The quality of each country on track to meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement can be continuously monitored online (via the Climate Action Tracker and the Climate Clock). The amount of NDCs set by each country sets the objectives of that country. However, the “contributions” themselves are not binding under international law, for lack of specificity, normative character or mandatory language necessary for the creation of binding norms.  In addition, there will be no mechanism to compel a country to set a target in its NPP by a set date, and no implementation if a target set out in a NSP is not met.   There will be only one “Name and Shame” system or, as János Pásztor, UN Under-Secretary-General for Climate Change, cbs News (USA) stated, a “Name and Encourage” plan.  Given that the agreement has no consequences if countries do not comply with their obligations, such a consensus is fragile. A stream of nations withdrawing from the agreement could trigger the withdrawal of other governments and lead to a total collapse of the agreement.  Similarly, it is possible for nations to unilaterally achieve environmental efficiency without coordinating policy through PA mechanisms. A third possibility is for the PA to give way to a broader, more institutionally and environmentally effective framework as a springboard for institutional and environmental effectiveness.
In this sense, continued participation in the PA would be a significant success, despite the aforementioned concerns about its effectiveness. While the expanded transparency framework is universal, as is the global inventory to be held every five years, the framework aims to provide “integrated flexibility” to distinguish between the capacities of developed and developing countries. In this context, the Paris Agreement includes provisions to improve the capacity building framework.  The agreement recognises the different circumstances of some countries and notes in particular that the technical expert review for each country takes into account that country`s specific reporting capacity.  The agreement also develops an initiative to enhance transparency to help developing countries put in place the institutions and processes necessary to comply with the transparency framework. (To put that in perspective, global military spending amounted to about $1.7 trillion in 2017 alone, more than a third of which came from the United States.) The Copenhagen Pact also created the Green Climate Fund to mobilise transformative financial funds with targeted public dollars. . . .