New Delhi (ABC Live): The Global Stocktake is the Paris Agreement’s five-year review of collective climate progress. In particular, it examines whether countries are reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, preparing for climate impacts and providing adequate finance, technology and institutional support.

The first Global Stocktake concluded at the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference in Dubai in December 2023. Although global climate action had expanded, the assessment found that the world remained off track from the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement.

Consequently, the COP28 outcome called for faster action before 2030. Among other measures, countries agreed to contribute towards tripling global renewable-energy capacity and doubling the average annual rate of energy-efficiency improvement. In addition, they called for substantial methane reductions, faster reductions in unabated coal power and a transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems.

However, the stocktake does not assign binding emission cuts to individual countries. Moreover, it cannot automatically alter domestic laws, redirect national budgets or prevent governments from approving high-emission infrastructure.

Therefore, the central question is not simply whether the Global Stocktake is important. Instead, the harder question is whether a collective assessment without allocated responsibility, assured finance or direct enforcement can change national behaviour before 2030.

The evidence provides a mixed answer. On the one hand, most Nationally Determined Contributions assessed by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change stated that the first stocktake informed their preparation. On the other hand, existing commitments and current policies remain far from a pathway consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C.

Overall, the stocktake has influenced climate language and planning. Nevertheless, it has not yet transformed climate performance at the speed or scale required.

Key Findings

Research question ABC Research finding
Why was the first stocktake conducted in 2023? Article 14 of the Paris Agreement expressly fixed 2023 for the first assessment
What does the stocktake examine? Mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity-building and international cooperation
Why does it occur every five years? The cycle links collective assessment with successive rounds of national climate plans
Is a five-year interval adequate? It is suitable for a comprehensive treaty review; however, it is too slow as the only accountability test
How many NDCs did the initial 2025 UNFCCC synthesis assess? 64 NDCs submitted by 64 Parties
How many said the stocktake informed them? Approximately 56 of 64, based on the UNFCCC’s 88% figure
How many explained how it influenced them? Approximately 51 of 64, based on the UNFCCC’s 80% figure
Are existing commitments adequate? No. Full NDC implementation still implies approximately 2.3°C–2.5°C warming
What do current policies imply? About 2.8°C warming
Has climate finance increased? Yes; however, concerns remain over access, debt, quality and adaptation allocation
What is the main governance weakness? The stocktake identifies collective failure without allocating additional national responsibility
What does ABC Research add? Independent tests of legality, implementation, finance, equity and measurable outcomes

Why ABC Live Is Publishing This Report Now

The first Global Stocktake has moved from assessment to implementation.

After the process concluded in December 2023, governments were expected to use its findings while preparing the next generation of Nationally Determined Contributions. Accordingly, many of these national plans contain targets extending to 2035.

Subsequently, the UNFCCC 2025 NDC Synthesis Report provided systematic evidence of how countries had responded. Meanwhile, the first Biennial Transparency Reports began showing whether governments were implementing earlier promises.

India also submitted its NDC for 2031–2035 on 24 April 2026. As a result, the Global Stocktake now has direct relevance for India’s energy, industrial, transport, adaptation and development policies.

Furthermore, the second Global Stocktake will begin in November 2026 and conclude in November 2028. Thus, the international system is approaching its next comprehensive review even though implementation of the first remains incomplete.

ABC Live has already examined connected aspects of this promise-to-performance gap in:

Accordingly, the main issue is no longer what the stocktake said at COP28. Instead, the decisive test is whether governments have changed their laws, budgets and sectoral policies because of it.

What Is the Global Stocktake?

Article 14 of the Paris Agreement requires Parties to periodically assess collective progress towards achieving the agreement’s purpose and long-term goals.

Rather than grading each country individually, the stocktake combines national commitments, reported policies, scientific assessments and information on international support. It then examines whether the world is collectively moving in the right direction.

In practice, the process covers three principal pillars.

Mitigation

Mitigation concerns the reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions and the expansion of carbon removals. Accordingly, the stocktake reviews progress across energy, industry, transport, buildings, agriculture, forests and other major sectors.

Adaptation

Adaptation concerns the ability of societies, economies and ecosystems to manage climate impacts. For example, it covers water security, public health, resilient agriculture, disaster preparedness, coastal protection and climate-resilient infrastructure.

