UNEA-7 Ends with Alarming Signals for Science-Based Decision-Making, Civil Society Participation, and Multilateralism
UNEA-7 concludes amid concerns over erosion of science and shrinking civic participation, while a solid number of countries push back to defend science-based global environmental governance.
PRESS RELEASE – 12 December 2025
UNEA-7 Ends with Alarming Signals for Science-Based Decision-Making, Civil Society Participation, and Multilateralism
Nairobi, Kenya - The seventh session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-7), following two weeks of negotiations of the Open-Ended Committee of Permanent Representatives (OECPR-7), concluded today amid growing concern over the erosion of science-based decision-making, shrinking civic space, and declining ambition in global environmental governance.
These developments are increasingly evident in international fora, driven by a group of countries that fail to meet their responsibility to tackle the triple planetary crisis. National political agendas, short-term economic interests - particularly the profit-motives of the fossil fuel industry - combined with an evident paralysis in global decision-making stemming from geopolitical dynamics.
- Independent science to inform policy is being eroded. Scientific evidence was repeatedly politicised, sidelined, or diluted, undermining UNEA’s role as a science-driven environmental body.
- Science-focused cooperation faced active resistance. A resolution led by Vanuatu to strengthen scientific understanding of deep-sea ecosystems and the threats they face encountered coordinated pushback, despite its precautionary and knowledge-building intent. Ultimately, the proponent withdrew the Resolution.
- A positive signal against the erosion of science emerged. Switzerland’s closing plenary statement reaffirmed the irreplaceable role of independent science, supported by 58 Member States which offers a timely and constructive example of how to defend science-based decision-making for future meetings.
- Civil society, rights holders, and stakeholders faced systematic constraints. Limited access to official documents and informal negotiations severely restricted meaningful and transparent participation.
- Environmental governance was undermined, and ambition was largely absent in the adopted resolutions and decisions. Tactics of delay, dilution, and obstruction during the negotiations severely weakened outcomes and set a worrying precedent.
- Those countries that are standing up deserve support. Governments advocating for science, cooperation, and precaution demonstrate that UNEA can still deliver- but this is only going to be successful if Member States collectively resist the hollowing out of the Assembly’s mandate, credibility, and ambition.
UNEA-7 convened amid a mounting environmental crisis, with governments expected to reaffirm the central role of science, cooperation, and inclusive multilateralism in tackling the triple planetary crisis, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. Instead, the negotiations exposed troubling trends that threaten to hollow out UNEA’s mandate and legitimacy.
“Across multiple agenda items, scientific findings were questioned, not on their merits, but on their political grounds, especially when science could stand in the way of ‘business as usual’ approaches that exploit the planet. Efforts to ground decisions in independent science were met with resistance, signalling a concerning shift away from evidence-based environmental governance, which is an irrevocable mistake”, says Fabienne McLellan, Managing Director of OceanCare, who attended the two-weeks long negotiations in Nairobi.
Vanuatu’s Deep-Sea Ecosystem Resolution: Withdrawal, but Not Retreat
A particularly telling example was the pushback against Vanuatu’s science-focused and cooperation-minded resolution, designed to enhance our understanding of deep-sea ecosystems and the threats they face, dismissed by opponents on the pretext of overlapping mandates. Rather than embracing a proposal centred on knowledge generation and precaution, several government delegations worked to weaken or block its ambition, despite the profound scientific uncertainties and irreversible risks posed by human activities in the deep sea.
Vanuatu was compelled to withdraw its draft resolution on deep-sea ecosystems due to mounting pressure, recognising that consensus could not be reached, although delegates underscored the need to safeguard ocean ecosystems. Vanuatu also took the opportunity to announce the launch of a next-phase science initiative for deep-sea research and knowledge, incorporating traditional and Indigenous knowledge systems, aimed at building broader scientific understanding and inform future policy action.
Several governments, including the EU and its Member States, Norway, Australia, Switzerland, Tuvalu, Uruguay, and Fiji, publicly praised this initiative as an important step toward consolidating deep-sea knowledge and fostering cooperative scientific engagement, allowing work to continue despite the resolution’s withdrawal.
Reflecting on the negotiations of the Resolution, McLellan stated: “The resistance to Vanuatu’s call for better scientific understanding of deep-sea ecosystems sends the wrong signal. Precaution, cooperation, and science should unite governments, not divide them.”
