Institutional challenges to the implementation of nationally determined contributions in Latin America and Caribbean countries: Institutional architecture requirements, issues arising from the examination of NDC updates and lessons learned from capacity development interventions

The fact that NDCs rely on voluntary commitments from signatory nations—many of whom lack the financial, technological, or institutional means to effectively combat climate change—has drawn criticism. Setting top-down targets, however, results in a distributional problem among nations that has proven unsolvable. Furthermore, targets are by no means a good solution in the absence of efficient review and compliance procedures. Since pledges—both in terms of the degree of commitment and the methods used—are subject to review and are not legally binding, NDCs offer a more practical strategy for international collaboration on mitigating climate change.1 The "naming and shaming" process—a form of peer and reputational pressure—is the foundation of the NDC method. Climate change politics have gradually changed because of the rise of bottom-up society initiatives and transnational networks of non-govern-mental actors, placing increased pressure on national governments and international organizations.