Methodology: Analysing Science in NDCs 3.0
The research methodology developed for the ELEVATE-ProClima project employs a rigorous, interdisciplinary approach to assess the integration of scientific evidence into international climate diplomacy. Specifically, our framework systematically evaluates the presence, function, and legal operationalization of the “best available science” within the third generation of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
Methodological Pillars
Document Analysis
We conducted a comprehensive, systematic review of the submitted NDCs 3.0 to map out how individual Parties translate scientific consensus into national policy and actionable climate targets.
Keyword & Semantic Tracking
The study utilizes specific data tracking to investigate how Parties refer to science. This includes isolating targeted references to the IPCC, the concept of “best available science” and broader scientific terminology.
In-Situ Observation
Beyond document analysis, our methodology incorporates real-time observation. By attending and monitoring COP30 negotiations, we observed how COP processes function as dynamic science-policy interfaces.
Three Guiding Questions
To systematically evaluate how Parties interpret their obligation to submit a science-informed NDCs that reflect the outcome of the global stocktake (Decision 1/CMA.5), we examined 119 NDCs 3.0 (submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat by the end of April 2026) using the following three core questions:
- How has the Party articulated references to the IPCC?
- Has the Party referenced science? (Including broader notions like “best available scientific knowledge” or “latest information”)
- Has the Party referenced the concept of “best available science”? (As required by the Paris Agreement and strengthened by the GST decision)
Categorising IPCC Engagement
Substantial Engagement
Referencing the IPCC to formulate an ambitious mitigation target that responds to the GST outcomes. This includes using the best available science to align national, economy-wide emission reduction targets with a global 1.5°C trajectory.
Partial Engagement
Referencing IPCC guidelines for greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting, global warming potentials, and inventories, but failing to mention the IPCC in the context of setting an ambitious target or carbon budget.
Minimal Engagement
Referencing the IPCC without explaining how the scientific evidence actually influenced the submission (for example, isolating references only to footnotes).
No Mention
NDCs 3.0 where the IPCC is not referenced at all.
Methodological Limitations
Our focus rests strictly on the articulation of state practice. We assessed linguistic references to understand how Parties interpret their legal obligations; we did not attempt to validate the underlying scientific information provided or assess the actual, real-world progress of policy implementation. Furthermore, as our team analysed data spanning multiple languages, we acknowledge the inherent risk of translational errors due to linguistic nuances.