Sharrif Injamu Reflections from UNEA-7
Walking into the United Nations Complex in Nairobi for the 7th Session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-7) was a privilege of a rare kind. Convened under the theme “Advancing Sustainable Solutions for a Resilient Planet,” UNEA-7 was preceded by the seventh meeting of the Open-ended Committee of Permanent Representatives (OECPR)—a critical preparatory space where the architecture of global environmental decisions is quietly but firmly shaped.
What immediately stood out was the sheer weight of responsibility in the room. Decisions negotiated in Nairobi do not merely remain text on paper; they influence national policies, financing priorities, development trajectories, and environmental outcomes across continents. While I had attended UNEA-6, this session felt profoundly personal. Perhaps because the environmental crises we debate are no longer abstract projections—they are unfolding in real time, disproportionately affecting communities least responsible for their causes.
The Earth remains the only resource we cannot afford to lose. Yet unsustainable development models, overextraction of natural resources, and persistent pollution have pushed the planet beyond multiple ecological tipping points. The **triple planetary crisis—climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution—**continues to intensify, threatening food systems, livelihoods, public health, and peace itself. For young people, this reality translates into an uncertain and fragile inheritance.
It was within this context that one resolution stood out sharply for me: Enhancing meaningful youth participation in environmental decision-making—the first resolution of its kind at such a critical juncture for our planet. As a youth participant, the emphasis on “meaningful” carried immense significance. This was not a call for symbolic inclusion or token representation. It was a recognition that young people must be co-creators of solutions, embedded in decision-making structures where policies are shaped, negotiated, and implemented. Building future-ready leadership requires more than rhetoric; it requires deliberate exposure, trust, and responsibility within these global governance spaces.
Negotiating Under Pressure: Diplomacy at Its Limits
The first four days of UNEA-7 were marked by an intense mix of fatigue, urgency, and guarded determination. By Day 2, many delegates were navigating negotiations under severe sleep deprivation, working late into the night to unblock heavily bracketed texts. While the approval of the Coral Reefs resolution sparked cautious optimism, frustration remained palpable as delegations struggled to reconcile differences—even on procedural matters.
From the outset, flexibility was uneven. On Day 1, some delegations repeatedly raised concerns about “overstepping mandates,” often restating entrenched positions rather than seeking compromise. This dynamic once again exposed a long-standing challenge within multilateral environmental diplomacy: the use of consensus as a de facto veto. While consensus is meant to foster inclusivity, it can equally stall ambition—particularly on politically sensitive or transformative proposals.
Cluster A: Nature and Climate — Where Science Meets Politics
Discussions under Cluster A, addressing Nature and Climate, began immediately and moved at a relentless pace. Negotiations revolved around addressing knowledge gaps, clarifying institutional mandates, and resolving disagreements over terminology—seemingly small details that carry significant political weight.
Negotiations on karst systems resulted in the removal of a proposal to establish a new centre of knowledge, with several delegations advocating for reliance on existing centres of excellence. Discussions on strengthening cooperation with the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands faced resistance from non-Parties concerned about overlapping mandates. Delegations also debated whether to explicitly name sectors such as tourism and mining as key drivers of karst degradation—highlighting the tension between environmental integrity and economic interests.
The draft resolution on Sargassum seaweed proved particularly divisive. The use of the term “crisis” sparked heated debate, with some delegations viewing it as an overstatement of a long-standing phenomenon, while others framed the terminology as a matter of environmental justice, especially for coastal and island communities bearing the brunt of ecological and economic impacts. Repeated appeals by the Co-Chairs for flexibility underscored the difficulty of reconciling lived realities with diplomatic language.
Negotiations on deep-sea ecosystems focused on a proposal requesting UNEP to collaborate on a global scientific stocktake to synthesize existing knowledge. While many recognized the importance of safeguarding deep-sea biodiversity, several Member States expressed reservations over the scope and implications of the proposed text, leaving the resolution’s final status unclear by Day 4.
