In the past year alone, four major environmental negotiations have collapsed.
Global talks on a treaty to cut plastic pollution fell apart. Governments did not agree on the timeline and scope for the seventh assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Talks on the International Maritime Organization’s net-zero framework failed to reach consensus. And the summary for policymakers for the UN Environment Program’s flagship report on the state of the environment was not approved.
These failures signal a deeper breakdown in how the world tackles environmental crises such as climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution and waste and land degradation.
There are cracks in the system. International negotiations are built on principles of representation and consensus, meant to ensure fairness and inclusivity. In theory, every country has a voice, and decisions reflect collective agreement. In practice, however, these principles often paralyse or delay progress.
Consensus can allow a few countries to block collective action, even when most members are in favour, while calls for representation are sometimes used to delay decisions in the name of democracy — ironically, sometimes by states where democratic principles are in question.
Take the global plastics treaty negotiations. Talks have hit a deadlock between countries seeking limits on plastic production and oil-producing countries pushing to focus only on waste and recycling. Similarly, the IPCC process is grappling with unprecedented disputes over timelines and plans for removing carbon from oceans and rivers.
Then there’s the politicization of science. Every paragraph of a policy summary — distilling key scientific findings for governments — is negotiated line by line. This process often dilutes or deletes science to fit national agendas, with the recent UN climate summit (Cop30) declaration removing any mention of fossil fuels.
The result: Assessments that take years to produce and summaries mired in political wrangling, eroding trust in science, and delaying the urgent action they are meant to drive.
Who really decides? Formally, it is the member states – that’s nations and entities like the EU. On paper, every country has an equal voice. In reality, power dynamics tell a different story.
Some nations dominate the floor with large, well-prepared teams, armed with technical experts and seasoned negotiators. They arrive with detailed positions, ready to shape the agenda.
Others, often from smaller or less-well-resourced states, struggle to be heard. Their delegations are thin, sometimes just one or two people juggling multiple sessions.
Gender gaps persist, too. Despite decades of commitments to equality, men still speak far more often than women in many negotiations — up to four times more in some sessions of the recently collapsed Global Environment Outlook, the UN’s flagship report on the state of the global environment that connects climate change, nature loss and pollution to unsustainable consumption.
Negotiations to agree on possible ways to tackle the issues fell apart when some governments failed to agree with scientific conclusions outlined in the report. This is not just about optics, and it affects whose perspectives shape global environmental policy. When voices are missing, so are ideas and priorities.
Scientists, meanwhile, sit at the back of the room. Their role is largely reactive — allowed to clarify technical points only when specifically asked by member states.
Their expertise, which should anchor decisions in evidence, is often sidelined by political bargaining. The result? Policies that sometimes drift away from what science says is necessary to protect ecosystems and communities.
The new fault lines
Rising nationalism and geopolitical tensions make cooperation harder. Environmental action is increasingly framed as a sovereignty issue, with domestic interests trumping global solutions.
Climate pledges are weighed against economic competitiveness, biodiversity targets through trade-offs and resource control. Trust erodes, negotiations drag on, and the planet pays the price.
This reality shows in the slow progress of major agreements. Multilateralism, once the only path forward, now splinters into shifting blocs. Some countries stall decisions to protect short-term gains; others walk away entirely, creating a void — and an opportunity for others to step in.
Improving this means rethinking the system from the ground up. That involves challenging the consensus stranglehold. The requirement for consensus often paralyzes negotiations.
Allowing coalitions of ambitious countries to move ahead when consensus fails could break deadlocks and create momentum. So-called “coalitions of the willing” (such as the fossil fuel phase-out coalition announced at Cop30) can set higher standards and inspire others to follow.
Giving science a stronger voice, while allowing political input, ensures that decisions remain grounded in facts without ignoring legitimate national concerns. Current models treat scientific input as secondary to political negotiation. Hybrid approval systems can protect evidence without ignoring legitimate national concerns.
Modernizing the process can speed up negotiations. Moving away from paper-heavy, language-dependent systems towards digital tools and AI-assisted drafting could accelerate text negotiations, reduce translation or language delays, and make participation easier for smaller delegations.
Beyond funding and technical aid, small delegations can be empowered through real-time intelligence, dedicated staff, mentorship, and early access to information. Gender and regional balance can be ensured through measures like speaking-time quotas and consistent, process-long leadership roles.
The collapse of these talks is a warning. Our governance systems were built for another era, yet environmental crises today are more complex and more interconnected than ever. The machinery meant to solve them is buckling under outdated rules and rising pressure.
Without bold reform, multilateral environmentalism risks irrelevance. Failure to reach global agreements will invite fragmented, unilateral fixes — patchwork solutions far too weak to prevent ecological breakdown. The question is not whether reform is needed, but whether we act before it’s too late.
The stakes are high. Every delay means more emissions, more extinctions and more communities exposed to environmental impacts. The world cannot afford negotiations that stall while ecosystems collapse. We need systems that are agile, inclusive, evidence-based and fit for the 21st century.
Catalina Turcu is Professor of Sustainable Built Environment, UCL. This article first appeared in The Conversation and is being republished under special arrangement.