Means of Implementation and Support

Developing countries require finance, technology transfer and institutional capacity to implement climate policies. Therefore, the stocktake also examines whether international support is adequate. In addition, it considers whether cooperation reflects equity and different national circumstances.

Why Was the First Global Stocktake Conducted in 2023?

The year 2023 was not selected casually. Article 14 expressly required the first Global Stocktake to take place in 2023. Thereafter, it established a five-year cycle unless Parties decided otherwise.

The Paris Agreement was adopted in 2015 and entered into force in 2016. Following its entry into force, countries needed time to prepare climate plans, establish reporting systems, develop greenhouse-gas inventories and assess adaptation requirements.

Moreover, governments needed to report information on finance, technology and capacity-building. Therefore, an immediate stocktake would not have had enough comparable evidence for a credible global assessment.

Accordingly, the first formal process began at COP26 in Glasgow in November 2021. Its information-gathering and technical-assessment phases then continued through 2022 and 2023.

Finally, the political consideration of the findings concluded at COP28 through Decision 1/CMA.5: Outcome of the First Global Stocktake.

Why the Timing Was Strategically Important

The assessment came before the next NDC cycle. Therefore, countries could use the findings while preparing their subsequent national plans.

Stage Date or period
Paris Agreement adopted 2015
Paris Agreement entered into force 2016
First stocktake launched November 2021
Technical assessment 2022–2023
First stocktake concluded December 2023
Preparation and submission of new NDCs 2024–2026
India submitted its 2031–2035 NDC 24 April 2026
Second stocktake November 2026–November 2028
Major global implementation milestone 2030
New NDC target period Generally to 2035

In this way, the first stocktake sought to answer three connected questions. First, where did the world stand? Second, how far did it remain from the Paris goals? Finally, what did governments need to change during the next implementation period?

Why the First Stocktake Was Significant

The first stocktake acknowledged that climate action had expanded. Nevertheless, it also found that collective progress remained inadequate across mitigation, adaptation and support.

Consequently, the outcome called on countries to contribute towards tripling global renewable-energy capacity and doubling the annual rate of energy-efficiency improvement by 2030. In addition, it called for faster reductions in unabated coal power, methane emissions and inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies.

The decision also referred to transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems. Furthermore, it encouraged countries to halt and reverse deforestation while strengthening adaptation, finance and technology transfer.

These directions gave the stocktake considerable political importance. Even so, they did not create uniform national duties.

For instance, the renewable-energy goal applies globally. However, the COP28 decision does not specify how much additional capacity each country must install.

Likewise, the phrase “transitioning away” creates political direction. Yet it does not establish one legally binding fossil-fuel phase-out date for every country.

Therefore, the gap between global language and national obligation remains central to this research.

How the Global Stocktake Is Intended to Work

The Paris Agreement follows an ambition cycle:

National climate plans ? implementation ? transparency reporting ? Global Stocktake ? stronger national climate plans

In principle, governments should examine collective gaps and then strengthen national ambition.

In practice, however, the stocktake cannot enact domestic legislation, allocate public money or close a high-emission facility. Similarly, it cannot build an electricity grid, implement an adaptation programme or penalise a country for weak action.

Thus, its influence depends on what governments do after the international assessment.

Moreover, this dependence creates a structural weakness. Although the stocktake can identify a collective shortfall, it cannot independently correct it.

Is the Five-Year Stocktake Cycle Adequate?

A five-year cycle offers practical advantages.

A comprehensive assessment requires information on emissions, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity-building and implementation. Moreover, governments need time to introduce policies and measure their effects.

The process must also include almost every country, including states with limited administrative and reporting capacity. Therefore, an annual full-scale treaty review could create heavy procedural burdens without generating enough new evidence.

Why Five Years May Still Be Too Slow

Despite those practical advantages, the present decade creates a different problem.

Power stations, transport systems, factories, buildings and urban infrastructure approved today may continue operating for decades. Consequently, delayed correction can lock economies into higher emissions.

The second Global Stocktake will conclude in November 2028. By then, only about two years will remain before the 2030 milestones identified in the first stocktake.

Therefore, if the second review identifies major failures, governments may have little time to correct them before 2030.

