Credibility of nationally determined contributions

This WRI expert note analyzes the relationship between the Paris Agreement's enhanced transparency framework (ETF) and the credibility of nationally determined contributions (NDCs). It argues that NDC credibility depends on target clarity, institutional capacity, policy adoption, and policy outcomes. The authors explain how biennial transparency reports (BTRs) allow the international community to identify 'implementation gaps' and how the process of reporting helps countries refine future targets for greater transparency and achievability.

• NDC credibility is defined as the confidence in a Party's ability to implement and achieve its target, which is derived from four interconnected components: target clarity, capacity and institutional arrangements for implementation, policy adoption, and policy outcome.
• A tension exists between NDC ambition and credibility; while an unambitious target is easier to fulfill and may be perceived as more credible, a highly ambitious target may result in lower confidence in implementation if the country cannot meet the more difficult goal.
• The 'implementation gap' is the difference between future emissions under a target and emissions under current policies. This gap is split into a 'policy adoption gap' (the difference between the target and policies already adopted) and a 'policy outcome gap' (when adopted policies fail to achieve anticipated reductions).
• Biennial transparency reports (BTRs) provide the data necessary to assess NDC credibility by clarifying targets, detailing institutional governance, and providing projections (such as 'with existing measures' or WEM projections) to measure policy adoption and outcome gaps.
• BTR reporting can improve the credibility of future NDCs by helping countries select more straightforward targets and providing a track record of progress. For example, Andorra shifted its 2035 mitigation target from a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario to an absolute emission reduction goal to reduce uncertainty and increase transparency.
• Projections included in BTRs that extend beyond the next NDC's end date can signal whether future targets are realistic. BTRs submitted in 2024 included projections to 2040, while those submitted in 2028 should include projections to 2045.

APA

Cogswell, N., Elliott, C., & Mischke-Reeds, K. (2025). Credibility of nationally determined contributions. World Resources Institute. https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2025-06/credibility-nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs.pdf?VersionId=7JENB4JZuYg1fMALtHCNc8XS.b35lL0d&_gl=1*1cu3gjk*_gcl_au*MTQwODc3MTQ2NS4xNzU3NjA3MDkz

Chicago

Cogswell, Nathan, Cynthia Elliott, and Kirian Mischke-Reeds. Credibility of nationally determined contributions. World Resources Institute, 2025. https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2025-06/credibility-nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs.pdf?VersionId=7JENB4JZuYg1fMALtHCNc8XS.b35lL0d&_gl=1*1cu3gjk*_gcl_au*MTQwODc3MTQ2NS4xNzU3NjA3MDkz.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Cogswell |first1=Nathan |last2=Elliott |first2=Cynthia |last3=Mischke-Reeds |first3=Kirian |title=Credibility of nationally determined contributions |publisher=World Resources Institute |date=June 2025 |url=https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2025-06/credibility-nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs.pdf?VersionId=7JENB4JZuYg1fMALtHCNc8XS.b35lL0d&_gl=1*1cu3gjk*_gcl_au*MTQwODc3MTQ2NS4xNzU3NjA3MDkz |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{cogswell2025credibility, author = {Cogswell, Nathan and Elliott, Cynthia and Mischke-Reeds, Kirian}, title = {{Credibility of nationally determined contributions}}, institution = {World Resources Institute}, year = {2025}, month = jun, url = {https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/2025-06/credibility-nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs.pdf?VersionId=7JENB4JZuYg1fMALtHCNc8XS.b35lL0d&_gl=1*1cu3gjk*_gcl_au*MTQwODc3MTQ2NS4xNzU3NjA3MDkz}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }