Breaking the Deadlock: A New Path for Multilateral Diplomacy Is Long Overdue

Talks to secure a Global Plastics Treaty broke down in Busan earlier this month as divisions over proposed caps on plastic production derailed progress. Despite support for a cap from 100 countries, and 140 backing commitments to phase out harmful chemicals and products, a small group of oil producing nations stalled the negotiation.

This disruption reflects a worrying trend in multilateral diplomacy. In the months before Busan, at the UN climate summit in Baku and its counterpart for biodiversity in Cali, a minority of countries or corporates also undermined discussions and paralysed progress.

In Baku, Saudi Arabia acted as a “wrecking ball”, rolling back the “UAE Consensus” on a transition away from fossil fuels. Donor countries delayed financing discussions, resulting in a paltry $300 billion commitment, far below the $1.3 trillion needed. In biodiversity talks in Cali, countries failed to agree on creating a new fund to support the world's poorest and most vulnerable. Wealthy nations pledged just $163 million for the Global Biodiversity Framework, a fraction of the $200 billion needed annually to tackle the biodiversity crisis.

Corporate lobbying often plays an outsized role. 200 fossil fuel lobbyists attended INC-5, more than all EU country delegations combined. 93% of statements opposing provisions to reduce the production of plastics were been made by the petrochemical sector. Almost 1,800 lobbyists attended COP29 in Baku. In Cali, pharmaceutical and biotech firms opposed a levy on profits tied to genetic data derived from nature. Though a “Cali Fund” was agreed, industry contributions remain voluntary.

Amid the targeted noise, the bravest voices are often drowned out. While civil society's calls grow louder, they fall on deaf ears. At the biodiversity summit, host country Colombia championed Indigenous rights, but this was the exception. The International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Plastics condemned the INC-5 process. At COP29, the Alliance of Small Island States and many least developed countries walked out in frustration.

These tactics have corrosive effects. Obstructionism creates a false perception that ambitious action lacks support and presents a trade-off with economic growth. In reality, there is widespread backing for stronger measures to unlock opportunity. Ahead of COP16, over 200 companies supported nature protection measures. In Busan, major corporations like Unilever, Walmart, & Nestle advocated strong policies through the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty. Yet a vocal minority perpetuates a sense of division.

It is simply not right that an obstructive minority undermines faith in multilateral diplomacy at a time when collective action is perhaps most crucial. Public confidence in international organisations has declined since the 1990s. Geopolitical tensions, rising nationalism, economic pressures, distrust in institutions, and political polarisation are making collaboration ever harder and creating a vacuum of leadership. Countries are not making bold commitments and investments, even when they will deliver far greater long-term returns.

Every failed summit, unfulfilled promise, corrupt decision, and corporate capture further erodes trust in multilateralism and the very partnerships that we need to get us out of this mess. And the clock is ticking.

Urgent change is needed to renew our capacity to deal with unprecedented challenges. The multilateral governance system, largely unchanged since the 1992 UN Climate Convention, is no longer equipped for today’s realities. Failure to adapt will bring devastating consequences for people and planet.

To address these crises, the system must evolve. It must prevent obstruction by vested interests working against humanity’s benefits; become nimble and efficient enough to respond to urgent crises; account for the interlinkages between climate, nature, pollution and people; and rebuild trust, providing the foundations for higher ambition.   

Four priorities emerge:  

1. Move beyond unanimity: the current UN consensus model and weak conflict of interest rules enables a self-interested minority to block progress. Reforming this system to allow super majority decisions could break deadlocks. Crucially, leadership voices could shape the debate and action agenda rather than ceding ground to recalcitrant blockers, creating a positive ambition loop. In parallel one could also envision that a majority of countries that are aligned simply moves forward together, like the 140 countries now banning harmful chemicals in plastics. I believe the WTO and other relevant organisations can accommodate for this.
2. Reform governance processes. Calls outlined in my letter to the UN Secretary General and Simon Stiell and the Open Letter on COP from leaders like Ban-Ki Moon and Christiana Figueres should be heeded. Key steps include improving the selection process for COP presidency selection; enhancing implementation and accountability mechanisms; and amplifying voices from scientific institutions, indigenous communities, and vulnerable nations.  
3. Host more frequent, targeted summits. Moving from annual mega-events to targeted, solution-driven meetings could maintain momentum and streamline action. Coalitions of the willing from business, government and civil society could convene to drive progress in key impact areas (eg, methane), geographies (eg, Just Transition countries and partners) and technologies (eg, renewable energy/storage, SAFs).  While no substitute for an overarching international framework, such “fastboat” progress could enhance ambition and drive implementation.
4. Integrate climate, biodiversity & adaptation agendas. Addressing interconnected challenges together can unlock synergies and avoid negative spillover effects. For example, nature-based solutions could deliver critical biodiversity benefits and over one-third of the climate mitigation to deliver on the Paris Agreement, while serving as cost-effective adaptation measures. Links could be strengthened by further integrating the climate and biodiversity COPs, appointing a Climate-Poverty Policy Envoy, and creating a bigger coordination role for NGOs.

These agendas should be integrated into international financial processes and governance, building on the Bridgetown Initiative and the Network for Greening the Financial System.

Reimagining these processes has become a necessity if we are to deliver real change at the next critical climate summit in 2025 in Belem. Time is running out, but we still have a small window to chart a path away from catastrophe and towards a brighter, sustainable future.