ABC Research Proposal

The full Global Stocktake should remain on a five-year cycle. However, shorter accountability checks should support it.

Proposed mechanism Frequency Purpose
Full Global Stocktake Every five years Comprehensive treaty-level assessment
Political progress review Every two or three years Identify major implementation failures earlier
Technical implementation dashboard Every year Track sectoral, emissions and finance indicators
National progress reporting Annual or biennial Review laws, budgets, policies and outcomes
Early-warning assessment When serious deviation occurs Identify policies inconsistent with agreed pathways

Accordingly, five years is reasonable for a comprehensive review. Nevertheless, it is not sufficient as the only climate-accountability mechanism.

Furthermore, annual dashboards would not need to repeat the entire diplomatic process. Instead, they could track a smaller group of agreed indicators and identify early signs of policy failure.

How Seriously Have Countries Responded?

Countries appear relatively serious about recognising the stocktake in official documents. However, they remain less serious about strengthening near-term action and changing the emissions trajectory.

The initial 2025 UNFCCC synthesis assessed 64 new NDCs submitted by 64 Parties between 1 January 2024 and 30 September 2025. Together, those Parties represented about 30% of global greenhouse-gas emissions in 2019.

NDC Response Dashboard

Indicator UNFCCC finding Approximate number out of 64
NDCs stating that the stocktake informed their preparation 88% About 56
NDCs explaining how it shaped their content 80% About 51
NDCs not clearly confirming its influence 12% About 8
NDCs not explaining its practical influence 20% About 13

The UNFCCC mainly published these findings as percentages. Consequently, the approximate numbers are mathematical conversions rather than official country-by-country counts.

The figures show that the stocktake influenced most national plans in the assessed group. Nevertheless, they do not prove that those plans align with a 1.5°C pathway, possess legal backing or contain adequate finance.

In other words, mentioning the stocktake demonstrates recognition. However, it does not establish delivery.

Moreover, a government may repeat the language of the stocktake while continuing policies that increase long-term emissions. Therefore, formal reference must be separated from substantive alignment.

Four Levels of Country Seriousness

Level Country behaviour Evidence ABC Research assessment
Recognition Refers to the stocktake Official acknowledgement Procedural seriousness
Commitment Strengthens climate targets Improved 2030 or 2035 target Political seriousness
Implementation Changes laws, budgets and policies Funded domestic measures Substantive seriousness
Results Reduces emissions and vulnerability Verified outcome data Demonstrated seriousness

Most assessed countries appear to have reached the recognition stage. Furthermore, many explained how the stocktake influenced their plans.

Even so, the global temperature outlook shows that collective action has not reached the results stage. Therefore, countries appear more serious about preserving the process than about implementing all of its implications.

The Ambition and Implementation Gaps

The clearest test lies in the difference between the Paris objective, announced pledges and current policies.

The UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2025 provides the following projections.

Global Temperature Pathways

Scenario Estimated warming this century Meaning
Paris Agreement aspiration 1.5°C Most ambitious agreed temperature objective
Full implementation of available NDCs 2.3°C–2.5°C National pledges remain inadequate
Current policies About 2.8°C Existing policies remain weaker than the pledges

These projections reveal two distinct failures.

First, the ambition gap is the distance between what governments have promised and what climate science requires.

Second, the implementation gap is the distance between those promises and the likely effect of current policies.

Therefore, governments have collectively promised too little. At the same time, they are not fully delivering their existing promises.

ABC Live examined this distinction in Explained: Why Emissions Gap Report 2025 Says 1.5°C Is Off.

Moreover, the difference between the NDC pathway and current policies shows that better targets alone will not solve the problem. Domestic implementation must improve at the same time.

The Promise-to-Policy Gap

ABC Research distinguishes four stages of climate action.

Stage Meaning Main evidence
International agreement Governments accept common diplomatic language COP decision
National commitment A country adopts a target Registered NDC
Domestic implementation Laws, budgets and sectoral policies change Funded programmes
Measurable outcome Emissions and vulnerability decline Verified performance data

This distinction matters because a government may support the stocktake internationally while continuing contradictory policies at home.

For example, a country may expand renewable energy while also approving new fossil-fuel infrastructure. Similarly, another government may announce an adaptation programme without allocating enough money for implementation.

