THE first few days of April were supposed to be a period of reflection, when you could to look at countries' environmental promises and assess what progress—if any—had been made towards signing a global climate treaty in Paris in December. That agreement is to be based on INDCs, or “intended nationally determined contributions”—ie, aims and policies that countries promise to abide by after 2020. Countries were asked to announce these contributions by March 31st, making it easier to draft and debate a treaty by the end of the year. Needless to say, most haven’t.

Only 34 of the 196 countries that are taking part in the Paris talks actually unveiled their plans by the deadline. They account for just under a third of all greenhouse-gas emissions but include two of the biggest and most important polluters: the United States, which promised to cut emissions 26-28% by 2025 compared with 2005 (it is already half way to that target) and the European Union, which promised a 40% reduction by 2030 compared with 1990 (the fact that countries are using different periods and different measures is one reason negotiators want plenty of time to work on the treaty). Norway’s offer was similar to the EU’s. Russia—so often a spoiler in global talks these days—this time chose to take part and offered to cut emissions 25-30% from 1990 levels by 2030.

But most middle-income and developing countries decided not to show their hands. There were two exceptions: Gabon, offering a 50% cut by 2025 compared with business as usual, and Mexico, with a 25% cut compared with business as usual by 2030 (this would mean, it said, its emissions would peak in 2026). Mexico’s offer, though, contained an intriguing incentive: the 25% cut would be unconditional. But if a treaty were signed, then Mexico would cut by 40% instead. China and India, though, decided to wait until nearer the Paris meeting. Since they are the world’s largest and third largest national polluters, it makes it almost impossible to calculate whether the contributions on offer so far add up to anything substantial.

The deadline of March 31st was informal. Countries were merely invited to meet it. But a global treaty failed in Copenhagen in 2009 partly because too much happened at the last minute and negotiators felt blindsided. The process adopted for the Paris meeting—in which countries were supposed to make their offers in good time—was intended to avoid that. Negotiators are still hopeful that the biggest emerging markets will make their contributions early enough, perhaps by June. That might happen. But the process still flunked its first test.