After these measures still did not bring enough progress, Fabius turned to the “indabas” â€“ according to Zulu tradition, it was groups of elders who met to discuss disputes in the communities. They were first tried during the 2011 climate negotiations in Durban, South Africa, and, according to the French plan, consisted of groups of up to 80 delegates who met at the same time to eradicate the remaining disagreements. The Paris Agreement is the first universal and legally binding global climate agreement adopted at the Paris Climate Change Conference (COP21) in December 2015. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which sets legally binding emission reduction targets (as well as sanctions for non-compliance) only for developed countries, the Paris Agreement requires all countries â€“ rich, poor, developed and developing â€“ to do their part and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To this end, greater flexibility is built into the Paris Agreement: it does not include language on the commitments that countries should make, countries can voluntarily set their emission targets (NDCs), and no penalties are imposed on countries if they fail to meet the proposed targets. What the Paris Agreement requires, however, is monitoring, reporting, and reassessing countries` individual and collective goals over time in order to bring the world closer to the broader goals of the agreement. And the agreement requires countries to announce their next set of targets every five years â€“ unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which aimed at that target but did not contain a specific requirement to achieve it. The level of NDCs set by each country sets the objectives of that country. However, the “contributions” themselves are not binding under international law because they do not have the specificity, normative character or mandatory language necessary for the creation of binding norms.  In addition, there will be no mechanism  to force a country to set a target in its NDC by a certain date and no application if a target set in an NDC is not met.   There will only be a “Name and Shame” system or, as JÃ¡nos PÃ¡sztor, UN Under-Secretary-General for Climate Change, told cbs News (USA), 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 net of nations withdrawing from the deal could trigger the withdrawal of more governments and lead to a total collapse of the deal.
 Although mitigation and adaptation require increased climate finance, adjustment has generally received less support and mobilized less private sector action.  A 2014 OECD report indicated that in 2014, only 16% of global funds were devoted to climate change adaptation.  The Paris Agreement called for a balance between climate finance between adaptation and mitigation, and in particular highlighted the need to increase support for adaptation to parties most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, including least developed countries and small island developing states. The agreement also reminds the parties of the importance of public subsidies, as adaptation measures receive less investment from the public sector.  John Kerry, as Secretary of State, announced that the United States would double grant-based adjustment funding by 2020.  With regard to environmental efficiency, the Pa relies exclusively on national and non-governmental measures to achieve its objectives. Even under an institutionally effective agreement, the commitments presented and implemented may not be ambitious enough to achieve the objectives of the PA and civil society, and non-governmental measures may not be able to fill this gap.6 Indeed, current ambitions fall far short of what is needed to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement, the literature highlights in detail the lack of ambition. not only in existing NDCs, but also citing a general lack of funding and the withdrawal of the United States as the main obstacles to efficiency.. . .