Resolution Recap Series – Strengthening the global management of wildfires

Resolution Name: Strengthening the global management of wildfires Cluster: A Authors: Benson Riang, Aysha Emmerson

What This Resolution Is About 

This Cluster A resolution, introduced by India, affirms the link between wildfires and human activities, formalizing UNEP’s role in prevention and response. Citing UNEP’s 2022 report Spreading like Wildfire: The Rising Threat of Extraordinary Landscape Fires, Member States call for an integrated, science-based international approach to strengthening national and regional wildfire management.

The resolution requires the Executive Director of UNEP—subject to available resources—to work with other UN entities, particularly the FAO’s Global Wildfire Management Hub, to equip Member States with guiding principles, capacity-building resources, and frameworks for addressing wildfire-related issues. A progress report is due at UNEA’s eighth session, and private-sector partners are encouraged to mobilize resources in the meantime, especially for developing countries.

What Happened in the Room & How CYMG Contributed

Questions about 1) whose knowledge counts in wildfire management, and 2) the credibility, scope, and significance of different methodologies for wildfire preparedness were at stake during negotiations. CYMG’s interventions, bilaterals, and textual suggestions focused on affirming youth’s unique vulnerability to wildfires and potential to be part of solutions, particularly early warning, monitoring, and restoration efforts. The delegation urged inclusive approaches that braid traditional knowledge systems with the best available science, alongside concrete financial commitments.

CYMG members engaged in discussions with Member States, such as Canada, which introduced language referencing youth’s key role as stakeholders in wildfire management. However, this language was removed from the final text. Informal negotiations (“infs”) focused extensively on cross-cutting language about integrating Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ knowledge in wildfire management. These debates were complicated by the existence of numerous UN documents using different, unstandardized language to reference stakeholders and knowledge holders.

Member States also discussed overlap with existing global wildfire initiatives and the draft text’s level of detail regarding coordination mechanisms. Delegates diverged over phrases such as technology-sharing based on “voluntary and mutually agreed terms” (supported by certain developed countries, including the United Kingdom and European Union), “whole-of-society approach,” and “all stakeholders and partners” (advanced by Canada, versus just “stakeholders”). Australia, Canada, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Iran were especially active in the negotiations, with Australia and Canada pusing for the most inclusive, specific, and ambitious version of the resolution.

Evaluating the UNEA-7 Outcome

Ultimately, only the broadest acceptable language survived sensitive negotiations.

The final text does not name any specific stakeholders or partners as relevant actors in wildfire response. Instead, it uses general language that can accommodate different national circumstances, which risks creating less inclusive processes and, consequently, less equitable and responsive outcomes. This omission was protested by the Indigenous Peoples Major Group to UNEP and contrasts with CYMG’s pre-negotiation position, which pushed for 1) recovery plans attentive to marginalized and underrepresented groups, and 2) reference to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), emphasizing participatory stewardship. Youth and children are also not mentioned in the final resolution, despite CYMG’s efforts to link wildfires to intergenerational equity.

The resolution enhances cooperation on early warning systems, knowledge-sharing, training, financing, and other adaptation, mitigation, and resilience measures, including regional action plans for wildfire-prone areas. However, specific tools and mechanisms are not listed. This may allow more flexible implementation tailored to national circumstances and UNEP’s discretion, but could also lead to more fragmented, less effective implementation.

More positively, by taking “note” of the Kananaskis Wildfire Charter, the resolution nods to the importance of community-based solutions for sustainable forest management and wildfire risk mitigation, including Indigenous-led fire stewardship. In recalling the “Call to Action on Integrated Fire Management and Wildfire Resilience,” launched at the 30th Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Climate Change, the resolution also recognizes climate change as one of the most extreme impacts and drivers of wildfires. These references may help strengthen coherence across multilateral environmental agreements related to wildfires.

Why UNEA and Nairobi Matter Here

This resolution gives teeth to recommendations from UNEP’s 2022 Spreading Like Wildfire report, which called for a “Fire Ready Formula” for prevention and response, granting UNEP a clearer mandate and resources to address wildfires. India, leading the resolution, underscored UNEP’s expertise in ecosystem restoration, which can complement FAO’s operational capacity and support the Global Wildfire Management Hub through technical input and resources. While FAO will host the Hub, the resolution designates UNEP as Co-Chair, giving it a direct governance role.

Looking ahead, working with states and major groups, UNEP could help better standardise cross-cutting language and criteria for stakeholder inclusion before negotiations begin. Considerable time was spent debating which knowledge systems and practices should be recognised. Pre-agreed best practices could streamline negotiations and enable member states to focus on emerging issues rather than recurring language debates.

What This Means for Youth

Rather than viewing it as a limitation, taking advantage of the resolution’s broad language, youth can play a key role in implementation. We stand to benefit or lose the most from wildfire-related employment, training, and capacity-building opportunities associated with this resolution. Young people can bargain for fair pay and benefits, and should ensure they have a seat at the table in drafting the report for UNEA-8.

Additionally, as UNEP shifts toward implementation, given youth’s unique vulnerability, we can take advantage of the resolution’s broad language related to the “health impacts of wildfires” to argue for specific physical as well as mental health supports; a key concern for the CYMG delegation and one example of broad language’s potential benefit. To urge accountability for root causes, the link between human-induced climate change and wildfire management should be front and centre in youth advocacy. Likewise, given the erasure of Indigenous peoples and knowledge in the final text, youth and Indigenous youth must continue to advocate for the resolution to respect UNDRIP and engage with Indigenous peoples and local communities as partners in wildfire stewardship.

Bottom Line

Given the rising global incidence of wildfires, this resolution is timely. It represents an important step in recognizing the urgent, transborder nature of wildfire risks and the need for shared knowledge and resources accordingly. However, like many of UNEA-7’s resolutions, its scope was significantly reduced during negotiations. Strikingly, diverse groups’ rights hinged on the placement of commas and capital letters. Moving forward, collective and youth advocacy should centre on the distinct toll of wildfires for youth and the need to centre UNDRIP–including the role of Indigenous, traditional, and local knowledge in wildfire management in tandem with scientific knowledge.