Thus, diplomatic alignment must not be confused with real-world performance.

Furthermore, progress should be tested at every stage. Otherwise, governments may move from agreement to announcement without ever reaching implementation.

What Transparency Reports Reveal

The 2025 Synthesis Report of Biennial Transparency Reports provides an early picture of national implementation.

Transparency and Implementation Dashboard

Indicator Reported position Significance
Parties with at least one reporting component 109 Broad but incomplete participation
Parties covered in progress assessment 79 Smaller group with usable implementation evidence
Share of global 2020 emissions represented About 75% Most emissions covered
Parties showing initial progress towards 2030 targets 50 Progress exists but remains uneven
Global emissions represented by those Parties 58.6% Several major emitters show movement
Common data extending mainly to 2022 Significant reporting delay remains

The transparency framework improves climate accountability. Yet delayed data limits its value as an early-warning system.

For instance, a government may change its energy policy in 2025 while an international assessment still relies heavily on data from 2022. Therefore, annual dashboards should complement formal transparency reports.

In addition, those dashboards should distinguish announced measures from funded and completed measures. Otherwise, the reporting system may continue rewarding plans rather than outcomes.

Climate Finance as a Seriousness Test

Developed countries’ seriousness cannot be judged only through domestic emission reductions. Instead, it must also be assessed through the finance and technology they provide to developing countries.

The OECD report on climate finance provided and mobilised during 2013–2024 records the following totals.

Climate Finance Provided and Mobilised

Year Total climate finance Annual increase
2022 US$115.9 billion First year above US$100 billion
2023 US$132.8 billion US$16.9 billion
2024 US$136.7 billion US$3.9 billion

Overall, the total increased by approximately US$20.8 billion between 2022 and 2024. However, the rate of growth slowed sharply in 2024.

Moreover, the long-promised annual US$100 billion level was achieved later than originally intended. Therefore, the figures show improvement, but they do not settle the debate over adequacy or fairness.

Adaptation Share

Climate-finance category Share in 2023 Share in 2024
Adaptation About 25% About 25%
Mitigation and cross-cutting purposes About 75% About 75%

This imbalance matters because developing countries already face serious heat, flood, drought, food, water and coastal risks.

ABC Live examined the wider adaptation challenge in its earlier climate coverage, including the analysis of global emissions and implementation gaps.

However, headline totals alone remain insufficient. Climate finance must also be assessed by its form, cost, accessibility and destination.

For example, grants generally create more fiscal space than commercial loans. Likewise, finance that reaches vulnerable communities may produce greater adaptation value than finance concentrated in projects that were already commercially attractive.

Therefore, a rising aggregate figure does not automatically prove that climate support is fair or effective.

Climate Finance as a Power Question

Climate finance also reflects inequality within the international financial system.

Developing countries often borrow at higher interest rates than developed economies. As a result, the same renewable-energy, storage or adaptation project may cost significantly more in a poorer country.

Meanwhile, high debt repayments reduce the money available for health, education, resilient infrastructure and social protection.

Consequently, the stocktake should not treat finance as a secondary technical input. Rather, it should examine whether the international financial system enables or obstructs climate action.

Furthermore, a loan-dominated climate-finance system may increase vulnerability even while funding climate projects.

Climate Equity and Differentiated Responsibilities

Countries differ significantly in historical emissions, present per-capita emissions, financial capacity, technological capability, development needs and climate vulnerability.

The Paris Agreement therefore recognises common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in light of different national circumstances.

Accordingly, an equitable stocktake should examine both global adequacy and fair burden-sharing.

Developed countries must demonstrate seriousness through deeper domestic reductions and stronger financial and technological support. At the same time, developing countries must integrate climate action with development and reduce avoidable emissions growth.

Therefore, equity should not become an excuse for inaction. Equally, climate ambition should not erase historical responsibility.

What the Global Stocktake Means for India

India faces a complex policy balance.

It is a major current emitter and a rapidly growing economy. However, its historical and per-capita emissions remain below those of several industrialised countries.

India must expand electricity access, manufacturing, infrastructure and employment. Simultaneously, it must reduce the carbon intensity of growth and strengthen resilience.

India’s NDC for 2031–2035, submitted on 24 April 2026, therefore makes the Global Stocktake directly relevant to current policy.

