Search Results

Youth Insights from the Fifth Meeting of the UNEP Working Group on Nitrogen The Fifth Meeting of the UNEP Working Group on Nitrogen , held on January 9-10, 2024, in Nairobi, Kenya and online, marked a significant milestone in the global effort to address nitrogen pollution towards the sustainable management of Nitrogen. Delegates, including representatives from member states, major groups, and stakeholders, gathered to discuss sustainable nitrogen management plans and strategies, underscoring the growing global interest in tackling this critical environmental concern. The meeting provided a platform for fruitful discussions, informative presentations, and the development of actionable recommendations. A key focus was the urgent need for clear and inclusive National Action Plans (NAPs) for sustainable nitrogen management. Delegates stressed the importance of coordinated efforts on a national level to address the dynamic challenges posed by nitrogen pollution. This recognition emphasizes the critical role of national initiatives ,such as the presentation made by the delegates of the government of Japan and Netherlands, in the broader context of global nitrogen management. Discussions highlighted the necessity of a comprehensive approach to nitrogen management, engriding technological, policy, and behavioral interventions throughout the entire nitrogen supply chain and life cycle. Delegates advocated for integrated sustainable nitrogen management practices to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of nitrogen pollution. The link between reactive nitrogen and ozone depletion, climate change, and greenhouse gas emissions was emphasized, underscoring the urgency of addressing nitrogen-related issues. A significant recommendation arising from the meeting was the alignment of national nitrogen action plans (NAPs) with global initiatives such as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSA). This alignment was deemed crucial for enhancing the effectiveness and integration of sustainable nitrogen management efforts at the national level. The meeting also critically evaluated UNEA Resolutions 5/2 and 4/14 . Resolution 5/2, emphasizing encouragement and voluntary action plans, was scrutinized for lacking concrete mechanisms and accountability measures. Resolution 4/14 was deemed insufficient in providing recommendations for effective policy instruments and addressing information gaps. Delegates stressed the need for improved monitoring and evaluation frameworks to track progress and assess policy effectiveness.  The discussions brought attention to the fossil fuel-nitrogen nexus, particularly in industrial ammonia production for fertilizers. Delegates called for policies encouraging green ammonia production, investing in renewable energy sources, and targeting emissions reduction throughout the nitrogen value chain. The meeting concluded with a final call for global cooperation, urging all member states to prioritize the development and implementation of clear and inclusive national action plans for sustainable nitrogen management. The outcomes of the Fifth UNEP Working Group on Nitrogen Meeting serve as a crucial guide for policymakers, environmentalists, and stakeholders, emphasizing the urgency and complexity of addressing nitrogen pollution on a global scale. As the focus shifts towards the 6th session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-6), the discussions and recommendations from this meeting will play a vital role in shaping the future of sustainable nitrogen management. The journey continues, with the commitment to a healthier planet and a more sustainable future. Note: The views and opinions expressed in this document are solely those of the authors and may not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of their respective employers or any other affiliated organizations. The content provided is for informational purposes only and has been prepared from the authors' own research and personal experiences as of the date of publication.