Plenary Statement Strengthening Science
Amid growing concern over the erosion of science-based decision-making at UNEA-7, the Government of Switzerland’s closing plenary intervention on the irreplaceable role of independent science offers a welcome and timely counterweight. Delivered on behalf of more than 50 Member, the statement reaffirmed that science must remain independent, protected from political interference, and central to environmental decision-making, particularly in the face of the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution
“OceanCare welcomes Switzerland’s initiative in reaffirming the central role of independent science”, said McLellan. “This reminder is an example of the kind of proactive pushback that is urgently needed against the politicisation of science. At a moment when scientific evidence is increasingly contested or constrained, such initiatives help defend the integrity of multilateral environmental decision-making. We encourage other governments to align themselves with this call and translate it into practice. There is an urgent need to protect scientific processes, strengthen science-policy interfaces and ensure that future negotiations are firmly grounded in the best available evidence”.
Shrinking Space for Civil Society, Rights Holders and Stakeholders
Equally concerning was the narrowing of space for civil society, Indigenous Peoples, and stakeholders. Access to negotiation texts was often delayed or restricted, while key discussions increasingly moved into closed informal settings with limited or no observer participation. These practices undermine transparency, accountability, and the long-standing principle that environmental decision-making benefits from the voices of those most affected.
“Participation by civil society, rights holders, and stakeholders was consistently pushed to the margins,” McLellan added. “Restricted access to documents and informal meetings is not a technical or practical issue — it is a democratic one. Environmental governance cannot succeed behind closed doors.”
Eroding Environmental Governance and Multilateral Ambition
Taken together, these dynamics point to a broader erosion of environmental multilateralism, where procedural manoeuvres and political interests increasingly harm scientific integrity and collective responsibility. This trend mirrors challenges seen across other international environmental processes and raises serious questions about UNEA’s future role as the world’s highest decision-making body on the environment.
“What we witnessed in Nairobi must not become the new normal,” McLellan concluded. “Undermining ambition, weakening governance, and sidelining science and participation will only deepen the environmental crises we are meant to solve. UNEA must be a place where evidence, equity, and cooperation lead - not where they are negotiated away.”
As UNEA-7 closes, governments face a clear choice: continue down a path of diminishing ambition and shrinking space, or recommit to science-based, inclusive, and cooperative environmental multilateralism. The credibility of UNEA, and the effectiveness of global environmental governance, depends on it.
ENDS
Media contact
- Fabienne McLellan, Managing Director OceanCare: +41 79 456 77 07; fmclellan@oceancare.org (in Nairobi (+2 hours to CET)
Notes to editors
Every two years, the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) takes place at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya.
The seventh session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-7) has taken place from 8 to 12 December 2025 at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya and is attended by high-level decision makers, some presidents, and ministers. UNEA-7 was be preceded by the seventh meeting of the Open-ended Committee of Permanent Representatives (OECPR-7) which was held from 1 to 5 December 2025. In the OECPR, draft resolutions and decisions are negotiated and then presented to UNEA for adoption.
Wider Context:
UNEA was established in 2012 and is the world’s highest-level decision-making body on the environment. The body has since passed over 100 resolutions on important environmental issues, including biodiversity and health, plastic pollution, marine litter, nature-based solutions, sustainable consumption and production, climate change, Science-Policy Panel for chemicals and waste, illegal wildlife trade, minerals and metals management, amongst many others. UNEA has the ability to powerfully influence the UN General Assembly. OceanCare has been accredited to UNEP/UNEA since 2015, attended UNEA 3, 4, 5, and 6 and is part of the Science & Technology Major Group.
Theme UNEA7:
UNEA-7 was held under the theme “ Advancing sustainable solutions for a resilient planet”. UNEA-7 and was chaired by the President of the Environment Authority of Oman.
Overview of Resolutions and Decisions:
There have been 19 Draft Resolutions & Decisions that were submitted by Member states. OceanCare has been focussing on the Resolutions focussing on the Nature – Ocean – Climate nexus, as well as the resolutions relating to governance and law.
An overview of the different Resolutions and Decisions with an evaluation of some of the core points is available upon request.
Information and Links
- Official reporting by the Earth Negotiation Bulletin IISD: https://enb.iisd.org/unea7-oecpr7
- Conference Website and final documents: https://www.unep.org/environmentassembly/unea7/closing-plenary
- Ministerial Declaration: https://docs.un.org/en/UNEP/EA.7/HLS/L.1
About OceanCare
OceanCare is an international marine conservation non-governmental organisation, founded in Switzerland in 1989. The organisation pursues the protection and restoration of the marine environment and marine wildlife with a strong policy focus, combining research, conservation projects and education. OceanCare’s remit includes marine pollution, climate change, marine mammal hunting and the environmental consequences of fisheries. Its work is supported by a team of scientific, legal and policy experts, and involves strategic collaboration with civil society organisations and coalitions around the world. OceanCare is an officially accredited partner and observer to several UN conventions and other international fora. www.oceancare.org --
OceanCare Gerbestrasse 6 CH-8820 Waedenswil - Switzerland www.oceancare.org