ABC Live has separately examined the new plan in Critical Analysis of India’s New NDC for 2031–2035.

India’s Main Implementation Tests

Area ABC Research question
Renewable energy Will capacity growth be matched by storage, transmission and distribution reform?
Coal Is India preparing a managed transition for workers and coal-dependent districts?
Industry Are green steel, cement, hydrogen and manufacturing strategies commercially viable?
Transport Is public transport receiving enough attention alongside electric vehicles?
Adaptation Are heat, water, agriculture and coastal risks reflected in public budgets?
Climate finance Has India identified project-level international finance requirements?
States Are state climate plans aligned with the national NDC?
Transparency Can citizens track annual progress against the targets?
Just transition Are workers and affected regions being protected in advance?

India’s energy system remains complex. Renewable capacity is expanding, while coal and imported oil continue to play major roles.

Accordingly, installed capacity alone cannot prove a successful transition. Storage, transmission, grid flexibility and electricity-distribution reform must also progress.

ABC Live has explored this wider context in:

Climate Federalism in India

India cannot implement its NDC through the Union Government alone.

State governments exercise important powers over electricity distribution, transport, agriculture, water, land use, urban planning and disaster management.

Therefore, India’s response must also be judged through updated State Action Plans on Climate Change, climate-budget statements, heat-action plans and resilient infrastructure programmes.

Moreover, local bodies will carry much of the adaptation burden. Consequently, climate finance must reach states, cities and vulnerable communities rather than remaining concentrated at the national level.

Without coordinated state implementation, national commitments may remain largely aspirational.

Sector-by-Sector Implementation Test

Sector Key implementation question
Electricity Are renewables, storage and grids expanding together?
Coal Are new additions consistent with transition claims?
Oil and gas Do new investments create long-term fossil-fuel lock-in?
Industry Are steel, cement, chemicals and fertilisers moving towards lower-carbon production?
Transport Is public transport expanding, or is policy centred mainly on private electric vehicles?
Buildings Are energy-efficiency standards mandatory and enforced?
Agriculture Are water use, resilience and methane being addressed?
Forests Does reported restoration reflect ecological recovery or mainly plantations?
Cities Are heat and flood risks built into urban planning?

This test shifts attention from national announcements to real policy choices.

ABC Live’s analysis of the UNEP Buildings and Construction Report shows why sector-level implementation matters. Otherwise, economy-wide targets may hide weak progress in buildings, transport and industry.

Furthermore, each sector should have interim milestones. Without them, governments may postpone difficult decisions until the final years of an NDC period.

Avoided Emissions, Intensity and Absolute Reductions

Governments use different indicators to describe climate progress.

Measure Meaning Main limitation
Avoided emissions Emissions below a projected baseline Depends heavily on the selected baseline
Emissions intensity Emissions per unit of economic output Total emissions may still rise
Per-capita emissions Emissions divided by population Does not show cumulative responsibility
Absolute emissions Total emissions released Does not independently reflect development needs
Historical emissions Cumulative emissions over time Responsibility periods and datasets may be disputed

No single indicator provides a complete picture.

Therefore, ABC Research recommends examining absolute emissions, emissions intensity, per-capita emissions and historical responsibility together.

In addition, governments should explain why they selected particular indicators. Otherwise, they may highlight only the measure that presents their record most favourably.

Who Pays, Who Gains and Who Loses?

Climate transition creates opportunities. However, it also redistributes costs and benefits.

Renewable-energy companies, clean-technology manufacturers and efficient industries may gain. By contrast, fossil-fuel workers, coal-dependent regions, small industries and vulnerable households may face transition costs.

Therefore, climate ambition must be linked with just-transition planning.

Moreover, social protection should begin before major closures or industrial changes occur. If governments wait until jobs disappear, transition support may arrive too late.

Climate Trade and Industrial Policy

Climate action increasingly affects international trade.

Carbon standards, subsidies, border measures and domestic-content rules may support decarbonisation. However, they may also protect domestic industries or disadvantage developing-country exports.

For India, this issue affects steel, aluminium, cement, fertilisers, chemicals and other carbon-intensive products.

Therefore, the stocktake must also be read through the lens of industrial policy and trade fairness.

