However, experts said that the grounds for implementation of such agreements were murky, in the absence of any punitive measures ensuring that countries don’t fall short of their commitments.

“If we were to look around the language on fossil fuels, there really isn’t much in terms of implementation for this. It will be up to countries to do this on their own,” said Jennifer Allan, strategic adviser, with Earth Negotiations Bulletin, International Institute of Sustainable Development.

The Global Stocktake text adopted at the summit “calls on parties” for “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science”.

Other parts of the agreements, however, Allan said were stronger in assigning roles for various climate bodies at the United Nations to take “forward and implement” what the text suggested.

“Anything that they could have given to take forward by any other one of the UN climate bodies, they did. They assigned that kind of homework to various bodies. A lot of this will be taken forward and implemented,” she said.

The Global Stocktake text also expressed concern “that the carbon budget consistent with achieving the Paris Agreement temperature goal is now small and being rapidly depleted”.

“The timeline of carbon budget use (1850-2019) has been removed possibly to address concerns over who is /is not a historical emitter. But, pre-2020 failure language remains for developed countries,” CSE Climate Change said on X, formerly Twitter.

So far, the Kyoto Protocol that emerged out of COP3 in 1997, and the Paris Agreement of 2015, remain the only legally binding climate agreements.

The Kyoto Protocol bound developed countries to the agreement, placing the burden of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities on them, and set emission reduction targets for them. Overall, these targets added up to an average 5% emission reduction compared to 1990 levels over the five year period 2008–2012 (the first commitment period).

The Paris Agreement, meanwhile, made it mandatory for each country to report on its climate action every five years, setting up nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Under the agreement, signatories were bound to report on the progress of these targets every two years.

And yet, the US, under former president Donald Trump, withdrew from the Paris Accord, and Canada from the Kyoto Protocol.

“This is because very few enforcement mechanisms exist. The Paris Agreement is all about nationally determined contributions [NDCs] where countries decide what they want to do. That means that we are going to have very little in terms of terms of enforcement,” Allan said.

The implementation of these agreements can only be ensured by “peer pressure”.

“The enforcement mechanisms in international climate treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement are primarily based on a system of regular reporting, peer review, and transparency rather than punitive measures. The intent is to create a framework of mutual accountability, where peer pressure and the desire to maintain international standing encourage compliance. This approach, while fostering collaboration, has limitations in compelling nations to adhere strictly to their commitments,” said Maria Ivanova, director of the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Northeastern University, Boston.

Experts, who were also concerned about the absence of any enforcement mechanisms, suggested collaborations outside the ambit of the UN.

“An alternative approach would be for a smaller grouping of countries to agree to certain targets amongst themselves, outside the UNFCCC, along with consequences for a failure to meet those – creating an ‘ambition club’. Such a club could in theory then charge border carbon taxes on imports from countries that do not meet their ambition standards,” said David Tong, Global Industry lead at Oil Change International.

The Dubai consensus, while historic, has several loopholes that could delay action, said Madhura Joshi, senior associate at E3G.

“The text recognises the need to triple renewables, double energy efficiency, and transition away from fossil fuels — the first time ever at COP. However, there are several contradictions. It leaves the door open for “low-carbon/emission” technologies and transition fuels that have the potential to delay action and lock in resources,” she said.

Jaber’s call for action on the commitments was echoed by experts.

“All the declarations, all the decisions, all the platitudes, all the announcements in the world, if it doesn’t translate into real-world action that reduces emissions, is not worth the paper it’s written on,” said Alden Meyer, senior associate at E3G.