TWN Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Mar24/05)
7 March 2024
Third World Network

6^th UN Environment Assembly adopts Ministerial declaration and resolutions 

New Delhi, 7 March (Radhika Chatterjee) – The 6^th session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA 6) convened from 26 Feb – 1 March in Nairobi, Kenya at UN Environment Programme (UNEP) headquarters and adopted a ministerial declaration, 15 resolutions and 2 decisions.

(Held every two years, UNEA is the “world’s highest-level decision-making body on the environment” that addresses “critical environmental challenges” of the world. The resolutions and calls to actions that are adopted at UNEA are expected to provide “leadership” and catalyse “intergovernmental action on the environment”. At the end of each UNEA, member states usually adopt resolutions, decisions and a ministerial declaration.)

The ministerial declaration is considered to be the “main outcome document” and “political outcome” of the UNEA, said Leila Benali, Minister of Energy Transition and Sustainable Development of the Kingdom of Morocco, who was UNEA-6 President. The ministerial declaration was adopted on the concluding day of the UNEA-6, 1 March.

The major issues of contention on the ministerial declaration were on the inclusion of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR), language relating to differentiation between developed and developing countries, and references to the 6^th Assessment Report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which related to issues under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, and were therefore controversial. 

Member states also diverged over the language used on fossil fuels, just transition and means of implementation, which again related to matters under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement.  (See below for further details).

2 resolutions which were controversial and did not garner consensus were withdrawn at the conclusion of the Committee of the Whole (COW) viz. on ‘Effective, Inclusive, and Sustainable Multilateral Actions towards Climate Justice’ and ‘Solar Radiation Modification’. (Separate article will follow on these). 

By the last two days of the session, consensus was found on 15 resolutions, while 2 more on ‘Criteria, norms, standards and guidelines for the implementation of Nature-Based Solutions for supporting sustainable development’ and ‘Stepping up efforts for accelerating a circular economy transition domestically, regionally and globally’ were withdrawn by the proponents.

Resolutions at UNEA 6

The theme that guided discussions for UNEA 6 was “Effective, inclusive and sustainable multilateral actions to tackle climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution.” A total of 22 draft resolutions proposed by various member states and 2 draft decisions had been submitted ahead of UNEA 6 for consideration. Out of these, the resolution on ‘Living well in balance with Mother Earth and Mother Earth Centric Actions’ that was proposed by Bolivia was withdrawn after the conclusion of the Open Ended Meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives.

However, not all draft resolutions were adopted at the end of the week-long negotiations. By the last day, UNEA 6 adopted a total of 15 resolutions and 2 decisions. The work was organized under the COW through its’ Contact Groups. As per established practice under UNEA, it is the COW that recommends resolutions to UNEA, for its adoption.  

(Those resolutions on which member states fail to find consensus under the COW, are either withdrawn by the proponent, or discussions on them can continue if co-chairs, resolution proponents and other member states agree to do so. A third option available to proponents of such resolutions is that of seeking a vote at UNEA. However, after the conclusion of the COW, co-chairs act in that capacity on a voluntary and informal basis. If member states are able to find consensus on the pending resolutions at least 24 hours ahead of UNEA’s final session, those resolutions can be adopted by UNEA. In this case, the resolutions are presented to UNEA by the respective proponents instead of the COW.)    

Sessions of UNEA 6 were preceded by the 6^th Open Ended Meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives (OECPR 6). (The Committee of Permanent Representatives (CPR) is an intersessional subsidiary body of the UNEA that reviews the “implementation of the outcomes” of the UNEA, among other things. The OECPR “serves as a preparatory meeting of the UNEA agenda and pre-negotiates and deliberates the content and wording of proposed resolutions, declarations and decisions for endorsement and approval by the Assembly.”) 

Held from 19 to 23 Feb, meetings at OECPR 6 saw intense line-by-line negotiations amongst member states and stakeholders. (The work of OECPR 6 was also organized along similar lines as at UNEA 6, but instead of ‘Contact groups’, the meetings were held under ‘Working Groups’. Preliminary discussions on the resolutions were also held in Jan and Feb under the sub-committee meetings of the CPR.)

Despite a grueling schedule at OECPR 6, with meetings beginning from 10am and ending at 1am on most days, member states were unable to find consensus on most resolutions till the last day. It was only at the end of the meeting of the COW on 28 March that consensus was found on 7 resolutions, following which member states engaged in further consultations to find consensus on the remaining resolutions.

