A logging truck transports a massive tree through a tropical forest. Photo by Ollivier Girard/CIFOR-ICRAF

The continuing deterioration of our planet’s environmental health is often attributed to the failure of international environmental conventions. However, this narrative misplaces the blame. 

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), UN Convention on Biological Diversity, UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and UN Forum on Forests (UNFF) provide solid frameworks for environmental protection. The real failure lies not in these mechanisms themselves, but in their implementation – or rather, the systematic obstruction of their implementation by parties prioritizing short-term national interests over global environmental imperatives.

The politics of obstruction

The story begins with promise. The 1992 Rio Earth Summit established ambitious frameworks for global environmental protection. These conventions were well-designed, incorporating scientific guidance, clear objectives and mechanisms for international cooperation. They represented humanity’s best understanding of how to address environmental challenges through collective action. Yet three decades later, we face accelerating environmental degradation not because these frameworks are flawed, but because their own parties have consistently undermined them.

Consider climate change. The UNFCCC provides a comprehensive framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including clear principles, scientific guidance and mechanisms for international cooperation. However, as documented in the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2023, major emitters have consistently chosen national economic interests over emission reductions. The United States’ withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, Canada’s exit when facing compliance difficulties and China’s continued coal plant construction illustrate how parties prioritize perceived national interests over global environmental imperatives.

Workers in a Brazilian palm oil plant prepare equipment. Photo by Miguel Pinheiro/CIFOR-ICRAF

The evidence of deliberate obstruction is clear. According to research published in Nature Climate Change in 2022, fossil fuel companies spent over USD 3.6 billion on climate-related lobbying in the past decade. This lobbying has effectively delayed the implementation of UNFCCC objectives in major economies, despite the convention providing clear pathways for emission reductions.

Biodiversity: Death by a thousand cuts

The UNCBD offers another telling example. The convention provides comprehensive guidelines for biodiversity protection, yet parties have systematically undermined its implementation by prioritizing resource extraction and development. The World Bank’s 2023 report on biodiversity finance reveals that governments spend approximately USD 500 billion annually on environmentally harmful subsidies – more than triple what they spend on biodiversity protection.

Brazil’s recent history illustrates this dynamic perfectly. Despite being a party to the UNCBD and having excellent conservation laws on paper, political decisions under certain administrations led to dramatically increased Amazon deforestation. The convention provided the framework for protection, but national political choices prioritized short-term economic gains over environmental protection.

Land Degradation: The Implementation Gap

The UNCCD offers perhaps the clearest example of how political obstruction undermines environmental protection. The convention provides detailed guidelines for preventing and reversing land degradation. However, as documented by the UNCCD’s own Global Land Outlook (2022), implementation fails not due to lack of knowledge or inadequate frameworks, but due to political choices favouring unsustainable land use practices.

Agricultural subsidies that encourage overexploitation, political resistance to land-use reforms and prioritization of short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability all undermine the convention’s objectives. The frameworks for protection exist; the political will to implement them does not.

Forests: Politics trump protection

The UNFF provides comprehensive guidelines for sustainable forest management. Yet, as Global Forest Watch data shows, we continue to lose primary forests at an alarming rate. This loss occurs not because of inadequate international frameworks, but because parties consistently prioritize timber revenue and agricultural expansion over forest protection.

Indonesia’s experience is instructive. Despite having sophisticated forest protection laws aligned with international frameworks, political decisions favouring palm oil expansion led to massive deforestation. The international frameworks provided the guidance; national political priorities ignored it.

A Kichwa villager looks at a tree before cutting it down to clear an area to sow corn to feed his animals near the Napo River, Orellana, Ecuador. Photo by Tomas Munita/CIFOR-ICRAF

The real problem: Implementation politics

The pattern across all four mechanisms reveals that the failure lies not in the conventions but in their implementation. Several key factors emerge:

First, parties systematically prioritize perceived national interests over global environmental protection. The conventions provide frameworks for balancing these interests, but parties often choose to ignore these frameworks when they conflict with domestic political priorities.

Second, powerful economic interests actively work to obstruct implementation. Research from the International Political Economy Institute (2023) documents how industry lobbying has delayed environmental protection measures across multiple jurisdictions, despite clear convention guidelines.

Third, parties often engage in what political scientists call “symbolic compliance” – appearing to follow convention requirements while actually undermining their objectives. They create impressive-sounding policies and programs while simultaneously maintaining environmentally destructive practices.

The evidence of political failure

The statistics remain damning, but they reflect political failure rather than convention inadequacy:

• The 68% decline in global biodiversity occurs despite the UNCBD providing clear protection frameworks
• The 60% increase in greenhouse gas emissions happens despite the UNFCCC offering clear reduction pathways
• Continuing land degradation persists despite the UNCCD providing detailed prevention guidelines
• Ongoing deforestation continues despite UNFF frameworks for sustainable forest management

Moving forward: Addressing the real challenge

The solution lies not in reforming the conventions but in addressing implementation failures. Recent research in Global Environmental Politics (2023) suggests several critical steps.

First, domestic environmental governance must be strengthened to implement convention frameworks better. The conventions provide the blueprints; domestic institutions need the capacity and political support to implement them.

Second, addressing the political economy of environmental destruction. This means confronting the vested interests that obstruct implementation and creating new constituencies for environmental protection.

Third, transparency and accountability in implementation should be increased. When parties fail to meet their commitments, the world needs to know why and who is responsible.

Fourth, building stronger domestic constituencies for environmental protection. The conventions provide the frameworks; domestic political pressure is needed to ensure their implementation.

The failure of global environmental protection lies not in the international conventions but in their implementation. These conventions provide sophisticated frameworks based on scientific understanding and international cooperation. The tragic gap between their objectives and our environmental reality reflects not institutional inadequacy but political failure.

Understanding this distinction is crucial for addressing the environmental crisis. Rather than criticizing the conventions, we must focus on the political obstacles to their implementation. The frameworks for environmental protection exist; what we lack is the political will to implement them effectively. 

The path forward requires addressing these political failures directly. Only by building stronger domestic constituencies for environmental protection, confronting obstructionist interests, and creating real accountability for implementation failures can we hope to reverse our planet’s environmental decline. The conventions have given us the tools; we must now find the political will to use them.

This reframing of the problem suggests a new approach to environmental protection – one that focuses not on creating new international frameworks but on building the political conditions for implementing existing ones effectively. 

The future of our planet depends not on better conventions but on better politics.