In addition, developed economies should avoid demanding rapid industrial decarbonisation abroad while shielding their own producers through subsidies.

Can Courts Use the Global Stocktake?

The Global Stocktake does not directly impose country-specific legal duties. Nevertheless, its findings may acquire indirect importance in climate litigation.

For instance, courts may use the stocktake as evidence of scientific urgency, recognised transition pathways or inadequate government action.

Moreover, courts may examine whether governments considered relevant international evidence before adopting policies or approving high-emission projects.

Thus, the stocktake may influence constitutional, environmental, administrative and human-rights cases even without direct enforceability.

ABC Research Additionality: How This Report Differs from the UNFCCC Explainer

The official UNFCCC explainer, Why the Global Stocktake Is Important for Climate Action This Decade, explains the institutional purpose of the process.

That explanation is essential. However, ABC Research goes further.

First, it asks whether governments can acknowledge a collective failure while avoiding additional national responsibility.

Second, it distinguishes diplomatic language from enforceable domestic law.

Third, it tests NDC credibility through interim targets, legal backing, budgets and sectoral implementation.

Furthermore, it treats climate finance as a question of debt, economic power and access rather than only as a technical implementation input.

Finally, it applies the stocktake to India’s energy security, federal structure, adaptation needs and development choices.

Therefore, ABC Research shifts the discussion from institutional purpose to practical accountability.

The UNFCCC explains what the Global Stocktake is designed to achieve. By contrast, ABC Research tests whether the present climate-governance structure can achieve it.

ABC Global Stocktake Effectiveness Scorecard

ABC Research proposes the following 100-point framework for assessing individual country responses.

Test Maximum score Evidence required
Stocktake reflected in NDC 10 Clear explanation of how the stocktake changed the plan
Stronger near-term target 15 Improved action before 2030, not only a distant 2035 promise
Economy-wide target 10 Coverage of major sectors and greenhouse gases
Domestic legal backing 15 Legislation or enforceable regulation
Budgetary support 15 Identified public funding and investment
Sectoral implementation 15 Detailed measures for major economic sectors
Adaptation commitments 10 Measurable resilience outcomes and finance
Transparent reporting 5 Regular public progress data
Finance and equity 5 Fair contribution or clearly identified support needs
Total 100 Overall seriousness

Proposed Ratings

Score Rating Meaning
80–100 Transformative Targets, law, finance and implementation are aligned
60–79 Substantive but incomplete Serious action exists, although important gaps remain
40–59 Procedural Plans exist, but implementation remains weak
20–39 Symbolic Diplomatic support exists without credible domestic change
0–19 Disengaged or obstructive Stocktake findings are largely ignored or weakened

At least half of the score should depend on implementation and measurable performance rather than announcements.

Moreover, country ratings should be updated annually. In this way, the scorecard would show whether performance is improving or declining between formal stocktakes.

Promise-to-Performance Dashboard

Evidence of seriousness Present global position ABC Research assessment
Countries acknowledge the stocktake Strong Most assessed NDCs refer to its influence
Countries explain how it shaped their plans Relatively strong About 51 of 64 provided an explanation
Countries strengthen near-term action Inadequate Action before 2030 remains insufficient
Countries implement announced targets Weak Current policies imply more warming than full NDC implementation
Climate finance increases Improving Total finance rose in 2023 and 2024
Adaptation finance becomes adequate Weak Adaptation remains about one-quarter of the total
Outcomes align with 1.5°C No NDCs still imply approximately 2.3°C–2.5°C warming
Reporting becomes timely Incomplete Transparency improves, but data remains delayed

What Would Failure Look Like?

The stocktake would fail if countries continued referring to it without strengthening action.

Likewise, failure would become evident if fossil-fuel infrastructure kept expanding while adaptation losses grew faster than investment.

Moreover, a loan-heavy and inaccessible finance system would deepen inequality. Similarly, excessive reliance on future carbon-removal technologies could become an excuse for delaying present action.

In that situation, the stocktake would remain diplomatically important. However, it would fail as a mechanism for changing real-world outcomes.

What Would Success Look Like?

By contrast, success would require global emissions to peak and decline.

Furthermore, renewable-energy growth would need to be matched by grids, storage and distribution reforms. Adaptation finance would also need to rise substantially.

