Daily report for 5 December 2025

The seventh session of the Open-ended Committee of Permanent Representatives (OECPR-7) to the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) came to a close on Friday evening. Throughout the day, the Committee continued negotiating the text of resolutions and decisions to be adopted by UNEA-7, convening in clusters related to: nature and climate; governance and law; circular economy, chemicals, waste and pollution; and strategic, budgetary, and governing bodies matters.

Plenary convened and OECPR-7 transmitted the resolutions and decisions to UNEA-7 for further consideration. They also agreed to continue engaging informally on the draft Ministerial Declaration during UNEA-7.

Preparation of Decisions and Outcomes of UNEA-7

Delegates met throughout the day in two informal Working Groups to discuss four clusters of issues.

Cluster A on nature and climate: These discussions were co-facilitated by Kanako Okano (Japan) and Marie Haraldstad (Norway). Co-Facilitator Okano re-opened discussions on accelerating global action to promote the climate resilience of coral reefs.

Delegations discussed how to frame contributions to national, regional, and international coral reef monitoring systems, including whether to reference the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network. They finally agreed to encourage States to voluntarily share data, including to the Network, to contribute to informed decision making. They disagreed on whether there would be evidence-based informed decision making.

On a paragraph on financial resource mobilization, delegations debated whether funding should be from all sources, directed from developed to developing countries, or only from countries in a position to do so – and whether to limit the support to coral reef action in developing countries.

Following some discussions, delegates agreed on a request to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Executive Director to encourage Member States to enhance national coordination and knowledge sharing on coral reef conservation and restoration.

Co-Facilitator Haraldstad reopened discussions on karst ecosystems for global water, biodiversity, climate resilience, and economic development, focusing on a paragraph on conservation, restoration, and sustainable management of these ecosystems. Delegates disagreed on whether to include restoration, and sustainable use. On the integration of global frameworks, they proposed that the preamble includes references to the relevance of, among others, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the Water Action Agenda, Land Degradation Neutrality, and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.

Delegates thereafter streamlined a request to the UNEP Executive Director to implement a list of actions. They agreed on a paragraph encouraging exchange and dissemination of knowledge relevant to karst ecosystems to strengthen science-policy linkages. They also agreed on the use of existing international cooperation mechanisms to foster dialogue and voluntary cooperation on karst ecosystems among interested Member States and stakeholders.

Delegates reached a deadlock on a paragraph on access to financial resources, as debates ensued on phrases such as a potential global and innovative financing mechanism, and on whether to specify that support is to developing countries, and if it is from all sources.

On the establishment of a center of excellence with regional and global functions in capacity building, knowledge transfer, research, and policy support, a new proposal suggested establishing a center and a multi-stakeholder platform. Delegates expressed reservations on this new paragraph.

During the closing plenary, delegates agreed to transmit the following draft resolutions to UNEA-7 for further discussions:

• strengthening global response on the management of fires;
• strengthening global response on the massive influx of Sargassum seaweed blooms;
• active protection of deep-sea ecosystems;
• accelerating global action to promote the climate resilience of coral reefs;
• preservation of glaciers and the broader cryosphere; and
• karst ecosystem for global water, biodiversity, climate resilience, and economic development.

Cluster B on governance and law: This cluster was co-facilitated by Sara Elkhouly (Egypt) and Martin Röw (Germany). The group resumed its consideration of the resolution seeking to maximize existing resources through enhanced coherence and synergies among multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and their implementation, led by Co-Facilitator Elkhouly. This resolution builds on UNEA resolution 6/4 on promoting synergies, cooperation, or collaboration for national implementation of MEAs and other relevant environmental instruments. Divergence arose on whether certain actions in the draft overlap with those in resolution 6/4. A proposal for new language building on the previous resolution, “while making a modest step forward,” drew some support, as did a suggestion to encourage the promotion of scientific research towards establishing “evidence-based” reasoning and methods for synergies, cooperation, and collaboration. Ultimately, no agreement was reached on this paragraph.

