UNEA-7 unfolded under intense pressure. Fifteen draft resolutions were under negotiation, alongside UNEP’s Midterm Strategy and Programme of Work for the next four years, ultimately the most consequential outcome of the assembly. Negotiations stretched late into the night. Resolutions were debated line by line. Journalists witnessed first-hand how global consensus is built and how fragile it can be.
They reported on resolutions addressing glaciers, coral reefs and wildfires, at a time when drought and extreme heat are raging across continents. They followed debates on plastics, critical minerals, artificial intelligence, and water governance. And finally, they covered the adoption of UNEP’s Midterm Strategy, a rare moment of unity that officials described as “multilateralism in action.”Crucially, they also reported on what was missing: timelines, accountability mechanisms, and the gap between scientific clarity and political delivery.
From science to stories that travel
The launch of GEO-7 during UNEA-7 highlighted why journalism matters so deeply in these spaces. Based on work conducted by 287 scientists from 82 countries, the report leaves no doubt: the triple planetary crisis is accelerating, but solutions exist and they make economic sense.
Yet science alone does not drive action.
At UNEA-7, misinformation emerged as a central concern. Environmental agreements fail when false narratives spread faster than facts. Supporting journalists is therefore important to make sure environmental governance is covered correctly.
Through their reporting, the UNEA-7 fellows reached audiences far beyond Nairobi, translating technical negotiations into human stories about risk, responsibility, and opportunity. Their work asked difficult questions: Who benefits from delay? Who pays the price for ambiguity? And who controls the narrative of transition?