved NDCs with targets for 2035 has passed, offering a moment to reflect. Just before, around 100 countries came together at the United Nations Secretary-General’s Climate Action Summit to reaffirm their commitment to the Paris Agreement, with many pledging to submit their NDCs before COP30 in November. This is no small feat, given that the transition is unfolding against a backdrop of geopolitical divisions and domestic headwinds.
Ten years after the first round, the quality of NDCs has improved with clearer targets, stronger monitoring mechanisms, and climate action increasingly integrated into government priorities and economic development. The majority of newly submitted NDCs also include commitments in response to the Global Stocktake. Among those submitted, several good practice examples stand out. The United Kingdom has aligned its targets and policies with 1.5°C, Norway is leveraging industrial innovation, and Moldova is tackling carbon and methane to modernise its energy and agriculture sectors. Island states and developing countries such as the Marshall Islands, Kenya, and Nepal are using their NDCs to mobilise investment in renewables, electric mobility, and blue carbon projects that create jobs and strengthen resilience.
Still, only 62 NDCs – just one-third of global emissions – had been formally submitted by early October, namely the EU and China missing. The EU indicated an intended reduction target of 66.25–72.5%, while China announced a modest target of 7–10% below an undisclosed peak year. Yet neither has submitted its NDC, nor have India or most other G20 members. With signals sent but key NDCs still missing, it is worth reflecting on why timing matters profoundly for global climate action.
The interrelation of timing, leadership, and ambition
The Paris Agreement requires countries to submit updated NDCs every five years “at least 9 to 12 months in advance of the relevant session of the [COP], with a view to facilitating the clarity, transparency and understanding of these contributions, including through a synthesis report” (Adoption of the Paris Agreement / Decision 1/CP.21). The purpose of this timeline is to create space for exchange on climate policies, foster debate on realistic, fair, and equitable targets, assess collective ambition, and drive the ratcheting up and implementation of efforts.
In this round, however, that critical timing dimension has been undermined. Delays, largely attributed to a difficult political and geopolitical context and justified as necessary to raise ambition, have eroded the process’s credibility. The NDC 3.0 cycle unfolded amid multiple disruptions: wars and trade tensions, European elections and a new European Commission, elections and change of administration in the US, and national elections in key EU member states. Although the US, UK, Brazil, and UAE submitted their NDCs early, the overall loss of momentum prompted an informal extension of the original February deadline to September.
In practice, this diluted urgency, weakened accountability, and reduced peer pressure on major emitters. In particular, the EU’s prolonged postponements weakened its ability to rally others and diminished its credibility as a climate role model. With the US absent from climate diplomacy, the EU’s hesitation clearly contributed to a cascade of delays among major emitters, including China, India, and others across the G20. While the relaxation of deadlines was intended to accommodate for political rhythms and inclusive processes, it instead contributed to a downward drift in both momentum and ambition.
What the response must be
The NDC 3.0 cycle has surfaced the critical linkages at the heart of the Paris Agreement between timing, leadership, and ambition. Current pledges remain out of step with the economic force of the transition, and significant gaps persist in adaptation, mitigation, and finance for developing countries. The challenge of climate diplomacy is now political. COP30 must respond to this adequately to now consolidate progress, build confidence among citizens and investors alike, and translate real-world momentum into credible ambition.
- World leaders must acknowledge the shortfall and commit to closing the gap to keep 1.5°C within reach, turning an uneven set of pledges into a coherent collective step forward.
- Integrate NDCs with the Action Agenda to enhance coordination, speed, scale, and accountability of the phase-out of fossil fuels, and the acceleration of renewables and clean industry.
- Establish a COP-led process to review NDC implementation through a transparent, non-punitive exchange of lessons learned, best practices, and mechanisms for cooperation and means of implementation, informed by and informing the Global Stocktake.
- Deliver climate finance to enable developing countries are prepared to raise their targets but require reliable resources to deliver to do so. Without resilience, adaptation, and just transition support packages, ambition will remain constrained.
The Paris Agreement and its NDCs have moved the needle before, but moving from a missed moment to failing forward, now will require more than updated pledges: it demands political courage, strategic coordination, and a renewed focus on connecting climate ambition to tangible economic and social transformation.
