In accordance with the text of the international instrument itself, as listed in its Article 2, the agreement aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty for which it determines three concrete actions:

Expected national contributions

The contributions that each individual country can establish to achieve the overall goal are determined by all countries individually and are called nationally determined contributions (NDCs).[10]​[11]​ Article 3 requires that they be “ambitious”, “represent progress over time” and be established “to achieve the purpose of this Agreement”. Contributions should be reported every five years and recorded by the UNFCCC Secretariat. Each progress should be more ambitious than the previous one, known as the principle of "progression." Countries can cooperate and pool their nationally determined contributions. The nationally determined contributions[10]​ committed during the 2015 Climate Change conference serve—unless achieved otherwise—as the initial contribution at the national level.

The level of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions[10]​ (INCD[10]​) that is established for each country will define the objectives of each country. However, contributions are not obligations similar to international law, nor do they have the specificity of normative nature, or mandatory language necessary to create standards that must be met. Furthermore, there will be no mechanism to force a country to set a target in its Nationally Determined Contribution[12]​ by a specific date, nor enforcement if the set target is not achieved. There will only be a "name and disgrace" system or, like János Pásztor), the UN assistant secretary general on climate change said on the North American television network CBS News, a "name and encouragement" plan. As provided in the Agreement, there are no consequences if the countries do not reach their commitments, the conclusion at this point is fragile.

World balance

The global stocktake began with a "facilitative dialogue" in 2018.[13]​ In this call, the parties assessed how their first NDCs compared with the closer goal of reaching peak global emissions and with the longer-term goal of achieving net zero emissions by the second half of this century.[14]​.

The implementation of the agreement by all member countries together will be evaluated every 5 years, with the first evaluation in 2023. The result will be used as input for new nationally determined contributions of the Member States.[15]​ The balance will not consist of contributions or achievements of individual countries, but rather a collective analysis of what has been achieved and what more needs to be done.

The balance works as part of the Paris Agreement's effort to create an increase in the ambition of emissions cuts. Because analysts agreed in 2014 that NDCs would not limit temperature rises below 2°C, the global stocktake brings parties back together to assess how their new NDCs should evolve so that they continually reflect a country's “highest possible ambition.”[14]​.

While increasing NDC ambition is one of the main objectives of the global stocktake, the stocktake evaluates efforts beyond mitigation. The five-year reviews will also assess adaptation, climate finance provisions, and technology development and transfer.[14]​.

In April 2020, a preliminary study published in Nature Communications reached a series of conclusions that impact the analysis of the global balance. Based on a public policy database and a multi-model scenario analysis, the authors showed that the implementation of current policies leaves an average emissions gap of 22.4 to 28.2 GtCO2eq by 2030 with the optimal pathways to implement the Paris 2°C and 1.5°C lower level targets. If Nationally Determined Contributions were fully implemented, this gap would be reduced by a third. Countries assessed were found to have failed to achieve their promised contributions with implemented policies (implementation gap), or had a gap in ambitions with optimal pathways well below 2°C. The study showed that all countries would need to accelerate the implementation of policies for renewable technologies, while improvements in efficiency are especially important in developing countries and countries that depend on fossil fuels.[16]​.

Structure

The Paris Agreement has a "bottom-up" structure in contrast to most international environmental law treaties, which are "top-down," characterized by internationally set standards and goals for states to implement.[17] Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets commitment targets that have legal force, the Paris Agreement, with its emphasis on consensus-building, allows for voluntary, nationally determined targets.[18]​ Thus, climate goals specific ones are politically encouraged, rather than legally bound. Only the processes governing the reporting and review of these objectives are mandatory under international law.

Another key difference between the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol is their scope. While the Kyoto Protocol differentiated between Annex 1 countries and non-Annex 1 countries, this bifurcation is blurred in the Paris Agreement, as all parties will be required to submit emissions reduction plans.[19] While the Paris Agreement still emphasizes the principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibility and Respective Capacities” (understood as the recognition that different nations have different capabilities and duties for climate action), it does not establish a specific division between developed nations and in development.[19]​ Therefore, negotiators will have to continue addressing this issue in future negotiating rounds, although the discussion on differentiation may take on a new dynamic.[20]​.

