From Simulation to Practice: Moving beyond the Climate Negotiation Deadlock
- 4 hours ago
- 2 min read
Global climate negotiations are stalled because countries won’t act unless others move first. When negotiations rely on sequential pledges, single-issue targets, and voluntary compliance, even agreements that would leave everyone better off remain out of reach.
But it doesn’t have to be this way.
Recent work using a deliberative negotiation simulation suggests that the obstacle may lie less in political will than in decision architecture. When negotiations are re-designed to allow simultaneous commitment, multi-issue trade-offs, and structured optimisation of stakeholder preferences, coherent and mutually improving agreements become structurally feasible under realistic constraints.
In other words: the logic of global climate cooperation is not broken — the way we organise decisions may be.
We recently documented this in a paper anticipating publication through the Toda Peace Institute:
The companion video below illustrates how six representative stakeholder groups can reach a mutually improving agreement when negotiations are re-architected for simultaneity and trade-offs:
These materials show that escaping the so-called “multipolar trap” is possible in principle. But the more important question is: what would it take to move from principle to practice?
Scaling Up: From Proof of Concept to Real-World Application
The next phase is about translating deliberative negotiation architectures from proof-of-concept simulations into applied experimentation, learning, and institutional engagement. The aim is not to replace existing COP or UNFCCC processes, but to complement them — by building and testing decision-support processes that help diverse actors discover mutually acceptable pathways under real-world constraints.
We see four interrelated directions ahead:
1. Refining deliberative negotiation architectures: Stress-testing optimisation-based frameworks capable of handling many stakeholders, linked issues, and heterogeneous preferences.
2. Applied simulations with real participants: Moving from stylised demonstrations to participatory simulations involving policymakers, researchers, civil society actors, and practitioners — designed as learning exercises rather than formal negotiations.
3. Linking agreements to democratic and institutional processes: Exploring how optimised outcomes can connect to electoral mobilisation, legislative authorisation, and other mechanisms that confer legitimacy and durability. (Explore our progress with Simpol here.)
4. Sharing knowledge and building capacity: Developing open materials, training modules, and documentation so others can understand, critique, and adapt these approaches in different governance contexts.
Who This Is For
We’re interested in engaging:
Public agencies and multilateral institutions exploring new approaches to negotiation and governance
Philanthropic funders supporting climate governance innovation
Researchers working on collective action, negotiation, and sustainability
Civil society networks seeking credible pathways from mobilisation to policy
Practitioners and facilitators working with complex, multi-stakeholder disputes
Participation can range from informal dialogue and critique to co-design of simulations and pilot initiatives.
An Invitation to Explore
This initiative is exploratory, experimental, and collaborative. It is focused on governance architecture rather than advocacy, and on surfacing possibilities rather than dictating outcomes. We are looking for collaborators who are interested in making this practical. If this resonates, feel free to reach out — even just to compare notes or explore whether this approach fits a context you’re working in.