When words are contested, journalism matters

At the Seventh United Nations Environment Assembly in Nairobi, the battle was not only over policy, but also over language, trust, and credibility. In that space, eight journalists found clarity, access, and a deeper understanding of how global environmental decisions are made.

UNEA-7 brought together nearly 6,000 delegates from more than 170 countries, including 79 ministers, at a moment when multilateralism is under severe strain. The consequences of climate change are growing exponentially, biodiversity continues to decline, and global emissions are still rising. At the same time, geopolitics, misinformation, and shrinking public budgets are narrowing the space for needed environmental action. This is precisely why GRID-Arendal chose to prioritise journalism at UNEA-7.

For many journalists, UNEA is hard to navigate. Negotiations can happen late at night, language is technical, and access to decision-makers is limited. Yet UNEA is where environmental governance quietly takes shape through resolutions, strategies, and political signals that influence action far beyond Nairobi. One clear example of UNEA’s importance is the decision taken at UNEA 5.2 to mandate negotiations for a new legally binding global treaty to tackle the plastic pollution crisis.

Through GRID-Arendal’s UNEA-7 journalism programme, eight international journalists were embedded in the process. Some were covering a UN negotiation for the first time. Others had years of experience, all a background in environmental journalism, although for the first time covering UNEA.

What united them was access.

The journalists sat down with United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Executive Director Inger Andersen for an open, unscripted interview about the pressures facing multilateralism. They also engaged with UNEP leadership and leading scientists behind UNEP’s flagship Global Environment Outlook 7 (GEO-7).

Finally, the journalists were given the opportunity to engage directly with ministers, negotiators, and organisations such as Earth Negotiations Bulletin, gaining insight into how political trade-offs are made, and why ambition so often collides with caution.

One journalist described the experience simply: “My world expanded by being here.”

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?

GRID-Arendal exists to bridge science, policy, and people. At UNEA-7, the journalism project became a living expression of that mandate.

By connecting journalists with scientists, negotiators, and ministers, we helped ensure that global environmental decision-making did not remain confined to closed rooms and technical language. Instead, it became visible, accountable, and understandable.

In a world where incrementalism no longer matches the pace of change, trust and transparency matter more than ever. Independent, informed journalism strengthens both.

As UNEA-7 closed, one thing was clear: multilateralism still works, but it is under growing pressure. In a strained UN system and a tight global economic context, translating decisions into real-world impact is not straightforward. Still, UNEA resolutions matter, they signal a shared recognition among governments that action is needed and set mandates for how that action should be taken forward, by countries and by UNEP alike. At a moment when words are contested, journalism remains one of the strongest tools we have to make complex negotiations more transparent and accessible beyond those in the room.

Below is a selection of articles from the journalists’ coverage of UNEA-7:

Interview with Inger Andersen: Multilateralism is under strain, but what’s the alternative?

UNEA-7 to debate Mountain Agenda as glacier threats intensify

Funding for protedted areas fell in 2024, threatening global nature target

Women on the move: Climate migration in the Arab region

About the GEO 7 report:

Climate science is not a hoax, do not gamble: Sir Robert Watson’s message to climate blockers.

UN warns of planetary crisis as GEO-7 Report released at UNEA-7