After nearly three decades of international climate negotiations, global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, prompting a growing chorus of experts and advocates to declare the current summit process fundamentally broken. The annual Conference of the Parties (COP), organized under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), has become a slow, cumbersome, and often inequitable forum where the urgency of the climate crisis is frequently overshadowed by procedural gridlock and the influence of vested interests. Critics argue that the system has systematically failed to deliver climate justice or meaningful action, leading to watered-down agreements that fall short of the dramatic transformations needed to mitigate the worst impacts of a warming planet.
In response to these systemic failures, a coalition of researchers, civil society groups, and international organizations is advancing a set of structural reforms aimed at revitalizing global climate governance. The proposals target the core weaknesses of the current framework: a decision-making process held hostage by the need for consensus, a lack of accountability for nations failing to meet their commitments, and the pervasive influence of corporate actors, particularly the fossil fuel industry. The three key reforms under discussion include overhauling the decision-making rules to allow for majority voting, decentralizing the monolithic summit structure into focused, year-round forums, and implementing robust accountability mechanisms to shield the process from corporate capture and ensure compliance.
A Failing Decision-Making Framework
One of the most significant impediments to progress within the UNFCCC process is its reliance on consensus-based decision-making. In practice, this requirement for unanimity among nearly 200 member states means that a single nation or a small bloc of countries with interests tied to fossil fuels can effectively veto or significantly dilute ambitious climate policies. This dynamic has been a persistent source of frustration for years, as crucial agreements are often weakened to achieve universal approval, resulting in what some critics call “empty words” that lack the force needed for real-world impact. For instance, the landmark Paris Agreement required the agreement of all 195 UN member states, a diplomatic feat that necessitated ambiguous language to avoid displeasing any single party.
This procedural flaw not only slows down the pace of negotiations but also creates a democratic deficit. The current one-country, one-vote system, while seemingly equitable, fails to represent all relevant stakeholders. Megacities like Los Angeles, which have substantial economic and environmental footprints, have no formal seat at the table, whereas microstates do. Furthermore, the voices of those most affected by climate change—such as Indigenous peoples, youth organizations, and agricultural communities—are often marginalized, treated as observers rather than active participants in a process that will determine their future. The result is a governance structure that is ill-equipped to handle the concentrated power of major economies and industries while failing to incorporate the diverse perspectives necessary for just and effective solutions.
Proposed Overhaul of Summit Structure
To address the inefficiencies of the current model, one bold reform proposal suggests moving away from the massive, single-location annual summit. Instead, the COP would be transformed into five permanent, continent-based forums, each dedicated to a specific and critical aspect of the climate crisis. This decentralized approach aims to make the process more focused, efficient, and accessible. It would also reduce the significant carbon footprint and financial costs associated with hosting tens of thousands of delegates in a different city each year.
Focused and Continuous Dialogue
Under this new model, the five proposed forums would generate and manage knowledge on distinct but interconnected challenges: climate adaptation, mitigation strategies, governance of transnational spaces (like oceans and the polar regions), the intersection of artificial intelligence and climate, and the regulation of geoengineering technologies. By creating specialized, year-round platforms for dialogue, this structure would allow for deeper and more continuous engagement on complex technical and policy issues. Rather than concentrating all political and logistical pressure into a single two-week event, these permanent forums could foster sustained collaboration among experts, policymakers, and civil society, leading to more thoughtful and well-vetted solutions.
Regional Alliances and Leadership
This reformed structure could also empower regional blocs to take a more proactive role. Existing trade-based agreements, such as the African Continental Free Trade Area or South America’s Mercosur, could evolve into climate-focused alliances, driving action tailored to regional priorities and capabilities. This approach presents a significant leadership opportunity for entities like the European Union, which has extensive experience in multilateral coordination. By consolidating its 27 member seats into a single, unified voice, the EU could set a powerful example of how pooled sovereignty can translate climate ambition into concrete, collective action, such as the implementation of its carbon border adjustment mechanism.
Confronting Corporate Influence and Accountability
A third major pillar of reform focuses on ending the “corporate capture” of climate negotiations and establishing meaningful accountability. For years, the growing presence and influence of lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry and other major emitters at COPs have drawn intense criticism. This has led to accusations that the very entities most responsible for the climate crisis are shaping the rules designed to regulate them. One analysis of COP29 found that 90% of the summit’s sponsors had direct ties to the fossil fuel industry, creating a clear conflict of interest. To counteract this, reformers are calling for a strong accountability framework that would prohibit corporate partnerships with host countries, especially with companies that have a large carbon footprint.
Strengthening Enforcement and Human Rights
Beyond curbing corporate influence, there is a strong demand to increase accountability for the climate pledges made by nations. Since the Paris Agreement, developing countries have grown increasingly frustrated with the lack of enforceability, as wealthy nations have failed to meet their financial commitments for climate adaptation and mitigation. Proposed reforms include introducing penalties for non-compliance and creating incentives for action to ensure that international obligations are met. This also involves bringing negotiations out from behind closed doors to improve transparency.
Furthermore, advocates insist that the UNFCCC must ensure host countries uphold international human rights standards. The lead-up to recent COPs has been marred by crackdowns on journalists, activists, and civil society in host nations, with strict zones established to control protests and limit freedom of expression. Reformers argue that any legitimate climate process must protect these fundamental rights, ensuring that the voices of dissent and advocacy can be heard without fear of reprisal. By integrating these reforms, proponents believe the UNFCCC can be transformed into a body that serves climate justice rather than vested interests.
