|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge (Dec25/05) UNEA-7 reaffirms Rio principles, advances global environmental action New Delhi, 19 Dec (Radhika Chatterjee+): Member States upheld their commitment to addressing various environmental challenges at the recently concluded 7th session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-7) in Nairobi, Kenya, and reaffirmed the Rio principles in this regard, at the meeting which took place at the headquarters of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) from 8 to12 Dec. The theme of the Assembly for this year was ‘Advancing Sustainable Solutions for a Resilient Planet.’ UNEA-7 was preceded by the 7th session of the Open-Ended Committee of Permanent Representatives (OECPR-7) held from 1 to 5 Dec. Over the course of these two weeks, Member States negotiated 15 draft resolutions [of which only 11 were adopted] and 3 draft decisions relating to UNEP’s work for the next few years. They also participated in an informal consultation on the ministerial declaration during the OECPR-7 to share their views on the draft of the declaration shared in late November. [Four intergovernmental consultations on the ministerial declaration were conducted throughout 2025 by the UNEA-7 Presidency, held by Oman. A few informal informal consultations were also conducted by the Presidency in mid-November for discussing the ministerial declaration.] In the opening and closing sessions of UNEA-7 and OECPR-7, several developing countries stressed the importance of upholding the Rio principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR), and highlighted the importance of the delivery of means of implementation by developed to developing countries for environmental actions across the board. In the end, in the ministerial declaration adopted, Member States agreed to reaffirm all the Rio principles, without explicitly referring to the CBDR principle. They also reaffirmed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The ministerial declaration consists of actions in four broad areas that Member States have agreed to take for addressing climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, desertification, land and soil degradation, drought, deforestation, wildfires as well as sand and dust storms. Action 1 of the declaration is focused on strengthening international cooperation in addressing various environmental challenges in a sustainable and equitable manner. It addresses areas like sustainable consumption and production, sustainable food systems, just transition pathways, water policies, and One Health approach. It urges Member States to pursue ambitious nationally determined contributions [under the Paris Agreement] informed by the outcomes of the first global stocktake. It also reaffirms the outcome on the new collective quantified goal on finance (NCQG) adopted at the 6th session of the Conference of Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA.6), which among other things highlights the need for developed countries to take the lead to enable scaling up of financing for developing countries for climate action from all sources (paragraph (i)). Action 2 is about Member States advancing their respective obligations under multilateral environmental agreements [MEAs] and internationally agreed environmental frameworks in a collective manner. It includes focus on areas like the sound management of chemicals and waste, plastic pollution, biodiversity conservation in marine areas, and the effective implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework [GBF]. It also includes a paragraph in which States have agreed to strive to close the biodiversity funding gap by mobilizing at least $200 billion annually by 2030, in line with target 19 of the GBF [paragraph (q)]. Action 3 is focused on advancing equity, inclusive societal participation and accessible means of implementation. It calls for enhanced efforts to ensure adequate, predictable, and timely means of implementation for developing countries for them to tackle global environmental challenges. It also consists of a commitment to continuing work on reform of the international financial architecture and calls for making financial flows consistent with the 2030 Agenda. Finally, Action 4 of the declaration is about promoting effective and coherent international environmental governance in a way that adheres to international law. It commits countries to increasing the effectiveness of environmental assistance and recovery in areas affected by armed conflict and urges all States to adhere to international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, human rights law and international humanitarian law as applicable in the context of environment protection in areas affected by armed conflicts. At the closing plenary of UNEA-7, presided over by Abdullah Bin-Ali Al-Amri, President of the Environment Authority of Oman, apart from adopting the ministerial declaration, countries also adopted 11 resolutions, and 3 decisions. Of the 3 decisions, one relates to the management of trust funds and earmarked contributions; one is on UNEP’s medium-term strategy [MTS] for 2026-2029, the programme of work [PoW] and budget for the biennium 2026-2027. [See further details below]; and one is on the provisional agenda dates and venue for the 8th session of UNEA. (All documents available here). Following are the topics of the 11 resolutions adopted:
