At least fifty countries have yet to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) climate plan to the United Nations, even though the latest set of plans was due in 2025 – and among them, around half have failed to provide information on why they have not met the deadline.
More than a year past an initial deadline of February 2025, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) met this March and said 55 countries had yet to communicate an NDC to the UN climate body. According to the UN’s registry, two have since submitted their plans.
A key requirement of the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement is that governments publish a more ambitious NDC every five years, setting targets to reduce their planet-heating emissions and outlining their policies to adapt to climate change, in order to meet the accord’s goals on limiting global warming and protecting people from its effects.
The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in 2025.
After India’s recent submission, the countries yet to publish their new NDCs are mostly poorer and smaller nations, with few emissions. The biggest emitters in the group are Egypt, Vietnam, Argentina and the Philippines. The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement, although the US submitted a 2035 NDC under the Biden administration before Donald Trump pulled the US out of the UN climate accords.
Some nations have argued that they cannot put together an NDC – which requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy – because of exceptional circumstances. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC committee, seen by Climate Home News, says that the country’s civil war has led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.
No information from some nations
But others have failed to communicate with the PAICC, which is tasked with encouraging governments to respect their commitments under the Paris Agreement.
In a report on its March 27 meeting, the PAICC board said it “noted with concern” that 28 countries have not provided information about either their NDCs or their biennial transparency reports on the climate action they are taking, or both. This was “despite several reminders”, it said.
Despite a push from some board members, the committee did not agree at this meeting to name these 28 countries. But it may do so at a meeting in September.
-
Oil crisis could boost struggling sustainable aviation fuel industry
As the price of oil-based jet fuel shoots up, biofuel or hydrogen-based alternatives look more appealing -
ICJ follow-up resolution is a test of climate leadership at the UN
If states back the resolution by consensus, it would send a powerful message of commitment to climate action and the rule of law, despite pushback by some big emitters
One source who has seen the list of countries told Climate Home News it was a “mixed crowd” of developing nations, including least developed countries, small island developing states, emerging economies and at least one government with a representative on the PAICC board.
The PAICC decided to send individual letters to these governments requesting that they engage with the committee and “reminding them that it shall take appropriate measures with a view to facilitating implementation and promoting compliance” with the Paris Agreement.
Non-punitive system
The PAICC’s rules of procedure state that it should be “non-adversarial and non-punitive” and the strongest measure it can take is to issue a public finding naming a government that has breached the Paris Agreement rules. It has done this once before in 2023, rebuking the Vatican for not filing an NDC and Iceland for not telling the UN how much climate finance it plans to provide.
Joanna Depledge, a historian of the UN climate process and research fellow at the University of Cambridge, said that “any measures stronger than naming and shaming would have been unacceptable” to some governments when they were negotiating the Paris Agreement.
She added that “naming and shaming in the international arena is not trivial” because governments do not like to be exposed as non-compliant. “But if the PAICC cannot even name, then that is a serious problem,” she warned.
Avoiding Kyoto’s mistakes?
Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge, said the architects of the Paris Agreement made it less enforceable so as to try and prevent countries leaving or staying out of the agreement as happened with its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol.
While the Paris Agreement asks all governments to set their own emissions-reduction targets, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol set specific targets for developed countries.
When in 2011 it became clear that Canada was not going to meet those targets, it quit the agreement rather than face formal non-compliance proceedings and a multibillion-dollar obligation to buy carbon credits to cover the shortfall, Rao said.
Japan and Russia also declined to endorse some of their emissions reduction targets and the US never ratified the Kyoto agreement. “Enforcement proceedings became politically toxic,” exposing “the limits of punitive compliance regimes”, Rao said.
The idea of the Paris Agreement’s less stringent compliance system is to engage with governments and keep them within the system rather than threaten them with sanctions and potentially push them out, he added.
Rao said this was “the right trade-off” because governments comply when they feel they have chosen to sign up to the rules rather than having them imposed. He noted that back in April 2025, 171 governments had yet to submit their NDCs and this figure is now down to just over 50.
“We’ve got countries that are at least reporting NDCs,” he said, adding that PAICC is “working as it was designed to”. “It is issuing findings of fact and non-compliance, it’s initiating discussions with parties and, as a result of those discussions, the non-compliance figures are coming down every time.”
The post Paris Agreement committee snubbed over missing NDC climate plans appeared first on Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement committee snubbed over missing NDC climate plans
Scientists’ discovery of hollowed coral skeletons after a 2019 bleaching event reveals a reef that isn’t coming back.
This story was supported by the Pulitzer Center.
Coral Reefs in French Polynesia Are Stuck Between Life and Death
The invigorating thing about public speaking is that you never quite know who is in the audience. There’s always a chance, of course, that someone wants to have a bit of a go at you, or maybe there’s an attendee with a particular take on things, who wants to ask one of those ‘questions that is more of a statement’; and then there’s those precious moments when the stars align and a memorable connection is made.
