- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
The UN Environment Assembly on Friday approved its first-ever resolution to address the environmental aspects of Artificial Intelligence (AI), but it did not include a provision to monitor AI systems across their lifecycle. Experts say this approach is essential to understand AI’s water, power and critical minerals consumption.
The resolution proposed by Kenya aims to harness “the opportunities and benefits of artificial intelligence systems in support of the environment and by minimizing its environmental impacts”.
It also requests the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) to produce a report on the “environmental benefits, risks and impacts of artificial intelligence”.
As negotiations progressed over the week in Nairobi, the draft resolution on AI had called for UNEP’s executive director to explore environmental benefits, risks and impacts of artificial intelligence “systems across their lifecycle”.
However, while governments including Kenya, Norway, Colombia and the European Union supported such wording, annotated draft texts showed that Saudi Arabia, Russia and the United Arab Emirates wanted it to be deleted.
When the final resolution was gavelled on Friday, all trace of the AI lifecycle had been removed from the text. References to AI’s water and energy consumption – which featured in previous draft texts – were also removed.
-
Push for global minerals deal meets opposition, more talks agreed
Colombia’s proposal for the UNEA to set up an expert group to identify options for governing mineral supply chains was rejected by a broad group of states -
As Paris Agreement enters tougher era, new alliances urged to step up
With global consensus over climate action faltering on the accord’s 10th anniversary, experts say “coalitions of the willing” should move faster and with more ambition -
Government attendance at COP30 was lowest in 10 years
With a shortage of affordable accommodation on COP30’s official platform, just 7,500 people attended the summit with official government badges
“We cannot talk about sustainable AI without addressing the full lifecycle, from the traceability of critical minerals, to the water used in data centres, to how much renewable energy is being redirected from developing countries to power AI systems in wealthier regions,” said Faith Munyalo, Kenya’s contact point on AI.
Munyalo said that while the adoption of the resolution is an important first step, UNEA must now move forward in future negotiations to address the “blind spots” and deliver stronger language and clearer commitments on lifecycle accountability.
“Sustainability must be built into AI from extraction to disposal, otherwise we risk repeating the same patterns of inequity seen in earlier technological transitions,” she told Climate Home News.
No direct finance expected
As the negotiations reached mid-way point on Wednesday, the AI resolution was on the brink of collapse, essentially over finance, which Saudi Arabia and Iran insisted should primarily flow from developed to developing countries while the UK and the EU argued funding should come from all sources.
Finally, countries landed on a compromise that avoids any obligation for wealthy nations to directly finance AI capacity in the Global South. All countries instead are encouraged to “enhance partnerships” that can mobilise funding, alongside “increased investment, including from the private sector and philanthropy” in AI that supports sustainable development.
AI is finding greater uses in environmental circles, and in developing countries it is already being deployed, boosting funding needs. For example, Sierra Leone in its new NDC climate plan needs almost $7 million, including from donor countries, to build an AI-based climate and weather forecasting system to improve resilience. Also, in Kenya, AI is helping conservationists monitor forest degradation, launch reforestation and predict carbon storage capacity in new forest areas.
Kenya’s Munyalo said most data centres are concentrated in developed countries while Africa lacks the expertise and finance to develop its own AI data systems. A lack of direct funding promises puts the burden back on developing countries and could undermine environmental projects like these, she added.
AI good or bad for energy transition?
Somya Joshi, research director at the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), said AI has critical impacts both for climate and biodiversity and needs to be designed in ways that don’t “replicate the same mistakes we made before with extractive technology transitions”.
The debate going forward will need to be informed by science and the environmental impacts along the entire AI value chain, she said, including for water, electricity, critical minerals and rare earths to make semi-conductor chips, as well as pollution and what happens to AI systems at the end of their life.
Joshi said there is a need to prevent growing power demand from AI to reinforce dependency on fossil fuels, which would undermine the clean energy transition.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres earlier this year made a call for Big Tech to power all data centres with 100% renewables by 2030.
