Global efforts to address climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation are facing a serious crisis, as several major international negotiations collapsed over the past year. From stalled talks on a global plastic pollution treaty to disagreements over key climate science assessments, these failures point to deeper structural problems in how environmental diplomacy is conducted.
According to experts, the breakdown of these negotiations is not accidental. It reflects long-standing weaknesses in global governance systems that were designed for a different era, but are now struggling to keep pace with rapidly escalating environmental emergencies.
A year marked by repeated negotiation failures
In just one year, four major environmental negotiations failed to deliver meaningful outcomes. Talks aimed at creating a global treaty to reduce plastic pollution collapsed after governments failed to agree on limits to plastic production. Negotiations around the timeline and scope of the seventh assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also fell apart. Efforts to secure consensus on the International Maritime Organization’s net-zero framework did not succeed, and the summary for policymakers of the United Nations Environment Programme’s flagship environmental report was left unapproved.
Together, these breakdowns signal more than isolated disagreements. They highlight a growing inability of the international system to respond decisively to interconnected crises that threaten ecosystems, economies and human well-being worldwide.
When consensus becomes a roadblock
International environmental negotiations are built on two core principles: representation and consensus. In theory, these principles ensure fairness and inclusivity, allowing every country a voice. In practice, they often slow progress to a standstill.
The requirement for consensus means that a small number of countries can block collective action, even when the majority supports stronger measures. In some cases, calls for representation are used to delay decisions indefinitely, weakening the urgency needed to respond to environmental threats.
This dynamic was clearly visible during global plastic treaty negotiations, where countries pushing for limits on plastic production clashed with oil-producing nations that wanted the focus restricted to waste management and recycling. Similar deadlocks have emerged in climate science discussions, including disputes over carbon removal strategies and reporting timelines.
Science caught in political bargaining
One of the most troubling trends in global environmental talks is the increasing politicisation of science. Scientific findings meant to guide policy decisions are often negotiated line by line, particularly in summaries written for policymakers.
This process can lead to the dilution or removal of key scientific conclusions to suit national interests. For example, recent climate summit declarations removed references to fossil fuels, despite overwhelming scientific evidence linking them to climate change. Such compromises delay action, weaken public trust in science and undermine the very purpose of scientific assessments.
Scientists themselves often play a limited role in negotiations, sitting on the sidelines and responding only when asked for clarification. As a result, political considerations frequently outweigh evidence-based recommendations.
Power imbalances shape outcomes
Although all countries formally have equal standing in negotiations, real power lies with those that have larger, better-resourced delegations. Wealthier nations often arrive with teams of experts and seasoned negotiators, while smaller or less-resourced countries struggle to participate fully.
This imbalance affects whose priorities are heard and whose concerns are sidelined. Gender inequality remains another issue, with men speaking significantly more than women in many negotiation forums. These gaps reduce diversity of thought and limit innovative approaches to solving complex environmental challenges.
Rising nationalism weakens cooperation
Geopolitical tensions and rising nationalism are making global cooperation increasingly difficult. Environmental action is often framed as a threat to national sovereignty or economic competitiveness. Climate commitments are weighed against short-term economic interests, while biodiversity and pollution controls are entangled with trade and resource politics.
As trust erodes, negotiations slow down or collapse entirely. In some cases, countries walk away from talks, leaving gaps in global governance and creating uneven progress across regions.
Rethinking how environmental decisions are made
Experts argue that reforming global environmental governance is no longer optional. One proposed solution is allowing groups of ambitious countries to move forward when consensus fails. These coalitions can set higher standards, demonstrate feasibility and encourage others to follow over time.
Strengthening the role of science is another priority. Hybrid systems that protect scientific integrity while allowing political dialogue could help ensure decisions remain grounded in evidence. Modernising negotiation processes through digital tools and artificial intelligence could also speed up drafting, reduce language barriers and make participation easier for smaller delegations.
Improving support for under-resourced countries, ensuring balanced representation and addressing gender gaps are equally critical to making negotiations more inclusive and effective.
The repeated collapse of environmental talks is a warning sign that current systems are no longer fit for purpose. Environmental crises today are faster, more complex and more interconnected than ever before. Delays in action mean rising emissions, accelerating biodiversity loss and growing risks for vulnerable communities.
Without bold reforms, global environmental negotiations risk becoming irrelevant, leaving the world with fragmented and insufficient responses to planetary challenges. The question facing world leaders is not whether change is needed, but whether they are willing to act before the costs of inaction become irreversible.