1. Introduction
This integrated field report covers the first four days of the seventh session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-7), building on the Foundation’s earlier 3-day update. It covers the period from 8 to 11 December 2025 and reflects the state of negotiations as of the morning of 12 December 2025, 08:00 Nairobi time. The first four days, from the opening on Monday, 8 December, up to the end of the High-level Segment (HLS) opening on Thursday, 11 December, were defined by a frantic negotiation pace and a stark reality check.
Delegations convened with the shared goal of advancing sustainable solutions for a resilient planet, focusing on addressing the triple planetary crisis of climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss. By the end of Day 4, while some draft resolutions had moved toward consensus and were fully agreed upon, others remained structurally blocked over core issues. The central points of contention revolved around Means of Implementation (MoI), particularly finance and technology transfer, and persistent disagreements regarding the Medium-Term Strategy (MTS) and the scope of UNEP’s mandate.
2. Cluster A – Nature and Climate
Discussions in Cluster A, covering Nature and Climate, commenced on Day 1 and maintained an intense pace, with negotiations focusing on addressing knowledge gaps, mandates, and crucial terminologyNegotiations on Karst systems led to the removal of an initial proposal for a new centre of knowledge after several delegations advocated for its deletion, preferring instead to leverage existing centres of excellence. Debates continued on strengthening cooperation with the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, which faced opposition from non-Parties and raised concerns about overlapping mandates. Furthermore, delegations debated whether to specifically name the key sectors impacting karsts, such as tourism and mining.
The draft resolution on Sargassum seaweed was highly contentious, particularly regarding the use of the word “crisis”. Some delegations stressed that questioning a long-standing situation constitutes "an insult" and called the use of the term a matter of "environmental justice, not just terminology". The Co-Chairs appealed for flexibility to resolve these terminological differences.
On the Deep-sea ecosystems resolution, delegations focused on a provision requesting UNEP to collaborate on a global stocktake or assessment to synthesize scientific information, although a number of Member States expressed reservations over this specific text.
A major breakthrough was achieved between Day 3 and Day 4 with the approval of the Coral Reefs resolution. Prior negotiations had centred on developing a compromise text for guidance on conservation and sustainable use, conditional on ensuring the preamble supported national policies. Finalizing financing language—which references developing countries as recipients and developed countries as sources—was deferred pending the overall completion of negotiations on the cross-cutting MoI issues.
Status of resolutions in Cluster A after Day 4
Coral Reefs resolution – text fully agreed in the contact group; forwarded to UNEA-7 for adoption (no outstanding brackets).
Sargassum resolution – several operative paragraphs remain bracketed over the term ‘crisis’ and related implications; not yet clean.
Deep-sea Ecosystems resolution – a number of delegates expressed reservations over the resolution, and its specific negotiation status remains unclear based on the available documentation up to Day 4.
Karst Ecosystems resolution – discussions were set to continue informally; the exact status of this draft resolution remains unclear based on the available documentation up to Day 4.
Wildfires resolution – progress was highlighted by the UNEP Executive Director on Day 4; however, the exact status of this draft resolution remains unclear based on the available documentation up to Day 4.
3. Cluster B – Governance and Law
Cluster B, focused on Governance and Law, saw significant movement, particularly concerning stakeholder participation and institutional streamlining.
The draft resolution on enhancing the meaningful participation of youth in environmental processes was initially contentious after previously agreed language was reopened on Day 1. A group of countries reintroduced a reference to "youth participation in decision-making," a stronger term previously deleted. On Day 2, delegations debated the scope of youth engagement requested of the UNEP Executive Director, with several opposing youth inclusion in science-policy work. A breakthrough was subsequently achieved, with the Co-Chairs reporting that agreement was reached on the draft resolution on Day 3.
Likewise, the resolution on enhanced coherence and synergies among Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) presented challenges due to perennial concerns about UNEP's mandate overstepping. Views diverged on encouraging Member States to reduce the reporting burden while rigorously safeguarding MEA mandates. Despite this, consensus was reached on inviting "regional and subregional cooperation bodies" to facilitate synergies and formally recognizing MEAs Day as a valuable forum. The Co-Chairs confirmed that agreement was reached on the synergies resolution by Day 3.
Regarding the resolution on AI environmental sustainability, the UN Secretary-General highlighted the environmental footprint of Artificial Intelligence on Day 4.
Status of resolutions in Cluster B after Day 4
Youth participation resolution – text fully agreed in the contact group; forwarded to UNEA-7 for adoption (no outstanding brackets).
MEA synergies resolution – text fully agreed in the contact group; forwarded to UNEA-7 for adoption (no outstanding brackets).
Sports resolution – Agreement was reached on this resolution and it was forwarded for adoption.
AI environmental sustainability resolution – The exact status of this draft resolution remains unclear based on the available documentation up to Day 4.
4. Cluster C – Circular Economy, Chemicals, Waste and Pollution
Cluster C encompassed some of the most technically complex and politically sensitive files, often intersecting directly with the cross-cutting issues of finance and mandate.
On the draft resolution regarding the sound management of chemicals and waste, a central debate focused on definitional scope: whether the text should be limited to pollution from specified substances (such as lead, cadmium, arsenic, and organotins), consistent with the new Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (ISP-CWP), or whether it should be broadened to include contaminated waste. This crucial distinction kept several operative paragraphs bracketed, as the outcome affects the delineation of UNEP’s mandate relative to the ISP-CWP.
Regarding minerals and metals, the UNEP Executive Director highlighted progress on the sound management of this issue on Day 4, a point supported by the UN Secretary-General's mention of its importance. While progress was noted in general, the specific nature or number of remaining brackets was not reported in the available documentation.