Medium Term Strategy and Programme of Work During UNEA 7, Member States approved a decision on UNEP’s MTS for the period 2026–2029 and the PoW and budget for the biennium 2026–2027. Adoption of the MTS and the PoW decision proved highly contentious, with some developing countries stating that they contained elements on which there was no agreement. Various attempts by some developing countries to make even “surgical edits” to the MTS and the PoW proved Herculean, given stiff opposition by developed countries to make any changes to the documents. Calls for changes to the document were led by Saudi Arabia and supported by Iran, Egypt, Cuba, Algeria, Brazil, China, Russia, Qatar, Bahrain, and Turkiye, among others. An issue was the reference to the UN Security Council as well as the Human Rights Council in the PoW, which some developing countries were against. The paragraph in contention read: “UNEP will continue to provide leadership on the environmental dimension of sustainable development, informing and influencing global environmental policymaking through global intergovernmental processes within the United Nations, such as the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Human Rights Council and the Security Council.” Developing countries said that the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council were outside the purview of UNEP, adding that there was a high level of discontent on the process of consultations on the MTS and the PoW. They also said that several of their concerns had not been taken on board in the document. [Consultations on the MTS had been convened under the OECPR-7. Prior to this, consultations on the MTS had also been conducted since April 2025, with States sharing their inputs repeatedly with the UNEP secretariat and Executive Director. See related update.] Developed countries on the other hand were of the view that since UNEP is a leading body on environment, it should engage with all UN bodies and appeared to be satisfied with the process of consultations undertaken by the Secretariat. Disagreement continued until the penultimate day, when the Secretariat agreed to introduce “technical edits” to the contentious paragraph in the PoW. The UNEP Secretariat said references to the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, Human Rights Council and the Security Council would be deleted and the amended paragraph would read: “UNEP will continue to provide leadership on the environmental dimension of sustainable development, informing global environmental policymaking through global intergovernmental bodies with the United Nations, under the guidance of the United Nations Environment Assembly”. The “technical edits” in the PoW were accompanied by the following two additional paragraphs in the draft decision on the MTS and PoW, which reflects some States’ concerns around the fact that these documents did not reflect consensus and the importance of future strategies and work programmes reflecting consensual views. In the decision on MTS and PoW that was adopted, Member States recognized that the MTS and the PoW were prepared by the Executive Director [ED] of the UNEP, and that “some components, definitions and terminologies included therein have not been agreed [to] inter-governmentally, and therefore nothing in those documents should prejudge any future negotiations or agreements”. [The current ED of UNEP is Inger Andersen from Denmark.] The decision adopted also recognises “the efforts undertaken by the Executive Director, in particular through increased consultations with Member States, in seeking to take into account their views in the preparation of the medium-term strategy for the period 2026–2029 and the programme of work for the biennium 2026–2027, emphasizing the importance of enhanced efforts to reflect consensual views in the preparation of subsequent medium term strategies and programmes of work”. Highlights of interventions made in the closing plenary of UNEA-7 Brazil for the BRICS [Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa] reaffirmed their commitment “to scale up urgent action to address the challenges posed by climate change, biodiversity loss, desertification, land degradation, drought, sand and dust, storms, pollution, among others.” It also reaffirmed the “importance of strengthening UNEP under the oversight of its governing bodies, UNEA and the Committee of Permanent Representatives (CPR),” adding further that “as the only UN headquarters located in the global south, elevating Nairobi's international role constitutes a necessary step in our efforts to make multilateralism more inclusive, representative and responsive. We regard this as a long-term objective to be pursued through building bridges and reaching consensual outcomes.” Commending the adoption of various resolutions at UNEA-7, it said the challenge lies in their implementation and underscored “the continuous centrality of the principle of CBDR” and urged “developed countries, in line with their obligations under the multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), to ensure the provision of adequate, effective, predictable, timely and accessible financial resources to developing countries, as well as increased contributions to the environmental fund, thereby enabling UNEP to fulfil its core mandate.” It also recalled the importance “of supporting and accelerating the development of transfer of technology and capacity building to developing countries as critical enablers of climate action.” It also said that “all measures taken to tackle climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, including unilateral ones, must be designed, adopted and implemented in conformity with the principles and provisions of relevant multilateral, environmental and trade-related agreements, and must not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.” Namibia for the African Group commended the adoption of various resolutions and decisions at UNEA-7 and said it expected that “their execution will be guided by the principles of transparency, geographical balance, equity, and due consideration of the varying needs, capacities, and levels of vulnerability of countries and regions.” It expressed concerns about the treatment of the principle of CBDR and means of implementation. It said, “despite the wealth of