Authors: Lydia Dai, Thematic Facilitator for Disaster, Climate and Resilience, CYMG UNEP Joshua Prentice, Thematic Facilitator for Environmental Law, CYMG UNEP/ International Policy Lead - SRM Youth Watch Introduction Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) represents a deliberate intervention aimed at reducing the warming impact of anthropogenic climate change by reflecting sunlight back into space or facilitating the escape of thermal heat from the Earth. This strategy includes various approaches, with stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) being the most researched, along with marine cloud brightening (MCB). While not a replacement for rampant and aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reductions, SRM could serve as a supplementary measure to temporarily limit climate change effects. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report notes that while SRM can partially counteract the warming effects of increased greenhouse gases, some intervention measures would also introduce significant regional and seasonal climate discrepancies due to the transboundary nature of SRM techniques. At the Sixth Session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-6) in Nairobi, Kenya, SRM resurfaced as one of the proposed nineteen draft resolutions, sponsored by Switzerland and initially co-sponsored by Monaco, Guinea, and Senegal— though the latter two withdrew their sponsorship in the weeks leading up to and during UNEA-6. This draft resolution marked Switzerland's second attempt to advance SRM discussions on a multilateral platform, following an unsuccessful attempt in 2019. Since then, significant advancements, including research activities and UNEP’s One Atmosphere Report, have deepened the understanding of SRM's potential impacts and governance issues. The proposed draft resolution underscored the urgency of the climate crisis and raised concerns over the adverse effects of SRM, as well as the current lack of comprehensive multilateral oversight. It highlighted the challenges some countries, particularly those in the developing world, face in accessing science-based information on SRM technologies. Echoing the Precautionary Principle from the 1992 Rio Declaration, the resolution called for the establishment of a scientific assessment group under UNEP. This body would have been tasked with evaluating the current state of SRM and its research, assessing the potential impacts, risks, benefits, and uncertainties of these technologies, and addressing ethical considerations. The findings would inform further work, guide ongoing discussions under UNEA and support a more structured and informed international dialogue on SRM. What happened at UNEA Need for information vs. non-use Discussions at UNEA-6 revealed a complex dialogue between advocates of an SRM Non-Use Agreement and arguments for the necessity for more information. Initially, the African Group of Negotiators (AGN) declared their collective stance in favour of a non-use agreement. Senegal’s withdrawal as a Co-Sponsor of the resolution also reflected the country’s alignment with the stance adopted at the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment in 2023, which endorsed a non-use policy. Despite these positions, there was an overarching acknowledgement of the necessity for enhanced scientific data and analysis concerning SRM, which is the resolution's core intention. However, concerns about the potential consequences and the resolution's specific recommendations for action remained. In response, the AGN proposed that UNEP conduct a survey to gather the positions of Member States on SRM research, and to consolidate these positions into a report. There were concerns about this addition by some Member States - mainly in developing countries - due to concerns about knowledge gaps that might influence the survey outcomes. Amidst these discussions, Major Groups, particularly the Non-Governmental Organizations, Women, and Science and Technology Major Groups, strongly advocated for a non-use agreement. CYMG emerged as a singular voice emphasizing the critical role of scientific insight in shaping informed multilateral governance decisions, including those related to a potential non-use policy. CYMG advocated for the establishment of a transdisciplinary scientific expert group under UNEP to thoroughly evaluate the impacts of SRM, with the precautionary principle playing a key role in shaping scientific research. We also called for the inclusion of a diverse array of stakeholders, such as researchers from the Global South, indigenous populations, vulnerable groups, and youth, to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive evaluation process. The Constituency’s stance, while welcoming a non-use agreement on deployment, underscored the need for informed scientific evidence to feed into global governance processes. Debate between UNEP vs. other multilateral fora While recognizing the importance of gathering more information, a significant debate emerged over whether the UNEP was the appropriate body to lead discussions on this issue, given the potential overlap with activities in other multilateral forums. The United States firmly opposed the creation of an expert group within UNEP and suggested that entities such as the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) were more equipped to provide the necessary scientific insights on SRM. The US highlighted WCRP's Lighthouse Activity on climate intervention, stressing the need for coordination and reliance on WCRP's expertise. This position was supported by Japan, Canada, China, and later Saudi Arabia. Yet other Member States were