When the agreement garnered enough signatures to cross the threshold on October 5, 2016, US President Barack Obama said: “Even if we achieve every goal. We will only reach part of where we need to go. He also said that “this agreement will help delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change. It will help other nations reduce their emissions over time and set bolder targets as technology advances, all under a strong transparency system that will allow each nation to assess the progress of all other nations. “  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 its subsidy-based adjustment funding by 2020.  While the expanded transparency framework is universal, the framework, together with the global inventory to be held every five years, must provide “integrated flexibility” to distinguish between the capacities of developed and developing countries. In this context, the Paris Agreement includes provisions to improve the capacity building framework.  The agreement recognises the different circumstances of some countries and notes in particular that the technical expert review for each country takes into account that country`s specific reporting capacity.  The agreement also develops an initiative to enhance transparency to help developing countries put in place the institutions and processes necessary to comply with the transparency framework.  The amount of NDCs set by each country will determine that country`s objectives.
However, the “contributions” themselves are not binding under international law, for lack of specificity, normative character or mandatory language necessary for the creation of binding norms.  In addition, there will be no mechanism to compel a country to set a target in its NPP by a set date, and no implementation if a target set out in a NSP is not met.   There will be only one “Name and Shame” system or like János Pásztor, the UN. . . .