Throughout this cluster, finance, technology transfer, and capacity-building consistently emerged as structural cross-cutting issues. South Africa, in particular, stressed the critical need for scalable finance, technology transfer, and other MoI to translate commitments into effective implementation.
Status of resolutions in Cluster C after Day 4
Chemicals and Waste resolution – several operative paragraphs remain bracketed over the scope (pollution only vs contaminated waste) and consistency with ISP-CWP.
Minerals and Metals resolution – progress on the sound management of this issue was noted on Day 4; however, the exact status of this draft resolution remains unclear based on the available documentation up to Day 4.
5. Cluster D – Strategic, Budgetary and Governance Matters
Cluster D, which covers the foundational strategic and budgetary elements of UNEP’s operations, remained the most challenging cluster, with fundamental disagreements persisting across the four days.
The Medium-Term Strategy (MTS 2026–2029) and the Programme of Work and Budget (PoW 2026–2027) were identified on Day 1 as critical documents requiring approval. However, discussions revealed an "existential" deadlock over the MTS, centred on UNEP’s institutional mandate and scope. On Day 2, one delegation strongly cautioned against language that could empower the UNEP Executive Director to influence other UN bodies, such as the UN Security Council or the Human Rights Council. Conversely, another delegation emphasized UNEP’s mandated role as the "authoritative advocate for the global environment." By Day 4, the UNEA-7 President urged investing political and financial will in the MTS to effectively empower Member States. Nevertheless, these core disagreements did not result in a compromise formula by the close of the four days.
Discussions regarding working modalities also persisted throughout the period. On Day 3, after the Committee of the Whole (CoW) officially ran out of time, delegates were left scrambling to agree on suitable modalities to continue negotiations. By Day 4, one observer noted the delegates' frustration, questioning if it was "too late" to resolve differences, even on the "simple resolution" concerning the dates and venue of the next session.
Status of decisions in Cluster D after Day 4
Medium-Term Strategy (MTS 2026–2029) – still heavily bracketed / blocked due to fundamental disagreements on UNEP's mandate and scope. The status is explicitly unresolved in ENB, with one delegate feeling as if they "were teetering on the edge."
Programme of Work and Budget (PoW 2026–2027) – still heavily bracketed / blocked, as it is intrinsically linked to the unresolved MTS. The status is explicitly unresolved in ENB.
6. In the rooms and in the corridors
The atmosphere over the first four days was characterized by a distinct blend of intense fatigue and renewed focus. On Day 2, delegates operated in "pressure cooker condition" and endured "various levels of sleep deprivation" while working late into the night. Cautious optimism emerged following the approval of the Coral Reefs resolution, yet high frustration persisted due to the apparent inability to resolve differences even on procedural issues. On Day 1, flexibility was "not always evident," with some delegations consistently reiterating arguments about "overstepping mandates" and "digging their heels in." This robust insistence on mandate integrity suggests that the principle of "consensus" continues to be used as a de facto veto to halt progress on controversial texts, leading one delegate to sigh, "We really don't have time for this." Despite the mounting time pressure and the sentiment of "teetering on the edge" regarding core UNEP decisions, negotiators running between parallel tracks remained indefatigable, slowly beginning to accept the necessity of trade-offs to advance solutions. The YLE Foundation's perspective is informed by one representative on-site in UNEP Nairobi, following multiple negotiation tracks, supported by a remote team reviewing official documents and the Earth Negotiations Bulletin coverage.
7. What the first four days tell us
The first four days of UNEA-7 demonstrate the Assembly’s clear potential for progress, yet also expose the fundamental limits of multilateralism in the face of deep-seated political and financial divides.
Clear Advances after Four Days:
1. Coral Reefs resolution: The successful agreement on this file provides a concrete example of how political will can overcome technical differences on nature and climate issues.
2. MEA Synergies resolution: The consensus reached on enhancing coherence and synergies among MEAs offers a clear mandate to reduce reporting burdens while robustly safeguarding essential mandates.
3. Youth Participation resolution: Achieving consensus on this text affirms the importance of youth engagement and moves past initial disagreements over the inclusion of the "decision-making" phrase.
4. Progress on Circular Economy: Noted progress on the sound management of minerals and metals indicates a willingness to tackle new, complex issues related to the full environmental life cycle.
5. Sports resolution: Agreement on the sports resolution adds a positive, people-centered element to UNEA-7’s outcomes, linking environmental ambition with public engagement and healthy lifestyles.
Structural Blockages and Persistent Challenges:
The MTS/PoW Deadlock: The Medium-Term Strategy (MTS) remains structurally blocked over fundamental questions of UNEP’s institutional mandate and its role as an "authoritative advocate," representing an existential impasse for the organization’s future operations.
Finance and MoI: Unresolved issues around Means of Implementation (MoI)—finance, technology transfer, and capacity-building—are cross-cutting blockages that stalled the final adoption of key texts in Clusters A and C.
Scope of Chemicals and Waste: Disagreement over the scope of the Chemicals and Waste resolution, specifically the pollution-only vs. contaminated waste mandate, reflects a deep-seated tension between Member States on how UNEP should interact with new science-policy bodies like the ISP-CWP.
Forward-Looking Questions for the Rest of UNEA-7:
Can the MTS be agreed without fundamentally weakening UNEP’s mandate, allowing it to function as a robust, authoritative advocate within the broader UN system?
Will finance commitments and MoI resources sufficiently match the level of ambition in the new resolutions, thereby transforming agreed-upon texts into implementable national action?
With the CoW schedule now officially surpassed, will the consensus-driven process yield the necessary trade-offs to clean the remaining, highly contentious resolutions before the Assembly's close?