hesitant to support this view. For instance, the conversation also touched on the roles of the IPCC and the UNFCCC. India advocated for integrating SRM discussions within the UNFCCC, while the European Union and Australia emphasized the need to respect the mandates of existing multilateral environmental agreements. As SRM techniques have implications for climate, oceans and even ozone, all of which are governed by different treaty secretariats As discussions progressed, the debate moved to the method of conducting SRM assessments and whether UNEP was the right forum for such discussions. Proponents of WCRP argued for its strong scientific foundation and warned against rushed assessments that could mislead policymakers. They highlighted WCRP's comprehensive approach and its crucial role in supporting climate modelling efforts, suggesting that SRM's technical evaluation required a scientifically rigorous approach beyond UNEP's purview. On the other hand, supporters of UNEP argued for a broad, interdisciplinary assessment encompassing physical, social, and environmental sciences, positing that UNEP was uniquely positioned to oversee such a comprehensive evaluation. They raised concerns about WCRP's focus on the physical sciences to the exclusion of other important disciplines and its lack of inclusivity regarding critical stakeholders. Scope of the assessment and inclusivity of the assessment process When the debate extended to the desired scope of the assessment, the United States and Saudi Arabia again expressed strong opposition to forming an expert group under the UNEA for SRM, and emphasised the need for further scientific foundation before proceeding with such discussions. Their stance highlighted a preference for deferring detailed policy and governance talks under UNEP until more scientific data were available and underscored the value they place on the work of the WCRP and its contribution to science-driven policy. On this point, Switzerland clarified that the intention behind this resolution was to allow a more comprehensive evaluation encompassing a wide array of physical and non-physical sciences. The European Union and Brazil also argued for the inclusion of social sciences, and Colombia emphasized the need to address human rights issues. The EU particularly criticized the WCRP's focus on climate modeling as too narrow and advocated for a more comprehensive and inclusive discussion that also encompasses policy implications, and suggested that research should primarily consider risks over potential benefits. Discussions on the naming and structuring of the proposed group also revealed diverse preferences among countries. Suggestions ranged from expert, open-ended, scientific, ad hoc, and intergovernmental, to consultative. A key point of contention was who should lead the report's drafting process, with Switzerland proposing UNEP's initial authorship, subject to expert group review, while the EU and the African Group favoured entrusting this responsibility to an intergovernmental group, which would allow member states a greater degree of control over the output. In the concluding hours, there was an emerging proposal around establishing a "repository" of SRM information managed by UNEP, with the intention of finding a negotiated outcome. However, opinions still varied wildly on the contents of as well as the sources of input to the repository: the African Group envisioned it being a collection of country submissions on their SRM positions; the EU sought a broader scope, including transdisciplinary perspectives and indigenous views; the US suggested it serve as a database for voluntary research disclosures. Outcomes As the assembly neared its conclusion, unresolved disagreements and increasing tensions between countries became more pronounced. This heightened polarization significantly hindered any possibility of reaching a consensus. Key issues that intensified the divide included the Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) "de facto moratorium" on certain biotechnologies and the call for a non-use agreement on SRM. Fiji and Pakistan notably referenced these points and effectively stalled the discussions by rejecting any consideration of the proposed new text. In the face of these obstacles and the lack of a clear path forward, Switzerland decided to withdraw the draft resolution during the final plenary session. This move underscored the complexities and challenges still inherent in multilateral conversations on SRM. Looking ahead The outcome was not dissimilar from what happened at UNEA-4. This now leaves the knowledge gap unbridged, especially within the Global South. As research into Solar Radiation Modification techniques ramps up, there is a greater urgency to govern the science and potential deployment of these technologies. Given discussions about UNEP’s mandate to even administer this resolution, we may see SRM rear its head again within UNFCCC and Montreal Ozone Protocol conferences. Moving forward, CYMG, in collaboration with SRM Youth Watch and other interested and relevant youth-led initiatives, will engage with researchers, policymakers, Member states and advocates to ensure an inclusive and boundary-expanding space for the governance and development of climate and other forms of geoengineering. Note: The views and opinions expressed in this document are solely those of the authors and may not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of their respective employers or any other affiliated organizations. The content provided is for informational purposes only and has been prepared from the authors' own research and personal experiences as of the date of publication.