Ministerial Declaration

During OECPR 6 and UNEA6, informal consultations on the ministerial declaration were held twice – once during OECPR 6 on 22 Feb and once during UNEA 6 on 29 Feb under the chairperson-ship of the UNEA-6 Presidency, Morocco. The first consultation that was held on 22 Feb was on the basis of the text that was dated 15 February, while following week’s discussion on 29 Feb was on the basis of another text dated 26 February.  

Several developing countries including India, China, South Africa, Cuba, Iran, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Argentina, Egypt, and Bahrain, voiced support for retaining the principle of CBDR in paragraph 2 of the declaration. In the version dated 15 February, this paragraph read as follows:

“We reaffirm all the principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development including the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, and we take note of the recommendations of the Secretary General of the United Nations in his report “Our Common Agenda” and the “Stockholm+50: a healthy planet for the prosperity of all-our responsibility, our opportunity”, international meeting.”

Developed countries like the United States (US), European Union (EU), Norway, Canada, Japan and Australia on the other hand expressed that the CBDR principle should not be included in the declaration text as it would amount to “singling out” of one of the many principles of the Rio Declaration. Instead, they shared a preference for making a general reference to the principles of the Rio Declaration, keeping in line with precedent that was set in the ministerial declaration of UNEA 5.2.

The specific reflection of the CBDR principles was gone from final version of the declaration that was released on 1 March, which had a general reference to all the principles of the Rio Declaration. Paragraph 2 of this version read as follows:

“We reaffirm all the principles of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, as well as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals, and we take note of the recommendations of the Secretary-General of the United Nations in his report “Our Common Agenda” and the “Stockholm+50: a healthy planet for the prosperity of all – our responsibility, our opportunity” international meeting.” 

Developed countries like US and Japan were also opposed to using any language that retained a differentiation between developed and developing countries that was done in the chapeau of paragraph 12 in the earlier version of the text. It read as follows: “We therefore decide to take the following actions, taking into account respective capabilities as well as the special needs and circumstances and the specific challenges faced by developing countries.”

Paragraph 12 of the text lays out the main actions that the declaration aims to work towards upon its adoption.

In the final version, the language in the chapeau was watered down to read as follows: “We therefore decide, recognizing the importance of sustainable development as a priority, to take the following actions:…”

On the issue of referring to the synthesis report of the IPCC’s AR6, developing countries raised concerns about the need for avoiding the cherry-picking of texts. Similar arguments were made regarding references to the language on fossil fuels and just transition. Developing countries insisted that the language that was agreed upon in the global stocktake (GST) outcome document at UNFCCC’s COP28 in Dubai should be used instead.

Developed countries on the other hand, expressed a wish for seeing more ambitious language in the context of implementation of climate change actions.

In the final version of the ministerial declaration, references to ending the fossil fuel era and phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies were removed from paragraphs 5 and 12(d). The language on just transition detailed in paragraph 12 (d) reads as follows:

“Cooperate for a just and sustainable energy transition, within each country, that seeks to achieve an energy-secure future for all, while respecting local, national, regional and global needs and priorities, in a just, orderly and nationally determined manner, while considering equitable access to clean energy, securing the resilient development of sustainable energy infrastructure, and promoting a just transition based on effective social dialogue among all stakeholders;”

Paragraph 7 of the declaration contains references to the synthesis report of AR6. Earlier versions of the text read as follows: “We note with great concern the main findings of the synthesis report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report, recognizing that limiting global warming to 1.5 °C with no or limited overshoot requires deep, rapid and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions of 43 per cent by 2030 and 60 per cent by 2035 relative to the 2019 level and reaching net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.”

In the final version of the declaration, the paragraph read as follows: “We note with great concern the main findings of the synthesis report of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and we recognize that limiting global warming to 1.5°C, with no or limited overshoot, requires deep, rapid and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions.”

Highlights of key interventions on the ministerial declaration

South Africa expressed that it wanted to see “more precise language on climate change outcomes from (the UNFCCC’s) COP28. What is missing is climate finance, and stronger language on the global goal on adaptation”. It added that “sentences are being pulled out (from the COP 28 decisions) without looking at the overall context. Take the language as it is, not sentences out of the paragraph”. Regarding the issue of CBDR, South Africa said it is “in no position to renegotiate the principle of CBDR. UNEA-6 is not the platform for that and other principles of the Rio Convention. We would like other Parties to be flexible.  We maintain this issue of CBDR is something that has been agreed on in other forums. Deletion of this principle is going back on what has been agreed on” it added further.

