The level of the NDC set by each country will determine the objectives of that country. However, the “contributions” themselves are not binding under international law because of the lack of specificity, normative nature or language necessary to establish binding standards.  In addition, there will be no mechanism to compel a country to set a target in its NDC on a specified date and not for an application if a defined target is not achieved in an NDC.   There will be only a “Name and Shame” system  or as UN Deputy Secretary General for Climate Change, J. Pésztor, CBS News (US), a “Name and Encouragement” plan.  Since the agreement has no consequences if countries do not live up to their commitments, such a consensus is fragile. A cattle of nations withdrawing from the agreement could trigger the withdrawal of other governments and lead to the total collapse of the agreement.  Another key difference between the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol is their scope. While the Kyoto Protocol distinguishes between Schedule 1 countries and those not annexed to Schedule 1, this branch is scrambled in the Paris Agreement, as all parties must submit emission reduction plans.  While the Paris Agreement continues to emphasize the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities” – the recognition that different nations have different capacities and duties to combat climate change – it does not offer a specific separation between developed and developing countries.
 It therefore appears that negotiators will have to continue to address this issue in future rounds of negotiations, although the debate on differentiation could take on a new dynamic.  The Paris Agreement is an agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that deals with the reduction, adaptation and financing of greenhouse gas emissions from 2020. The agreement aims to address the threat of global climate change by keeping global temperatures well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels this century and to continue efforts to further limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius.  Although the enhanced transparency framework is universal, the framework, coupled with the global inventory that takes place every five years, aims to provide “integrated flexibility” to distinguish the capabilities of developed and developing countries. In this context, the Paris Agreement contains provisions to improve the capacity-building framework.  The agreement recognizes the different circumstances of some countries and notes, in particular, that the technical review of experts for each country takes into account the specific capacity of that country to report.  The agreement also develops a capacity-building initiative for transparency to help developing countries put in place the necessary institutions and procedures to comply with the transparency framework.  After a flawless COP18 in Doha, cop19 in 2013 in Warsaw, Poland was more interesting. The aim was to establish a timetable to facilitate an agreement within COP21, to create a mechanism for a new “loss and damage framework” (how to find out, to be active and supported for developing countries affected by extreme events) and to make progress in making long-term financial resources available. Any agreement will certainly not include a global price for carbon (which the economy demands), said Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC. Progress on fossil fuel subsidies is also unlikely to be made. On 15 December 2018, an agreement was reached on the Katowice package, which contains guidelines that will operate the COP21 transparency framework.