Authors: Gyubin Hwang, Global Coordinator, Children and Youth Major Group to UNEP Jan Morrill, Tailings Campaign Manager, Earthworks Jodi-Ann Wang, Policy Analyst, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and Environment, London School of Economics Yblin Roman Escobar, Facilitator, Securing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Green Economy Coalition (SIRGE) Introduction Global demand for minerals and metals is accelerating, driven by population growth, economic development, and the clean energy transition. The potential environmental and social risks posed by the mining sector is thus an increasingly important component of global discussions on the energy transition. In Nairobi at the Sixth Session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-6), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and Member States were tasked with analysing and addressing these challenges. UNEA-6 adopted Resolution 6/8 on the environmental aspects of minerals and metals that aims to follow up from two preceding resolutions: 4/19 on mineral resource governance and 5/12 on the environmental aspects of minerals and metals management. Regrettably, this resolution failed to take the essential steps to address risks posed by mining and lost much of the policy momentum UNEP had built in the lead up to UNEA-6, to the disappointment of many stakeholder and rights holders groups. In this article, we discuss the factors that have contributed to the lacklustre nature of the final text and suggest steps that can be taken to improve environmental governance in the extractive sector. Background Resolution 5/12 requested that UNEP “convene transparent and inclusive intergovernmental regional consultations, … to feed into a global intergovernmental meeting, with the aim of developing non-prescriptive proposals to enhance the environmental sustainability of minerals and metals along their full life cycle.” The Global Intergovernmental Meeting, held on the 7th and 8th of September 2023, hosted a series of discussions on the non-prescriptive proposals (NPPs) that had been previously identified through regional consultations. The Co-Chairs’ Summary, as the outcome document of the Intergovernmental Meeting, identified the following key NPPs with broad policy support: Global collection and assessment of existing standards and certification schemes in the mining sector; Capacity building and technical assistance, among others, to improve the management of mining and tailings; The connection of mining governance directly with circular economy, sustainable consumption, and production; and The creation of an open-ended working group/technical group to follow up on and further develop NPPs. The consultations signalled that the “mining sector suffers from a legitimacy crisis” and highlighted social and environmental best practices that could begin to address this trust gap. These best practices include ensuring Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for operations on Indigenous Peoples’ territories, addressing health risks posed by mining, increased transparency and access to information, and the precautionary principle with regards to deep-sea mining, among others. Building on this momentum, Switzerland and Senegal submitted a robust draft resolution for UNEA-6 that outlined a clear way forward in operationalising the outcomes of the 5/12 process. Expectations vs. Reality - What happened at UNEA? Despite this general sentiment of support for continued action during the prior consultation processes, delegates remained deeply divided over the course of the negotiations established during the meetings of the Open-Ended Committee of Permanent Representatives (OECPR) and subsequently during UNEA-6. At the closing of the OECPR on the 23rd of February, not a single paragraph had been agreed upon after an entire week of sessions dedicated to reviewing and revising the draft text of the resolution. Delegates were fundamentally far apart on whether and how to build on the outcomes of the previous resolution, 5/12, and how proposed processes could adequately engage states without infringing on sovereignty or legal mandates of other organisations. In addition, geopolitical concerns were on clear display in this cluster of resolutions, which also saw debate on Ukraine’s resolution on environmental assistance and recovery in areas affected by armed conflict. Some key issues included: Scope of the proposed global study Despite the fact that many member states had agreed during the 5/12 consultations that a global study of existing instruments would be of fundamental importance in assessing potential future steps, efforts by some member states at UNEA-6 to dilute the language ultimately succeeded. Rather than a landscape review or analysis which would allow UNEP discretion to provide additional details or analysis, the final language, initially proposed by the delegation from the United States, calls for a “digital knowledge hub to compile… existing good practices.”  