The group proceeded to address a series of requests to the UNEP Executive Director, with several new textual proposals made to streamline these actions and use agreed language. Delegates engaged in detailed deliberations on a request to promote or strengthen an “MEAs day,” and despite suggestions for simplified language, no resolution was reached for the modalities of the event/platform/avenue.

The group then addressed the resolution on enhancing the international response to address [crimes] [illicit international trafficking] [illegal activities on illicit wildlife trafficking and wild flora and fauna] [illegal activities involving [wildlife]/ [wild flora and fauna] [that affect the environment], led by Co-Facilitator Röw.

Following the presentation of a non-paper reflecting extensive informal-informal negotiations to address outstanding concerns and streamline the resolution, deliberations immediately turned divisive and reached a deadlock. One regional group, supported by several delegations, called for the resolution’s withdrawal, stressing that it initiates a criminalization process by attempting to define “crimes affecting the environment,” and therefore lies beyond UNEP’s mandate of environmental governance.

Some suggested that tackling this issue would require carefully specifying which crimes are being addressed. Among others, these delegations also questioned the scope and intention of the resolution, and pointed to parallel processes under the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime resolution 12/4 already addressing the issue.

A similar number of delegations emphasized they were strongly in favor of continuing deliberations, underlining that the resolution does not infringe on States’ sovereign rights, including that of defining and enacting national environmental and criminal legislation. Some noted that it is logical for UN agencies and entities to collaborate. One delegation, supported by many, stressed that such crimes are a transnational issue for which developing countries in particular require international and/or UN support to address, noting that these crimes undermine efforts to protect biodiversity and livelihoods, contribute to corruption, and have far-ranging socioeconomic impacts.

Several of those in favor of continued consideration suggested compromises, including to review the term “crimes affecting the environment” after negotiations on the remainder of the text, or to remove all reference to “crimes” at all and refer directly to UN General Assembly resolution 76/185. A few delegations on both sides of the divide suggested replacing “crimes” with “activities,” “issues,” “subject,” or “topic.”

During the closing plenary, delegates agreed to forward the following draft resolutions to UNEA-7 for further consideration:

• environmental sustainability of artificial intelligence systems;
• enhancing the meaningful participation of youth in environmental governance;
• promoting sustainable solutions through sport for a resilient planet;
• enhancing international response to address crimes that affect the environment; and
• maximizing existing resources through enhanced coherence and synergies in MEAs and implementation.

Cluster C on circular economy, chemicals, waste and pollution: These discussions were co-facilitated by Ontumetse Ontumetse (Botswana) and Michal Novotný (Czechia).

Co-Facilitator Ontumetse facilitated discussions on [advancing options for [international instruments on] enhancing environmentally sound management of minerals [and metals and guidance for mineral resources], including through circularity. He suggested delegates focus on two paragraphs prescribing the form of the mechanism and activities to be undertaken, with many delegations preferring to discuss activities and then deciding on the most suitable institutional format.

The proponent presented alternative language, stressing that, following consultations with the Secretariat, a task force is the most suitable format for the non-decision-making nature of the activities. These would entail: non-prescriptive options for international cooperation on environmental/sustainable management of minerals and metals; requesting UNEP to prepare a report and conduct a gap analysis of existing initiatives; and strengthening collaboration with existing mechanisms through the Digital Knowledge Hub. Several delegations agreed to engage based on the new text. A few delegations expressed reservations on forming a task force, cautioning against creating a body with a decision-making mandate. Co-Facilitator Ontumetse suggested that the proponents prepare a non-paper, which they declined to do, noting they were open to bilateral meetings to resolve this issue.

On the draft resolution on environmental dimensions of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR), Co-Facilitator Novotný invited input on the remaining operative paragraphs before streamlining the text. Some delegations proposed including the aquaculture sector in a section inviting Member States to address spillover from humans, animals, and plants. This was opposed by others, who cited that no sector addressed in the Political Declaration of the High-level Meeting on AMR should be specified as they are all equally relevant. Many delegations supported a leaner alternative text, with stronger emphasis on nationally appropriate approaches and priorities. One group proposed bridging language that recognizes national priorities, does not elevate any sectors, but emphasizes the One Health approach. Delegates failed to reach agreement on this paragraph.