In a sharply worded intervention regarding the removal of CBDR from the final text of the ministerial declaration, Cuba said, “We did not want to break the consensus to adopt the Ministerial Declaration, but we wish to express Cuba's concern and dissatisfaction related to the elimination of the specific mention of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, in the final version of this document, after several months of work and until yesterday, the versions of that document indeed contain that reference. Today, the ministerial dialogue on multilateralism in the environment was held, and we do not positively appreciate that in the current context the principles of this multilateralism are being attempted to be modified, when even the mention of common but differentiated responsibilities, cannot even be accepted, as if the developing countries were those who have predated the environment for more than a century. No, we developing countries are not historically responsible for what we are suffering today with the triple planetary crisis and the minimum that must be recognized in the multilateralism that we all need, is that differentiation and responsibility, without putting at risk crossing red lines that could affect the effectiveness of the multilateralism for which we all advocate. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to maintain the dialogue and work that we must do together to save our planet, for sustainable development in all countries, without leaving anyone behind”.

China said that the “ministerial declaration should provide consensus through existing channels in the momentum of global cooperation in addressing challenges such as climate change. The purpose of our ministerial declaration is to send positive signals and motivation and guide to strengthen cooperation.” It asked for the deletion of the line “that signals the end of fossil fuel era” from paragraph 5 of the declaration. It also suggested the use of language from the Paris Agreement while mentioning the temperature goal in paragraph 6 of the declaration. Regarding paragraph 7 which refers to the synthesis report of AR6 of IPCC, China said it would like to see addition of references to peaking within a timeframe, net zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of all countries within that timeframe, sustainable development, poverty eradication, and equity.

India said the language on climate change used in the declaration should be consistent with the GST outcome document of COP28. It said that the declaration must mention the principle of CBDR-RC (CBDR and respective capabilities) and that references to national circumstances should be a vital part of the text. It also expressed the need for retaining CBDR in the declaration because in its view, “as far as UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement are concerned, CBDR is the most important principle”. It requested to view paragraphs 5,7 and 12 (d) of the declaration in light of the principles of UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement. Regarding the use of the term ‘planetary crisis’, India said it preferred the use of the term ‘challenges’ as climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution “are not just crisis” but that there are many interconnected elements.

Pakistan said “the principle of CBDR has a very embedded chronology. We think this principle is the life and soul of the fight against present environmental issues and climate change. We are of the opinion that if this principle is in any way shelved or watered down, it is highly probable that in this critical juncture of history, we will lose the fight against climate change. It should be retained and implemented.”

Iran said that the principle of CBDR has been internationally negotiated on and is an agreed principle, throughout the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement, and all UN resolutions. “If we are going to drop that principle, we need to receive an explanation of why and what happened” it said further. On the use of language on fossil fuels in paragraph 5, Iran asked for the deletion of the line “that signals the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era”. It said “the reason is our whole economic activity and system is based on this sector of fossil fuels. It is actually not feasible for a country like us to remove or terminate the activities on this part. We will not be in a position to accept such wording.”  

Asking for the retention of the CBDR principle in the ministerial declaration, Brazil said it is “an important part of balance of the current document as it responds to the various processes,” and was opposed to eliminating its reference. Regarding the chapeau of paragraph 12, it said “it is paramount to keep reference to the special needs and circumstances of developing countries” as “inequality has increased in recent years”.

Argentina said it “supports the inclusion of CBDR in paragraph 2”. It pointed out that this principle “is also present in other multilaterally agreed documents such as the 2030 Agenda”. Regarding the chapeau of paragraph 12 of the declaration, it wanted to retain the language that reflected a differentiation between developed and developing countries.

Saudi Arabia said UNEA-6 “is not a place for us to renegotiate and rehash elements of COP28. The current writing in paragraph 5 is a complete misrepresentation of the GST outcome. All elements of the GST outcome were an exclusive package negotiated through a difficult process”. On the reference to IPCC’s reports in paragraph 7, it said the paragraph “uses operational language to describe IPCC outcomes in a manner that was not agreed in the UNFCCC” and expressed support for simply welcoming the IPCC reports. It asked for the deletion of paragraph 12 (d) on energy transition as it presented the topic of energy transition in a way that is “not consistent with the different sub-paragraphs of paragraph 28 of the GST outcome document”. (Paragraph 28 of the GST outcome from COP 28 relates to global mitigation efforts). It also commended the inclusion of CBDR in the declaration and asked for the addition of language on means of implementation in paragraph 12 of the declaration, an emphasis on recognizing national circumstances in different paragraphs of the declaration. 

Algeria shared its concerns about the reference to IPCC reports in paragraph 7 of the declaration, adding that “this paragraph is targeting an issue which is of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees for all nations. But that puts huge burden on developing countries… their financial and technology resources are limited. When it comes to financing, developed countries are very resistant to that.” Opposing the cherry picking of statements from the IPCC reports, it further added that “IPCC concerns other issues that are in favour of developing countries” but those issues are not mentioned in the declaration.  It also supported the inclusion of CBDR in the declaration.