This mandate is significantly weaker and would essentially create a website or list of documents instead of a comprehensive analysis of the environmental impacts of mining. Remit of the open-ended expert group (OEEG) Delegates were unconvinced about the need for an expert group and how this proposal would meaningfully drive further development of the NPPs identified through the 5/12 process. Many countries felt that the remit of the OEEG was duplicative of the 5/12 process but simultaneously considered the discussion of “implementation” a step too far. Other member states attempted to narrow the scope of the expert group to an “ad hoc technical group,” a development that was challenged by the co-proponents and co-sponsors. Later attempts to come to an agreement on language resulted in a dilution to a “digital knowledge hub” for information sharing, rather than knowledge creation (see table below for more details). UNEP’s mandate to deal with deep sea mining The discussion around the operative paragraph on deep sea mining/seabed mining proved contentious as expected, with objections largely pointing out potential overlaps with the mandate of the International Seabed Authority (ISA). While the ISA has an exclusive mandate in the field of deep sea mining in “the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction,” the Secretariat Technical Note highlighted that “there are opportunities for synergies with the UNEP mandate.” Delegates recommended that the question of deep sea mining be considered in the draft resolution on oceans, but this language was removed from the final resolution 6/18 on strengthening ocean efforts to tackle climate change, marine biodiversity loss and pollution. After an initial week of negotiations with next to no progress during the OECPR, discussions ran into the weekend with little forward movement. Delegates were mired in frustrating procedural debates over which text to work from and non-substantive alternative language proposals. As delegates ran out of time towards the closing of the Committee of the Whole on the 28th, they came to an agreement at a closed door unofficial discussion that resulted in a deeply stripped-down text. Stakeholder groups like Children and Youth and NGOs were not allowed in these final discussions, and the rationale behind the changes to the text is not public knowledge. Overview of key changes and omissions Looking ahead Member States did not meet the challenges of mineral governance with the urgency the world needs to truly ensure a clean, just, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels. Instead, they posed procedural roadblocks, stripped away the strongest provisions, and finally settled on a text that does not propose meaningful outcomes. However, mining impacted communities, Indigenous Peoples, workers, and civil society, including Children and Youth, have been working to identify a path forward for the mining industry that promotes intergenerational equity, respect for human rights and Indigenous Peoples’ sovereignty, and responsible environmental stewardship. This path will be dependent on reducing the demand for primary raw materials, reducing material intensity and improving material efficiency, and adopting circular economy approaches. A value chain approach must account for water pollution, land degradation, and ecological destruction at a systemic, holistic level. These issues were raised in the International Resource Panel’s 2024 Global Resources Outlook, launched at UNEA-6 amidst ongoing negotiations. The report raises important points regarding the rising trends in global resource consumption and demand, and the need for balanced policy solutions with a stronger demand-side focus. It also highlights the course correction needed to ensure resource efficiency and sufficiency without transgressing planetary boundaries - built environment, mobility, food, and energy represent 90% of the global material demand. Echoing the positions raised by stakeholders during UNEA6 negotiations, the report underscores that a systemic shift is needed to safeguard the future material reality of the planet and the finite resources available for planetary well-being. UNEP was established to monitor the state of the environment and inform environmental policymaking with scientific evidence. In this regard, it is clear that UNEP has a strong mandate to convene multi-stakeholder dialogues, strengthen capacities, and encourage global coordination on addressing environmental challenges in the mining sector. Despite the disappointing lack of ambition in the newly adopted resolution, UNEP will continue to play a leading role in initiatives such as the UN Secretary General’s Working Group on Transforming Extractive Industries for Sustainable Development and the UN Framework on Just Transitions for Critical Energy Transition Minerals. Further Reading Discussions on best practices in the mining sector can already be found in reports like Securing Indigenous Peoples' Right To Self-Determination: A Guide On Free, Prior And Informed Consent, Safety First:Guidelines for Responsible Mine Tailings Management, and Reducing New Mining for Electric Vehicle Battery Metals: Responsible sourcing through demand reduction strategies and recycling. Note: The views and opinions expressed in this document are solely those of the authors and may not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of their respective employers or any other affiliated organizations. The content provided is for informational purposes only and has been prepared from the authors' own research and personal experiences as of the date of publication.