On a paragraph encouraging Member States, stakeholders, and the private sector to raise awareness and consider taking action to minimize the emergence, and to prevent the spread of resistant bacteria, several delegations suggested specifying different stakeholder groups and referencing the AMR Multi-Stakeholder Partnership Platform. Delegates debated including references to the One Health approach and to the role of microplastics as vectors of AMR but were unable to reach agreement.

In the evening, the group convened in an informal-informal session to consider the draft resolution on the sound management of chemicals and waste, with the aim of agreeing on new text on the controversial sections in a non-paper.

During the closing plenary, delegates agreed to forward the following draft resolutions to UNEA-7 for further consideration:

• environmental dimensions of AMR;
• advancing options for international instruments on the environmentally sound management of minerals and metals and guidance for mineral resources circularity; and
• sound management of chemicals and waste.

Cluster D on strategic, budgetary, and governing bodies matters: Co-facilitated by Tobias Ogweno (Kenya) and Nader Al-Tarawneh (Jordan), the group resumed discussions on the draft resolution on strengthening the role of the UNEP headquarters in Nairobi. The group considered a non-paper containing revised text prepared by the proponent. Several delegates welcomed the non-paper as the basis for discussions. A few noted that elements critical to them had not been incorporated, and preferred proceeding using the original text.

The resolution’s proponent explained that the non-paper sought to address the group’s concerns, while noting that elements related to UN Privileges and Immunities and the host country agreement had been excluded pending discussions with the UNEP Secretariat. Delegations then convened in an informal-informal to find a solution on the way forward, but were unable to reach consensus on using the non-paper.

Co-Facilitator Al-Tarawneh explained that negotiations would continue on the basis of the original draft during UNEA-7.

Co-Facilitator Ogweno then led discussions on the Medium-Term Strategy (MTS) for the period 2026-2029 and the Programme of Work (PoW) and budget for the biennium 2026-2027. To better address their concerns, one delegate, supported by a number of others, introduced five new paragraphs addressing, among others, that: UNEP shall not assume any role in informing, shaping or leading deliberations in Charter-based bodies on behalf of Member States and that any views expressed by the Executive Director in such forums or beyond represent her individual views and not the views of Member States; the MTS and PoW are documents drafted exclusively by the UNEP Secretariat without consensus from Member States; Member States do not support the language, underlying assumptions, or proposed scope of activities; certain activities in the MTS and PoW are inconsistent with or extend beyond the outcomes of intergovernmental processes and MEAs; and these elements do not reflect or prejudice the views, obligations, or negotiating positions of parties, nor influence or prejudge ongoing or future intergovernmental processes.

A lengthy procedural discussion ensued on the way forward, with repeated appeals from Co-Facilitator Ogweno to agree on the text in the preambular paragraphs while delegates consult with their capitals on the new paragraphs. Delegates were able to agree on, among others, the importance of the MTS and PoW to foster coordination and promote impact and efficiency. One delegation opposed a reference to system-wide coherence on environmental issues and presented an alternative textual proposal to reflect this concern, both of which remained bracketed. Language referencing a fair, equitable, and timely consultation process remained bracketed, alongside an alternative text referring to an inclusive and regular process. Co-Facilitator Ogweno explained that the draft would be forwarded to plenary with these insertions and amendments.

During the closing plenary, Chair Sultan Hajiyev (Azerbaijan) proposed, and delegates agreed, to transmit the draft decision on the management of trust funds and earmarked contributions to UNEA-7, having completed consideration of the same.

Delegates agreed to forward the following drafts to UNEA-7 for further consideration:

• decision on the 2026-2029 MTS and PoW and budget for the biennium 2026-2027;
• decision on provisional agenda, dates and venue of UNEA-8; and
• strengthening the role of UNEP headquarters in Nairobi to address environmental challenges and enhance multilateral cooperation to address effective multilateral governance.