At the same time, climate finance would have to become more accessible and less debt-creating. Workers and affected regions would also require credible transition support.

Therefore, success should be measured through outcomes rather than speeches, references or document submissions.

The Second Global Stocktake: What Must Change

The second Global Stocktake will begin in November 2026 and conclude in November 2028.

This time, the process should examine whether countries implemented the first stocktake’s energy directions. It should also test whether new NDCs strengthened near-term action rather than merely extending targets to 2035.

Moreover, the review should identify whether domestic laws and budgets changed. Similarly, it should examine whether fossil-fuel investment declined and adaptation finance increased.

The second stocktake should not merely repeat that the world is off track. Instead, it should explain why the first warning did not produce enough change.

Furthermore, it should identify whether the main barriers were financial, legal, institutional, technological or political.

Implementation Clock to 2030

Date Main test
December 2023 First Global Stocktake concluded
2024–2026 Countries prepared and submitted new NDCs
24 April 2026 India submitted its 2031–2035 NDC
November 2026 Second Global Stocktake begins
2027 Early implementation evidence should become visible
November 2028 Second Global Stocktake concludes
2029 Final major policy-correction window before 2030
2030 Renewable-energy, efficiency and emissions milestones tested
2035 New NDC outcomes assessed

ABC Research Assessment

The Global Stocktake has succeeded in creating a common global diagnosis.

Moreover, it has influenced the preparation of national climate plans. In the initial UNFCCC assessment of 64 NDCs, approximately 56 stated that the stocktake informed them. About 51 also explained how it shaped their content.

However, documentary influence has not produced sufficient climate ambition.

Full implementation of available NDCs still implies approximately 2.3°C–2.5°C warming. Meanwhile, current policies point towards about 2.8°C.

Therefore, the first stocktake has influenced planning more strongly than performance.

Its central weakness is an accountability paradox. Although it identifies collective failure, it does not allocate the additional national action required to correct it.

Every government can agree that the world is off track. Yet each government can still argue that another country should act first, reduce more or provide finance.

Furthermore, the five-year cycle may reveal serious failures too late for rapid correction. Therefore, annual implementation data and a mid-cycle political review remain necessary.

Climate finance has increased, which represents progress. Nevertheless, the quality, accessibility, debt implications and adaptation share of that finance also matter.

For India, the stocktake creates both pressure and opportunity. On the one hand, India must expand clean energy, modernise electricity systems, transform industry and strengthen adaptation. On the other hand, it can legitimately demand equity, affordable finance, technology access and recognition of its development needs.

Overall, countries appear serious about maintaining the Global Stocktake as an institution. However, they remain insufficiently serious about implementing all of its conclusions.

Research Conclusion

The Global Stocktake matters because it connects climate science, international diplomacy and national planning.

The first stocktake took place in 2023 because the Paris Agreement expressly required it. In addition, the timing allowed its findings to shape the next NDC cycle and climate action before 2030.

The COP28 outcome established a broad direction for renewable energy, efficiency, fossil-fuel transition, adaptation and climate finance.

Yet the stocktake cannot reduce emissions by itself.

Therefore, the decisive test is not how many NDCs mention it. Instead, the real test is how many countries strengthen near-term targets, provide legal backing, allocate budgets and reduce actual emissions.

Likewise, developed countries must be judged by whether they provide accessible and fair climate finance. Developing countries, meanwhile, must be judged by whether they convert development needs into credible low-carbon and climate-resilient pathways.

The UNFCCC explains what the Global Stocktake is intended to achieve.

ABC Research, however, examines whether the present system of international climate governance is capable of achieving it.

Related ABC Live Research

Sources and Methodology

ABC Live reviewed primary legal and institutional sources, climate reports, transparency data, emissions assessments and climate-finance evidence.

Primary Legal and Institutional Sources

NDC and Transparency Sources

Emissions and Finance Sources

ABC Live distinguishes between international agreement, national commitment, domestic implementation and measurable outcome.

Furthermore, this report evaluates the Global Stocktake through climate equity, differentiated responsibilities, finance quality, cost of capital, legal effect and development needs.

The Peepal supports ABC Live with research-led environmental and sustainability analysis; ABC Live retains editorial responsibility.

ABC Live — Making Complex Public Issues Simple.