By Ephraim Agbo
The seventh UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-7) concluded, adopting a suite of 11 resolutions aimed at a more resilient planet. Yet, the substance of these agreements and the contentious negotiations that forged them reveal a troubling paradox: at the very moment global environmental institutions are most needed, geopolitical fragmentation is systematically eroding their ambition and efficacy.
For one week, over 6,000 delegates from 186 countries gathered at the UNEP headquarters, operating under the theme “Advancing sustainable solutions for a resilient planet”. The final gavel brought texts on critical issues—from the environmental footprint of artificial intelligence to the protection of coral reefs. In her closing remarks, UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen framed the assembly as a success, a “beacon of environmental multilateralism that rises above the fog of geopolitical differences.”
A closer examination of the negotiations, however, shows a beacon shining through thick fog, its light diffused and its path forward uncertain. The assembly’s outcomes, while symbolically significant, were consistently tempered by political compromise, exposing a system struggling to match the scale and urgency of the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.
The Anatomy of Compromise: How Ambition Was Diluted
The negotiations followed a familiar pattern of multilateral environmental diplomacy: initial ambition met with procedural delays and substantive objections, leading to last-minute compromises that often excised the most consequential language.
· Artificial Intelligence: A Landmark Resolution with Critical Blind Spots
The first-ever UNEA resolution on AI and the environment was hailed as a step forward. The initial draft, supported by Kenya, the EU, Norway, and Colombia, contained crucial language calling for an assessment of AI systems “across their lifecycle,” explicitly mentioning the massive water and energy consumption of data centers.
This language was systematically opposed and ultimately deleted at the insistence of Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates. The final resolution, while requesting a UNEP report on AI's impacts, avoids any binding commitments to monitor or regulate the technology’s full resource footprint.
· Minerals and Metals: A Push for Governance Deferred
A key proposal from Colombia and Oman sought to establish an expert group to explore options for international governance of mineral supply chains, crucial for the clean energy transition. This was rejected by a broad coalition of states. Instead, countries agreed only to further talks, kicking the substantive decision on supply chain transparency and equity down the road.
· The Ghost of the Plastics Treaty
While the stalled global plastics treaty was not reopened for negotiation, its shadow loomed large. The ministerial declaration included a reaffirmation to “conclude the negotiations,” but the primary energy on plastics was not in the plenary. As the Environmental Investigation Agency noted, progress happened “in the hallways, at side events, and over dinners,” highlighting a disconnect between formal negotiations and genuine multi-stakeholder momentum.
The Geopolitical Fault Lines Undermining Consensus
The technical compromises point to deeper systemic fractures. The assembly opened with frank acknowledgments that “wars, protectionist economic policies and widening global divisions are undermining the ability of nations to reach consensus.” These divisions manifested clearly:
· A Retreat from Science
Delegates reported that oil-producing nations, including Saudi Arabia and Türkiye, pushed to water down established scientific language on climate change, such as the causes of glacial melt. This drew sharp rebukes from small island states and the European Union.
· Obstructionist Tactics
Observers from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) warned before the assembly of member states deploying familiar “tactics… to prevent progress,” including limiting meaningful civil society participation. Break Free From Plastic noted these “derailing tactics” succeeded in undermining measures on deep-sea protection and environmental crime.
· The Finance Impasse
The debate over the AI resolution nearly collapsed over financing. Wealthy nations resisted language that would obligate them to fund AI capacity in the Global South, resulting in a vague compromise that encourages “partnerships” and “private sector” investment instead of direct, accountable finance.
The Two Realities of UNEA-7
The Official Reality
One of continued multilateral function. Eleven resolutions were passed. A Medium-Term Strategy for UNEP was approved. The “Nairobi spirit” of compromise was invoked. As UNEA President Abdullah Bin Ali Al-Amri stated, the assembly exists to be “the conscience of the global environment.”
The Ground-Level Reality
Voiced by civil society and frontline communities, it is one of profound disappointment and exclusion. The Indigenous Peoples Major Group declared, “UNEA-7 has failed Indigenous Peoples.” Activists criticized the outcomes for neglecting mandated protections for marginalized communities and failing to create space for agreement on critical issues.
This divergence underscores the core challenge: UNEA can set agendas and build soft consensus, but it is increasingly ill-equipped to deliver the legally binding, well-financed, and equitable mechanisms required for systemic change. The “famous and indomitable ‘Nairobi spirit’” Andersen called upon is being strained to its limits by a global order where national interest and short-term economic calculus repeatedly trump collective environmental security.
The Path Ahead: From Declarations to Delivery
The true test of UNEA-7 will not be in its adopted texts, but in what follows. Three immediate watch points emerge:
1. Implementation and Finance:
Will the resolutions on minerals, wildfires, and sargassum blooms translate into funded national action plans, particularly in lower-income states? Andersen’s urgent plea for member states to fully fund UNEP’s new mandates is a telling indicator of this persistent gap.
2. The Plastics Treaty Resuscitation:
All eyes now turn to Geneva in February 2026, where plastic treaty negotiations resume. The “renewed momentum” generated in Nairobi’s hallways must now confront the same geopolitical blockers in a formal setting.
3. Coalitions of the Willing:
With full consensus becoming more elusive, the path forward may depend on smaller, ambitious coalitions advancing stricter standards on AI lifecycle impacts or mineral governance, potentially creating new norms from the bottom up.
In her closing speech, Andersen reminded delegates that outside the negotiation halls, “people are dying, homes and livelihoods are being destroyed.” UNEA-7 kept the machinery of global environmental dialogue functioning—no small feat in this geopolitical climate. Yet, it also illuminated with stark clarity that keeping the machinery running is not the same as steering the planet away from catastrophe.
The beacon still shines—but it is failing to guide the necessary, urgent journey down the path it illuminates.
No comments:
Post a Comment