Data centres accounted for about 1.5% of the world’s electricity consumption in 2024. But this figure is set to more than double by 2030 as tech giants continue to build out the infrastructure needed to support their power-hungry AI technologies.
While renewable energy sources – combined with batteries – are expected to supply half of the additional electricity, increased demand from data centres will be a “significant” driver of growth for fossil gas and coal-fired generation until the end of this decade, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
Geopolitics limit Nairobi results
The resolution on AI was largely seen by observers as a win for the UNEA, which played out in a tense political environment that limited steps forward on a range of key environmental issues.
The US rejected the outcomes, decrying what it called “climate change theatre”, in line with the denial of climate science by the administration of President Donald Trump and his efforts to thwart climate action.
Behind the scenes, oil-rich Saudi Arabia and Türkiye – host of the COP31 climate talks next year – pushed to water down wording on climate change including the science of melting glaciers.
This rejection of well-established evidence elicited strong criticism from small island nations Fiji and Barbados, as well as the European Union and Australia, in the final session of the conference. Speaking at the closing plenary, the EU delegate said the bloc had arrived at UNEA-7 with high hopes for the environment and multilateralism but have to come to terms with the fact that the Assembly could only achieve good results in some resolutions “and less in others”.
There was also disappointment over a weak resolution on mining and transition minerals, which agreed only on further talks around international co-operation instead of setting up an expert group to identify new instruments to make supply chains greener and more transparent as proposed by Colombia and Oman.
However, fears that some member states would use UNEA as an opportunity to reopen the mandate to negotiate a global treaty on plastic pollution did not come to pass, according to Andrés del Castillo, Senior Attortney at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
Talks on a new pact were suspended in August as they were unable to reach agreement with fossil fuel-producing countries blocking proposed caps on plastic production – a major market for petrochemicals. They will resume in February with the election of a new chair.
Del Castillo pointed to the ministerial declaration adopted in Nairobi on Friday, which reaffirms countries’ “shared commitment to engaging constructively and actively, with a sense of urgency and solidarity, to conclude the [plastics] negotiations”.
The post UN adopts first-ever resolution on AI and environment, but omits lifecycle appeared first on Climate Home News.
UN adopts first-ever resolution on AI and environment, but omits lifecycle
Continue Reading
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.
Article 20 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that developed countries “shall provide new and additional financial resources” to developing countries to meet the costs of implementing measures to protect nature.
The text states that other countries – including emerging economies – may “voluntarily assume” these obligations to pay. However, it adds that this list of developed countries “shall” be reviewed periodically and amended “if necessary”.
The list was last amended in 2006.
(See this “jargon buster” which explains the specific meaning and legal weight of various terms and verbs used in UN formal documents.)
Discussions around this fraught subject had reached a dead end at intersessional talks this year, but resurfaced in Yerevan.
The first “non-paper” had four different options for expanding the contributor base. These ranged from using the World Bank’s country income groups “as a proxy” to identify high-income countries, to commissioning a study on the impacts of being included on the list.
By 21 October, the number of options swelled to eight, including two from Saudi Arabia and one from Peru.
Some countries “expressed concern” that certain options were based on a CBD secretariat study on “what constitutes a developed country”, Earth Negotiations Bulletin reported.
By the end of the first week, it was clear that the finance deadlock would have to go into informal ministerial consultations for any consensus to emerge.
At a press conference on 28 October, Christopher O’Sullivan, Ireland’s nature minister and representing the EU delegation, told Carbon Brief:
“Our position isn’t that we want to pull back in terms of contributing…but it’s been 20 years since that list was added to, times have changed and there are new realities. We just simply want those new realities reflected. I don’t fully understand why there’s so much opposition to that.”
The EU chose not to comment on which countries it would like to see on that list.
Lim Li Ching from the Third World Network, meanwhile, called the push for others to “assume the obligations” of developed countries “sheer hypocrisy”, adding that any country could make a voluntary contribution. She told Carbon Brief:
“At a forum like the CBD, this linking of income status with finance does not take into account where historical and current responsibilities lie