Gender and human rights perspective

The Paris Agreement incorporates the recognition of human rights and the gender perspective. Unlike the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement explicitly mentions the gender perspective,[21]​ as part of efforts to move towards gender mainstreaming, intergenerational justice and the recognition of indigenous and vulnerable communities. The Paris Agreement incorporates these references not only in the content of the agreement, but in its analyses, plans and perspectives. The Agreement also recognizes the role of local and indigenous communities and the need to redouble efforts directed at those communities.[22]​ In its preamble, the Agreement recognizes that:.

Furthermore, the Agreement recognizes the need to incorporate the intersectional gender perspective in adaptation and mitigation plans, in article 7, paragraph 5:.

Most countries have incorporated some gender dimension in the drafts of their respective nationally determined contributions as part of the plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation and mitigation to climate change.[21]​.

Two studies indicate that, by 2017, none of the largely industrialized countries were implementing the policies they expected and, furthermore, they have not fulfilled their previously agreed emissions reductions; Even if they had already done so, the sum of all the emissions of the signatory members (for 2016) would not be enough to keep the temperature increase at less than 2 °C.[23]​[24]​ Furthermore, UNEP estimates that a reduction in emissions in November 2016 would imply an increase of 3 °C. In the European framework, it is estimated that, if by the end of the century global warming in the world exceeds 3 °C, Europe could suffer losses of 240 billion euros, according to a report by the Joint Research Center that advises the European Commission 2008.[25]​.

On the other hand, an article written on April 22, 2016 by MIT News analyzes the impact of the Paris Agreement on the global increase in temperatures. Using a series of systems and models, they concluded that this climate agreement could represent a decrease in temperatures between 0.6 and 1.1 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, with only a change of 0.1 C by 2050. Therefore, there are fears that, in the future, the agreed objectives cannot be met under current circumstances.

Furthermore, a study published in 2018 detects a threshold at which temperatures can increase between 4 and 5 degrees compared to pre-industrial levels, taking into account the feedback mechanisms of the climate system.[26]​.

Regarding impacts, a study published in 2018 notes that, even at 1.5 °C, high occurrences of hydrological extremes could be expected, especially in India and in southern and south-eastern Asia.[27] However, the same study indicates that, at 2.0 °C, several rivers in South America, Central Africa, Western Europe and the Mississippi River area in the United States would see a high increase in their flows "Flow (fluid)"); therefore, increasing the risk of possible flooding.

In accordance with the text of the international instrument itself, as listed in its Article 2, the agreement aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty for which it determines three concrete actions:

Expected national contributions

The contributions that each individual country can establish to achieve the overall goal are determined by all countries individually and are called nationally determined contributions (NDCs).[10]​[11]​ Article 3 requires that they be “ambitious”, “represent progress over time” and be established “to achieve the purpose of this Agreement”. Contributions should be reported every five years and recorded by the UNFCCC Secretariat. Each progress should be more ambitious than the previous one, known as the principle of "progression." Countries can cooperate and pool their nationally determined contributions. The nationally determined contributions[10]​ committed during the 2015 Climate Change conference serve—unless achieved otherwise—as the initial contribution at the national level.

The level of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions[10]​ (INCD[10]​) that is established for each country will define the objectives of each country. However, contributions are not obligations similar to international law, nor do they have the specificity of normative nature, or mandatory language necessary to create standards that must be met. Furthermore, there will be no mechanism to force a country to set a target in its Nationally Determined Contribution[12]​ by a specific date, nor enforcement if the set target is not achieved. There will only be a "name and disgrace" system or, like János Pásztor), the UN assistant secretary general on climate change said on the North American television network CBS News, a "name and encouragement" plan. As provided in the Agreement, there are no consequences if the countries do not reach their commitments, the conclusion at this point is fragile.

World balance

The global stocktake began with a "facilitative dialogue" in 2018.[13]​ In this call, the parties assessed how their first NDCs compared with the closer goal of reaching peak global emissions and with the longer-term goal of achieving net zero emissions by the second half of this century.[14]​.

The implementation of the agreement by all member countries together will be evaluated every 5 years, with the first evaluation in 2023. The result will be used as input for new nationally determined contributions of the Member States.[15]​ The balance will not consist of contributions or achievements of individual countries, but rather a collective analysis of what has been achieved and what more needs to be done.

The balance works as part of the Paris Agreement's effort to create an increase in the ambition of emissions cuts. Because analysts agreed in 2014 that NDCs would not limit temperature rises below 2°C, the global stocktake brings parties back together to assess how their new NDCs should evolve so that they continually reflect a country's “highest possible ambition.”[14]​.

