Paris Agreement Climate Action: How UNFCCC Negotiating Groups Are Performing on Climate Targets

ISSUE BRIEF

Holding up the Mirror

Tracking Climate Action across UNFCCC Negotiating Groups in the Era of Geopolitical Uncertainty

08 June, 2026 | International Cooperation

Simran Sukhija and Sumit Prasad

Suggested citation: Sukhija, Simran, Sumit Prasad. 2026. Holding up the Mirror: Tracking Climate Action across UNFCCC Negotiating Groups in the Era of Geopolitical Uncertainty. New Delhi: Council on Energy, Environment and Water.

Download Study

Press Release

Overview

A decade after the Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015 and hailed as the world’s most ambitious climate commitment to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the gap between stated ambition and actual action remains stark. This is likely to worsen further due to evolving geopolitical dynamics that have introduced new uncertainties in the global climate regime.

In this issue brief, we analyse the collective progress in climate action achieved by the following negotiating groups within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): the Umbrella, the EU, the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG), and the BASIC. These groups critically shape the direction and effectiveness of global climate governance. The study assesses emissions trends before and after the Paris Agreement, progress towards 2030 and 2035 NDC targets, and the pace of reductions needed to reach net zero by 2050.

Key Highlights

Emissions levels within groups vary significantly, with a few countries dominating each group. During 2009-22, the BASIC accounted for more than half of the total emissions (52 per cent) across all the groups studied, followed by the Umbrella (32 per cent), the EU (11 per cent), and the EIG (5 per cent). Within these groups, China alone accounted for 74 per cent of BASIC’s emissions, while the US accounted for 63 per cent of the Umbrella Group's emissions.
Annual emissions growth has slowed for all groups in the post-Paris era, but at very different rates. The EIG’s emissions moved from a positive growth rate of 1.4 per cent pre-Paris (2009-15) to a decline of –0.5 per cent post-Paris (2016-22). Also, BASIC slowed its annual emissions growth rate from 3.3 per cent to 2.1 per cent.
The BASIC group collectively emitted 8.5 GtCO₂e less by not following the pre-Paris (2009-15) trends in the post-Paris era (2016-22), equivalent to over 10 per cent of global 2022 emissions. On the other hand, the Umbrella, the EU, and the EIG reduced emissions by only 3.7 GtCO₂e by not following the pre-Paris trends in the post-Paris era.
Wealthy negotiating groups are faring differently in terms of their 2030 and 2035 climate commitments. The Umbrella, the EU, and the EIG are projected to collectively emit 9 per cent more than their 2030 NDC targets; this is projected to increase to 19 per cent in 2035 compared to the 2035 target levels.
Only Kazakhstan, Georgia, and Ukraine are projected to meet both 2030 and 2035 targets. Norway may meet its 2030 target; New Zealand, its 2035 target.
To meet their 2030 commitments, the Umbrella, the EU, and the EIG groups need to significantly increase their annual emissions reduction after 2022. The UK needs to more than double its annual reduction rate; the EU would need to increase its pace nearly fourfold; and the US and Canada would need to increase theirs by 5-6 per cent per year.
BASIC group, including South Africa, India and China, are more closely aligned with their 2030 commitments, despite lower historical responsibility and greater developmental constraints.

HAVE A QUERY?

Simran Sukhija

Research Analyst

[email protected]

"As the Paris Agreement enters its second decade, the measure of success will not only be the targets set, but the actions taken to achieve them. Countries that are not aligned with their commitments must accelerate domestic action before 2030, while ensuring that the costs of both delayed ambition and action do not fall on those least responsible for the climate crisis. Ultimately, the credibility of global climate action will rest on: fairness in burden-sharing and accountability in implementation."

Executive summary

More than a decade after the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, a critical question remains: Has the implementation of climate commitments globally meaningfully narrowed the gap between stated ambition and projected outcomes? This question becomes even more critical considering recent geopolitical developments: the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, its reversal of domestic climate regulations (The White House 2025), and the war in West Asia. These events have slowed global momentum, pushing climate priorities to the margins of international politics.

In this issue brief, we analyse the collective progress in climate action achieved by the following negotiating groups within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): the Umbrella, the EU, the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG), and the BASIC. These groups critically shape the direction and effectiveness of global climate governance. However, at present, there is limited understanding of their collective progress, beyond their visibility in coordinating common negotiation positions and setting the climate agenda.