A couple of weeks ago, I’d participated in a panel discussion at an event, and the crowd was beginning to dissipate when a couple of strangers approached me to introduce themselves and say ‘hello’.
It turned out that Helen, Miranda, and I had all been in the same room in April, when each of us was part of the Greenpeace contingent inside Woodside’s 2026 Annual General Meeting in Perth, though we did not meet that day.
AGMs are significant set-piece occasions for companies, at which their corporate leadership wants to project competence and boost investor confidence. But for those of us with other concerns on our minds, an AGM is an opportunity to hold corporate leaders to account.
This year, a significant number of community advocacy groups, including Greenpeace, were present at Woodside’s AGM to challenge the company on its plans to drill for gas around Scott Reef—Australia’s largest freestanding oceanic reef atoll, and host to an incredible array of rare and endangered creatures, including green sea turtles and pygmy blue whales.
My role was to accept a shareholder proxy, suit up, and ask the company’s chair, Richard Goyder, some direct questions about the environmental damage that Woodside’s plans threaten to Scott Reef and the global climate.
Helen and Miranda, though, were present to play a completely different role. ‘We were a bit nervous that day’, Miranda told me. And no wonder, given what they were planning to do.
As new CEO Liz Westcott took the lectern, she was abruptly interrupted by a literally unearthly sound: whale song, playing from a speaker that Greenpeace activists had snuck into the room.
It was an aural haunting of Woodside’s AGM by the ghosts of its business strategy. Westcott opted to try to continue speaking, while security moved among the rows, attempting without success to work out where the sound was coming from.
When the whale track had played through, the relief on the podium felt palpable; but the return to corporate calm was short-lived.
Miranda, Helen, and other small groups of choristers—all evidently talented singers in their own right—began to stand up in small groups to perform a bespoke ‘Save Scott Reef’ variation on an iconic Australian song:
Hands off Scott Reef
Don’t be so Reckless
She don’t like that kind of behaviour…
It is a cliche, but true, to say that bravery comes in many different forms. It demands guts and resolve to stand up in a closed and heavily securitised room, with an unsympathetic audience; and to sing a song of no denying to one of the most powerful corporations in Australia, unaccompanied, from a cold start, with only your voices to fill the cavernous corporate space.
It was a wonderful thing to witness: the moral clarity of the message and the bold cheekiness of the activity; and a profoundly galvanising thing to feel, the indefatigable lifting of the spirit that we experience when we hear human voices rising in harmony and purpose. Miranda, Helen and their mates were brilliant.
Don’t be so Reckless…
As each small group rose in choreographed turn to pick up the song, they were apprehended by security and escorted out, singing to the last, as they were exited from the room.
Already, more than 500,000 people have joined the campaign to stop Woodside from drilling gas at Scott Reef. So when Helen, Miranda and friends stood up to sing, they did so on behalf of more than half a million people.
‘I’d never done anything like that before’, Helen told me, ‘I’d definitely do it again’.
Protest songs are both catalytic and emblematic of dynamic moments of social change. There is beauty, creativity, defiance, camaraderie and love to be found in singing together.
Helen and Miranda, it was great to meet you both. To you and all the other amazing folks who stood up and sang, thank you for your courage, commitment and the power of your voices. Your singing mattered for the half million, for the whales and the other creatures of Scott Reef, and for life in the ocean and on earth itself.
*As anyone of a certain age will probably recognise, the phrase is derived from the Midnight Oil anthem, US Forces.
Q and A
A few people have asked me recently about where the implementation of the national nature law reforms stand? Specifically, It seemed like good news when the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) reforms were passed last year, but now it appears that they could be going wrong in the implementation. What’s happening?
We welcomed the Australian parliament’s passing of long-awaited nature law reforms just before Christmas last year as a fulfilment of an election promise, but remained clear-eyed that the proof of these reforms would be in how well they were implemented.
At this stage, the first two draft National Environmental Standards (NES) released by Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt’s department fall well short of what is required to actually protect nature. So things are once again in the balance.
The NES are the rules intended to guide decisions on projects that require assessment under the EPBC Act. They should draw a hard line to protect nature, but instead, the proposed standards are full of loopholes that legal experts warn are inimical to achieving the whole point of the Act–the protection of nature.
Glenn Walker who is Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s Head of Nature Program has mapped out the shortcomings of the NES in great detail on our blog. Greenpeace has made is views clear to both the Federal Environment Department and Minister Murray Watt, urging that the NES must be fixed, as have many others.
We are continuing to work closely with other environmental organisations, both to engage closely and to campaign publicly–there is still the opportunity to get this right to achieve the potential of the amended EPBC Act to actually do what it says on the cover–protect the environment.
The Okefenokee, a vast blackwater swamp, is under consideration for UNESCO World Heritage status, as scientists and advocates point to its rare peatlands, biodiversity and long history of ecological resilience.
FOLKSTON, Ga.—The world’s smallest heron hops from blade to blade in a patch of tall grass, testing its footing above the dark water as it searches for an evening meal.
A Georgia Wildlife Haven Forged by Fire and Peat Nears UNESCO Recognition
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测