precedent across international instruments adopted by the UN General Assembly and various UN bodies, all demonstrating the necessity of recognizing differing national capacities and responsibilities, the Group observed attempts during this process to weaken references to these principles.” Adding further, it said resolutions can be implemented only if they are accompanied by “robust and predictable means of implementation” which “includes adequate, accessible, and sustainable financial resources, technology transfer, and capacity-building support.” Tuvalu for the Pacific Small Island Developing States (P-SIDS) said “the health and resilience of coral reefs are central to the survival, economies and well-being of Pacific people and to marine biodiversity globally”, and appreciated the Presidency’s efforts to “work collaboratively to find balanced language [that] addresses concerns and upholds scientific integrity, reflects genuine commitment to safeguarding these critical ecosystems”. It acknowledged “Vanuatu's leadership in advancing the draft resolution on deep sea ecosystems, which is an issue of profound importance to our blue Pacific region and to the global ocean. Although the text did not reach consensus, Vanuatu, after careful consideration and in the interest of preserving unity, made the difficult decision to withdraw the draft.” Adding further, it said, “the divergent views expressed underscore the complexity of deep-sea governance; yet the respectful and open exchanges during the negotiations demonstrated that Member States remain committed to science, dialogue and the precautionary approach.” Saudi Arabia stressed the “centrality of transparent and Member-driven processes and full and continuous consistency of all of our work with the mandates, principles, provisions and independence of each MEA.” It emphasized that “the principles that we uphold, that of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities [CBDR-RC], of our respective pathways and obligations, of sufficient and predictable means of implementation to developing countries, the strength and resilience of our independent MEAs, the necessity of international cooperation, and an enabling environment for that cooperation are not divisive issues. In fact, they are and will always be the bedrock of what brings us all together to work on our common challenges.” Egypt said international cooperation forms the basis of multilateralism, and is the foundation of the UN. It expressed disappointment in the way international regional cooperation was dealt with at UNEA-7 and said “it is very clear that some countries don't want to cooperate with neighbouring countries about water issues, which is the main vein of life.” It called on the need for “paying attention to the water security issues and the rights of countries and the sustainability of water for the sake of people and environment” in the context of international cooperation. It said further that SDG 6, which is about water sustainability, “has the lowest level of implementation, particularly in terms of the trans-boundary water cooperation according to the Progress Report of SDGs for 2025.” It expressed concerns about the imposition of “differences and controversial issues” that have not been agreed upon and stressed the need for dealing with water issues in “mutually agreed terms.” It also pointed out the need for taking into account historical responsibility while considering discussions on the means of implementation. Iran highlighted the “shortcomings” identified in the 7th edition of the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-7) report and pointed out that “its Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) was not adopted by Member Staes.” On matters related to SDGs, UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), the Pact for the Future, One health approach, and the part of the crimes that affect the environment, it underscored all the reservations and positions it had placed during the process of UNEA-7. It said Iran’s considerations will “continue to be guided by our national circumstances and priorities.” It also said that “providing support, in particular affordable, adequate and predictable financing and technology transfer is a commitment by the developed countries, especially with regards to the principle of CBDR” and highlighted the fact that the ministerial declaration did not address the significant matter of “the impact of unilateral coercive measures (UCMs) imposed by certain countries, which have severe adverse consequences for the environment…, [and that the] removal of UCMs and illegitimate sanctions would be imperative and indispensable.” Venezuela expressed disappointment with the ministerial declaration because it did not “mention of the impact of unilateral measures that directly have an effect on countries such as Venezuela, and constitute a major obstacle to sustainable development implementation of measures to protect the environment.” Fiji said “the politicization of science and the growing contention around long-standing agreements such as the special circumstances of small island developing states [SIDS], equitable and accessible finance and the rights of indigenous people and the right to the clean and healthy environment signal a concerning divergence from the fundamental principles that should guide our decisions. If these values are diminished here, the highest governing body on the environment, where else can we turn to?” It said work on addressing the environmental crisis is “increasingly sidelined” with countries having to work even to retain agreed language. It said “the struggle to preserve critical paragraphs calling for broad cooperation on a crisis we did not create, is becoming more difficult. For SIDS, multilateralism remains our only avenue to advocate for ambition and global cooperation to ease the burdens