While increasing NDC ambition is one of the main objectives of the global stocktake, the stocktake evaluates efforts beyond mitigation. The five-year reviews will also assess adaptation, climate finance provisions, and technology development and transfer.[14]​.

In April 2020, a preliminary study published in Nature Communications reached a series of conclusions that impact the analysis of the global balance. Based on a public policy database and a multi-model scenario analysis, the authors showed that the implementation of current policies leaves an average emissions gap of 22.4 to 28.2 GtCO2eq by 2030 with the optimal pathways to implement the Paris 2°C and 1.5°C lower level targets. If Nationally Determined Contributions were fully implemented, this gap would be reduced by a third. Countries assessed were found to have failed to achieve their promised contributions with implemented policies (implementation gap), or had a gap in ambitions with optimal pathways well below 2°C. The study showed that all countries would need to accelerate the implementation of policies for renewable technologies, while improvements in efficiency are especially important in developing countries and countries that depend on fossil fuels.[16]​.

Structure

The Paris Agreement has a "bottom-up" structure in contrast to most international environmental law treaties, which are "top-down," characterized by internationally set standards and goals for states to implement.[17] Unlike its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol, which sets commitment targets that have legal force, the Paris Agreement, with its emphasis on consensus-building, allows for voluntary, nationally determined targets.[18]​ Thus, climate goals specific ones are politically encouraged, rather than legally bound. Only the processes governing the reporting and review of these objectives are mandatory under international law.

Another key difference between the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol is their scope. While the Kyoto Protocol differentiated between Annex 1 countries and non-Annex 1 countries, this bifurcation is blurred in the Paris Agreement, as all parties will be required to submit emissions reduction plans.[19] While the Paris Agreement still emphasizes the principle of “Common but Differentiated Responsibility and Respective Capacities” (understood as the recognition that different nations have different capabilities and duties for climate action), it does not establish a specific division between developed nations and in development.[19]​ Therefore, negotiators will have to continue addressing this issue in future negotiating rounds, although the discussion on differentiation may take on a new dynamic.[20]​.

Gender and human rights perspective

The Paris Agreement incorporates the recognition of human rights and the gender perspective. Unlike the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement explicitly mentions the gender perspective,[21]​ as part of efforts to move towards gender mainstreaming, intergenerational justice and the recognition of indigenous and vulnerable communities. The Paris Agreement incorporates these references not only in the content of the agreement, but in its analyses, plans and perspectives. The Agreement also recognizes the role of local and indigenous communities and the need to redouble efforts directed at those communities.[22]​ In its preamble, the Agreement recognizes that:.

Furthermore, the Agreement recognizes the need to incorporate the intersectional gender perspective in adaptation and mitigation plans, in article 7, paragraph 5:.

Most countries have incorporated some gender dimension in the drafts of their respective nationally determined contributions as part of the plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation and mitigation to climate change.[21]​.

Two studies indicate that, by 2017, none of the largely industrialized countries were implementing the policies they expected and, furthermore, they have not fulfilled their previously agreed emissions reductions; Even if they had already done so, the sum of all the emissions of the signatory members (for 2016) would not be enough to keep the temperature increase at less than 2 °C.[23]​[24]​ Furthermore, UNEP estimates that a reduction in emissions in November 2016 would imply an increase of 3 °C. In the European framework, it is estimated that, if by the end of the century global warming in the world exceeds 3 °C, Europe could suffer losses of 240 billion euros, according to a report by the Joint Research Center that advises the European Commission 2008.[25]​.

On the other hand, an article written on April 22, 2016 by MIT News analyzes the impact of the Paris Agreement on the global increase in temperatures. Using a series of systems and models, they concluded that this climate agreement could represent a decrease in temperatures between 0.6 and 1.1 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, with only a change of 0.1 C by 2050. Therefore, there are fears that, in the future, the agreed objectives cannot be met under current circumstances.

Furthermore, a study published in 2018 detects a threshold at which temperatures can increase between 4 and 5 degrees compared to pre-industrial levels, taking into account the feedback mechanisms of the climate system.[26]​.

Regarding impacts, a study published in 2018 notes that, even at 1.5 °C, high occurrences of hydrological extremes could be expected, especially in India and in southern and south-eastern Asia.[27] However, the same study indicates that, at 2.0 °C, several rivers in South America, Central Africa, Western Europe and the Mississippi River area in the United States would see a high increase in their flows "Flow (fluid)"); therefore, increasing the risk of possible flooding.