Other developing countries including Egypt, Bahrain and Sierra Leone too favoured the inclusion of CBDR in the declaration.

The EU said that the revised declaration was “weakened” compared to what was presented earlier (referring to versions of the declaration that were released prior to the commencing of OECPR-6 and UNEA6. Those versions can be found here.) “Considering that this declaration will be considered in the (UN) Summit of the Future (to be held in New York in September this year), it is important it has ambitious language”, added the EU. Regarding the reference to CBDR, it said “singling out CBDR anywhere is not acceptable.” It further said that it would not like to see the highlighting of “any specific principle under Rio principles” as it felt that one principle cannot be more relevant than the others, and would rather prefer recalling of all Rio principles in the declaration. In the context of the means of implementation detailed in paragraph 9 of the earlier version of the text, EU said it wanted to include “the notion from various sources” into the document.

Sharing comments on the “climate side” of the declaration, Norway said it supported the inclusion of the Rio principles, but not the singling out of one principle. It said since this declaration was to be a consensual text, there is a need “to find another way forward rather than choosing something that many cannot live well with.” For paragraph 12 (a), Norway felt the phrase ‘strive to address’ to be weak and suggested the use of language from “Article 2 of the Paris Agreement” to “strengthen global response to climate change.”

On the matter of mentioning CBDR in the declaration, Switzerland said it “would be concerned about singling out the principles” and instead called for a deletion of the reference to CBDR. 

The US said it continues “to strongly oppose any explicit reference to CBDR or any similar language regarding differentiation. Rather than rehashing same arguments, there is already compromise language on this issue from UNEA5.2 which reaffirmed Rio principles without singling out principles. That is a proven path to consensus… delete CBDR in paragraph 2, and differentiation language in chapeau of paragraph 12.”

It further added that “any ministerial declaration language related to climate outcomes must be consistent with relevant decisions in UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement processes.” It asked for the language on fossil fuels in paragraph 5 to be consistent with COP28 GST outcome document. The US also pointed out that the use of ‘climate justice’ in paragraph 12 (a) was not agreed language from COP28. Regarding issues of means of implementation in paragraph 9, it asked for increasing ambition and the addition of the line “continue to grow the contributor base”. It also shared its concerns about references to national circumstances and priorities as it “may dilute ambition”. (The reference to growing the ‘contributor base’ in relation to finance in the UNFCCC negotiations have been very controversial as developing countries see this as an effort by developed countries to include other developing countries and to dilute their mandatory obligations).

The United Kingdom said it opposed “singling out of specific Rio principles. All principles are equal and important. Delete reference to CBDR. We can agree to affirming all principles of Rio.” On the means of implementation issue, it said it supported “language on broadening the donor base” in paragraph 9. It asked for the deletion of “climate justice” from the text as there is no clear definition of the term.

Japan asked for the removal of CBDR and differentiation between developed and developing countries from the declaration. It echoed the US and UK in supporting language on broadening the donor base in paragraph 9 and deleting references to climate justice from the text.

Other developed countries like Sweden, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, Germany and France supported the deletion of CBDR from the ministerial declaration and expressed a preference for affirming all Rio principles as was done in UNEA 5.2 to get consensus.

The ministerial declaration adopted at UNEA6 will be transmitted by the UNEA President to the UN General Assembly in New York for consideration at the ‘Summit of the Future’.

Following the adoption of the ministerial declaration and resolutions, Susana Muhamad, the Colombia’s Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development delivered a statement on behalf of the country’s President Gustavo Petro, on the issue of the war in Palestine. Muhamad condemned “Israel’s breach of humanitarian international law with the bombing of hungry Palestinians yesterday (29 Feb) in Gaza” adding that “the world and multilateralism should stop this genocide. As part of this assembly Colombia announces it will sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the Ministry of Environment from Palestine to strengthen the environmental quality authority in the logic of South-South cooperation, so that they can have better capacity to document the environmental situation of Palestinian territory under the current situation of occupation.” This statement was received by a resounding applause from the entire assembly.

(The Colombian Minister was referring to Israel’s firing on Palestinians in Gaza city when they had gathered to collect flour on 29^th Feb. It is believed to have led to the killing of at least 112 people and injured around 760 individuals). Calls for bringing a ceasefire in all parts of the world were reiterated by both the outgoing (Kingdom of Morocco) and incoming Presidencies (Sultanate of Oman) of UNEA as well.

(Further articles to follow).