faced on the front lines.” It emphasized the need for recognizing the disconnect between the urgency to deal with increasing impacts of various environmental crises and efforts made by countries for protecting economic interests and avoiding financial obligations. Switzerland, on behalf of itself and 58 States including Australia, Bangladesh, Barbados, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Fiji, the Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Iceland, Jamaica, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, UAE, Norway, Palau, Panama, Peru, Senegal, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu and the European Union [EU] affirmed the principles fundamental to the assembly, global environmental governance, and the irreplaceable role of independent science. It highlighted the “vital contributions” of bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the Intergovernmental Science Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution, the global environmental outlooks and other scientific and technical bodies across the UN system. It acknowledged “the invaluable work of research institutions and the wider the scientific community and recognized the contribution of indigenous knowledge” and expressed “regret” about “increasing instances in which scientific evidence and its uptake have been challenged or constrained in political processes.” It said the difficulties in finalising the SPM of GEO-7 showed “how fragile the science policy interface becomes when scientific integrity is not fully protected.” Adding further, it said “science is not negotiable and must remain the basis for evidence-based policymaking,” and that “science must be policy relevant without ever becoming policy prescriptive.” The EU praising the ministerial declaration saying that it “includes a targeted set of actions that Member States collectively and individually commit to tackle the global environmental crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, while addressing important linkages between them. The declaration also supports UNEP in its role as the UN focal point and leading global authority on environment, and in particular with regard to its role in building synergies with MEAs. It strengthens UNEP's mandate with regard to supporting circular economy, water resilience, halting biodiversity loss and pollution, artificial intelligence as well as on crimes that affect the environment. The declaration also expresses the need and with the sense of urgency to engage constructively to develop an ambitious internationally legally binding instrument on plastic pollution.” It welcomed the appreciation of the GEO-7 report in the ministerial declaration and reaffirmed the “essential role of science” in decision making. Australia on behalf of itself, Japan, the United Kingdom [UK], Switzerland, Canada, Norway, New Zealand and Iceland (JUSSCANZ) welcomed the adoption of an “ambitious and action-oriented” ministerial declaration. It also commended the adoption of several “actionable and meaningful resolutions” to address the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. It highlighted the importance of other outcomes achieved like agreeing on the adoption of UNEP’s MTS that would guide its’ work on “global environmental governance, the environmental dimension of sustainable development” and help “countries deliver on their commitments under MEAs.” It noted the importance of relying on “best available science” in UNEP and UNEA’s work and mentioned the GEO7 and indigenous knowledge as guides for delivering “evidence-based policy globally and at home.” It expressed regret that countries were not able to agree on the resolutions on deep sea ecosystems and environmental crimes. It also said not having reference to climate in key resolutions limits countries from “considering synergies across the Rio Conventions and delivering under MEAs.” The UK endorsed the ministerial declaration and said it “sends important political signals to the wider international community about our commitments to global environmental action.” It welcomed the acknowledgement of the importance of tackling environmental crimes and said “these crimes threaten biodiversity, livelihoods, prosperity and our national security” and also commitments related to promoting gender equality. It stressed the need for “placing sound science and evidence at the heart of decision-making” and said latest assessments from IPBES and GEO should “guide” actions. The United States [US] said it had “made a considered decision to step back from negotiations on all UNEA resolutions, decisions” due to the “irrelevant issues” despite its “repeated calls to keep UNEA focused on its core environmental mandate” and that it “cannot support work that strays focus away from UNEA's core mandate.” It also said that “many resolutions contain problematic language, recognizing rights that do not exist under international law, advancing divisive gender ideology, social justice, or climate change initiatives, pushing an agenda of soft global governance via the SDGs, promoting vague redistributions of wealth, or purporting to direct international financial institutions in ways that undermine both their independence as separate international organizations and our sovereignty. The US will not endorse language that conflicts with principles of free markets, transparency, and accountability.” The US disassociated itself from all resolutions, decisions, and from the ministerial declaration adopted, and said that the US is reviewing its “participation in and funding for international organizations to ensure they advance U.S. national interests” and emphasized the non-binding nature of resolutions adopted at UNEA, which it said “create no new rights or obligations under international law, nor do they modify or alter existing ones.” + With inputs from Indrajit Bose
|
||