A breakthrough occurred between Day 3 and Day 4 with the adoption of the Coral Reefs resolution. Earlier negotiations had centred on balancing guidance for conservation and sustainable use with respect for national sovereignty. Financing language—particularly references to developing countries as beneficiaries and developed countries as sources—was deferred pending broader agreement on cross-cutting Means of Implementation (MoI), once again highlighting the central role of finance in translating ambition into action.
Cluster B: Governance and Law — Reframing Participation
Cluster B delivered some of the most encouraging progress, particularly in advancing governance reforms and stakeholder inclusion.
The resolution on enhancing meaningful youth participation initially faced setbacks when previously agreed language was reopened. A group of countries pushed to reinstate an explicit reference to “youth participation in decision-making,” a phrase that had been removed earlier. On Day 2, debate intensified around the scope of youth engagement, with some delegations opposing youth inclusion in science-policy interfaces. The eventual breakthrough, confirmed by the Co-Chairs on Day 3, marked a significant shift—from viewing youth as beneficiaries to recognizing them as actors within governance systems.
Similarly, negotiations on enhancing coherence and synergies among Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) were shaped by long-standing concerns about mandate overreach. Despite differing positions, consensus was achieved on promoting regional and subregional cooperation and formally recognizing MEAs Day as a platform for coordination—an important step toward reducing reporting burdens without weakening core mandates.
Cluster C: Chemicals, Waste, and the Circular Economy
Cluster C addressed some of the most technically complex and politically sensitive files. Discussions on the sound management of chemicals and waste centred on whether the resolution should focus narrowly on specific pollutants or be expanded to include contaminated waste. This distinction has significant implications for UNEP’s mandate in relation to the newly established Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (ISP-CWP), leaving several operative paragraphs bracketed.
Progress in minerals and metals was acknowledged by both the UNEP Executive Director and the UN Secretary-General. While detailed reporting on remaining brackets was limited, the discussions reflected growing recognition of the environmental and social impacts embedded across the full life cycle of extraction, processing, use, and disposal—signalling momentum toward a more holistic circular economy approach.
Across this cluster, finance, technology transfer, and capacity-building emerged repeatedly as structural barriers. South Africa, among others, emphasized that without scalable financing and accessible technologies, commitments risk remaining aspirational rather than actionable—particularly for developing countries.
Cluster D: Strategy and Budget — An Existential Debate
Cluster D, covering UNEP’s strategic direction and budget, proved the most challenging. Negotiations on the Medium-Term Strategy (MTS 2026–2029) and the Programme of Work and Budget (PoW 2026–2027) exposed deep institutional tensions. Some delegations warned against language that could empower UNEP to influence other UN bodies, while others reaffirmed UNEP’s mandate as the authoritative voice for the global environment.
Despite strong appeals from the UNEA-7 President by Day 4 to invest political and financial will in the MTS, no compromise formula emerged—underscoring unresolved questions about UNEP’s ambition, authority, and role within the broader UN system.
Clear Advances from UNEA-7
Despite the challenges, UNEA-7 delivered notable outcomes:
- Coral Reefs Resolution – Demonstrating that political will can overcome technical divides.
- MEA Synergies Resolution – Offering pathways to reduce reporting burdens while safeguarding mandates.
- Youth Participation Resolution – A landmark shift toward recognizing youth as decision-makers.
- Progress on Circular Economy – Advancing discourse on minerals and metals management.
- Sports Resolution – Linking environmental ambition with public engagement and healthy lifestyles.
Beyond the Negotiations: GEO-7 and Side Events
The launch of GEO-7 (Global Environment Outlook) added critical scientific grounding to UNEA-7 deliberations, reinforcing the urgency of systemic transformation. Participation in key side events further highlighted the disconnect—and potential alignment—between grassroots action, policy ambition, and global financing mechanisms.
Looking Ahead: From Text to Transformation
I walked out of UNEA-7 with cautious optimism. The promise is undeniable—but the real test lies ahead. Balancing science, geopolitics, and ambition remains the defining challenge of our time. What ultimately matters is not the number of resolutions adopted, but whether they translate into equitable, inclusive, and actionable change on the ground.
The future remains negotiable. The question is whether we choose courage over caution—and action over delay.
Sharrif Injamu Reflections from UNEA-7