Key findings

Emissions levels within groups vary significantly, with a few countries dominating each group. During 2009-22, the BASIC accounted for more than half of the total emissions (52 per cent) across all the groups studied, followed by the Umbrella (32 per cent), the EU (11 per cent), and the EIG (5 per cent). Within the BASIC, China alone accounts for 74 per cent of its group’s emissions; within the Umbrella, the US accounted for 63 per cent of its group’s emissions, underscoring how single-country decisions have far-reaching consequences.
Annual emissions growth has slowed for all groups in the post-Paris era, but at very different rates. The Umbrella and the EU annual emission rates declined from -0.2 per cent to -1.1 per cent and from -1.2 per cent to -2 per cent, respectively, from the pre-Paris (2009–15) to the post-Paris era (2016–22). Meanwhile, the EIG’s emissions moved from a positive growth rate of 1.4 per cent pre-Paris to a decline of –0.5 per cent post-Paris. In addition, the BASIC also slowed its annual emissions growth rate from 3.3 per cent to 2.1 per cent.
The BASIC group collectively emitted 8.5 GtCO₂e less by not following the pre-Paris (2009-15) trends in the post-Paris era (2016-22), equivalent to over 10 per cent of global 2022 emissions. On the other hand, the Umbrella, the EU, and the EIG reduced emissions by only 3.7 GtCO₂e by not following the pre-Paris trends in the post-Paris era.

Figure ES1. Annual emission rates decline in the post-Paris era

Wealthy negotiating groups are faring differently in terms of their 2030 and 2035 climate commitments. The Umbrella, the EU, and the EIG are projected to collectively emit 9 per cent more than their 2030 NDC targets; this is projected to increase to 19 per cent in 2035 compared to the 2035 target levels. Only Kazakhstan, Georgia, and Ukraine are projected to meet both targets. Norway may meet its 2030 target; New Zealand, its 2035 target.
To meet their 2030 commitments, the Umbrella, the EU, and the EIG groups need to significantly increase their annual emissions reduction after 2022. The UK needs to more than double its annual reduction rate; the EU would need to increase its pace nearly fourfold; and the US and Canada would need to increase theirs by 5-6 per cent per year. Further, to reach net zero by 2050, these groups must drastically accelerate post-2030 reductions.
The BASIC countries face greater developmental constraints and lower historical responsibility, but are more closely aligned with their targets. India has already met its non-fossil-fuel capacity target ahead of schedule. China has met its wind and solar capacity and forest stock volume targets ahead of 2030. South Africa’s 2022 emissions are already within its 2030 target range. Brazil, however, lags at 20.4 per cent below 2005 levels in 2022, compared to its 2030 target of 53.1 per cent lower emissions.

As we navigate an increasingly dynamic geopolitical landscape, negotiating blocs – such as the Umbrella, the EU, and the EIG – should accelerate short-term actions aligned with their 2035 NDC targets to prevent further overshooting and ensure that climate ambition is backed by sustained implementation efforts. In addition, they need to significantly ramp up year-on-year reduction to ensure there is enough carbon budget left for other countries.

FAQs

What does the study examine?

This study assesses the climate performance of negotiating groups under the UNFCCC by examining the emissions trends before and after the Paris Agreement, progress towards 2030 and 2035 NDC targets, and the pace of reductions needed to reach net zero by 2050.
Which negotiating groups does the study assess?

The study assesses the climate performance of four key UNFCCC negotiating groups: the Umbrella Group, comprising Australia, Canada, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, New Zealand, Norway, Ukraine, the United States, and the United Kingdom; the European Union (EU27); the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG), consisting of Georgia, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Monaco, South Korea, and Switzerland; and the BASIC Group, comprising Brazil, China, India, and South Africa.
What are the nationally determined contributions?

A Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) is a country's self-defined climate action plan under the Paris Agreement, outlining its targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change. These are updated every five years.
What are the primary data sources used for the analysis?

The study uses countries’ official submissions made to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These include Biennial Transparency Reports, Common Tabular Format (CTF) datasets, and Common Reporting Tables. For the projections dataset, information is drawn from the Common Tabular Format (CTF). Specifically, projections with additional measures from Table 8 have been used; where unavailable, projections with existing measures from Table 7 have been considered.