Adoption of the Report and Closing of the Meeting

Delegates provisionally approved the draft report of the meeting (UNEP/OECPR.7/L.1). In closing statements, Saudi Arabia, for the ARAB GROUP, highlighted, among other things: the need for provision of financial resources, capacity-building, and technology transfer to allow developing countries to meet environmental challenges in a spirit of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR); the sovereignty of States in determining their development priorities; and voiced reservations regarding draft resolutions on environmental crimes and the seabed. IRAN emphasized, among other things, that: UNEP’s role does not extend to governance or decision-making on behalf of Member States; and that UNEP should not delve into human rights and security considerations, noting its mandate remains environmental.

BANGLADESH underlined the urgent challenge of plastic pollution and called for support for capacity building and sustainable finance. ZAMBIA said that the limited and uneven progress witnessed over the week indicates the complexity of the issues at hand, and urged renewed political will, deeper cooperation, and shared responsibility at UNEA-7.

INDIA stressed the importance of anchoring decisions in principles of equity, CBDR, and the full recognition of national priorities and circumstances; and highlighted the urgency of enhanced cooperation and collaboration to address the global challenge posed by wildfires.

Lamenting the “intangible” progress on important resolutions, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO urged Member States to have the future of “our planet, our countries, and life on Earth” at the forefront of deliberations; and highlighted their willingness to support the resolution on minerals and metals despite being a major mining power.

CUBA highlighted the need for flexibility to achieve all outcomes at UNEA-7 and stressed the importance of adhering to the principle of CBDR.

Indigenous Peoples and their Communities, speaking for all MAJOR GROUPS, called on Member States to honor their obligations under international law to uphold Indigenous Peoples’ rights and to ensure their full and effective participation in decision making related to their lands and resources. They further called for: building strong, coherent systems of multilevel governance; strengthened participation of children and youth; not eroding language on gender; national and regional capacity for science and recognizing the role of citizen science; the recognition of intergenerational equity and the precautionary principle; recognizing ecocide as environmental crime; science-based decision-making and Indigenous knowledge as a basis for agriculture; and clear policy mandates for businesses to act upon.

On the way forward, the EU, supported by INDIA and others, proposed that informal discussions be convened over the weekend to progress on work ahead of UNEA-7. Several delegations requested to limit work over the weekend to Saturday afternoon, 6 December. OEPCR-7 Chair Hajiyev suggested facilitated informal consultations held from 2:00-6:00 pm. Delegates agreed that the outcomes of these consultations would be transmitted as an OECPR-7 Chair’s non-paper to the UNEA Presidency and Committee of the Whole.

In her closing statement, UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen thanked delegates for “staying the course” throughout the week’s negotiations. She emphasized nonetheless that the world is expectantly watching what will take place at UNEA and encouraged negotiators to seize this opportunity to adopt resolutions that will safeguard and advance global environmental goals. OEPCR-7 Chair Hajiyev gaveled the meeting to a close at 8:52 pm.

In The Corridors

On the last day of OECPR-7, delegates found it challenging to prioritize the mountain of work still before them. Should they base their discussions on original submissions, or new text? Should they start with preambular or operative clauses? What was the status of work on cross-cutting issues? With time running out fast, working groups focused on the lowest hanging fruit, allowing reservations on moderate to highly contentious issues to remain suspended. Using agreed language was the order of the day in the easier to tackle issues, making one wonder, what is the added value of some resolutions and how many times can similar language appear from one UNEA session to another before it begins to sound like a broken record?

Avoiding controversy was however not possible in all cluster discussions, as fatigue from protracted sessions began to affect delegates’ patience. The “mood has certainly been tense, and tempers have flared” throughout the week, one delegate admitted. Through the day, sharp differences persisted, as delegates veered into debates that seemed to question the very heart of UNEP’s mandate. As discussions reached a boiling point, a delegate appealed to the room to conduct negotiations respectfully, in line with the UN Code of Conduct, and not allow themselves to “get carried away.”

The surprise early finish of the closing plenary was welcomed as delegates saw the opportunity to rest over a good night’s sleep and a weekend off and regroup before another week of very difficult negotiations at UNEA-7.

Others were still keen to “keep the momentum going,” and use the time before UNEA-7 begins to build compromise. “The future of our planet depends on taking these decisions,” stressed one delegate, walking into the night to find a taxi home.