Developed Countries Urged to Lead Funding of UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme - UNEP.

Delhi, 18 Sept. (Radhika Chatterjee): Developing countries emphasised the need for developed countries to take the lead in funding the work of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), at the 12th Annual Sub Committee Meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives (CPR).

Held in Nairobi and online from September 1– 5, 2025, this meeting was presided over by CPR bureau Chair Sultan Hajiyev, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to UNEP.

Member States had a heavy agenda during these five days over which they discussed UNEP’s programme performance, its funding base, management and administration, its medium term strategy (MTS) for the period 2026-29 and budget for 2026-27, among other things. In the preparations for seventh session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-7). Some countries also announced their intention to submit draft resolutions for UNEA-7, details of which are available here.

[UNEA-7 is scheduled for 8 – 12th Dec, 2025 at Nairobi, Kenya. The deadline for submitting draft resolutions is Sept. 29, 2025. The procedure for submitting draft resolutions are available here.]

During the consideration of the funding base of UNEP, developing countries led by the Group of 77 (G77) and China stressed the “leading role of developed countries” in providing funding to UNEP for all its actions. The African Group also encouraged all Member States to honour their contribution to UNEP. Indonesia highlighted the guiding principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR- RC) and stressed the need for “predictable, sufficient and equitable funding”.

Developed countries on other hand, led by the European Union [EU] emphasized on expanding the contributor base and for leveraging finance from international financial institutions (IFIs), multilateral development banks (MDBs), and the private sector. Germany encouraged Member States who are in a position to do so, to contribute to the funding base of UNEP.

Highlights of discussion on the funding base

Kenya for the G-77 and China, emphasized “the leading role of developed countries and their commitments in providing sources of finance and funding for UNEP actions and to support its regional offices.” It noted “with concern the ongoing difficult global financial environment, in addition to the severe funding shortfalls that the broader UN system is facing and its effect on the work of UNEP and looks forward to the speedy resolution of the ongoing financing situation… [and recognized] that diversifying UNEP sources of funding is more critical than ever.” It asked developed countries to take the lead in the funding, particularly in the environment and for non-earmarked funds.

Mozambique for the African Group expressed its appreciation to the Member States “that have increased their voluntary contributions, both to the Environment Fund budget and to the Environment Fund itself.” Acknowledging UNEP’s financial constraints, the Group encouraged “all Member States to honour and, where possible, increase their contribution.”  [The Environment Fund is UNEP’s core fund, established in 1973  and receives contributions from UNEP’s Member States.]

Developing countries like Iran, Kenya, Uganda, and Rawanda aligned with the G77 and China and the African Group.

Saudi Arabia encouraged UNEP “to ensure that part of the overall budget for the midterm strategy, 2026-2029, is directed toward combating land degradation drought, while continuing to advance UNEP’s important fusion-oriented agenda.” It asked the criteria UNEP used for funding allocation, and also wanted to know how UNEP prioritises the allocation of funding if there is a shortage in funding.

Indonesia noted that the “core and other flexible funding represent only around 16% of total income [of UNEP], well below the UN funding compact target of 30%. Enhancing this flexibility would allow UNEP to respond more effectively to emerging environmental priorities, particularly in developing countries. Guided by the principle of CBDR-RC, Indonesia underscores the need for predictable, sufficient and equitable funding to advance the MTS 2026-2029. Strengthening core funding is critical to support capacity building, technology transfer and practical initiatives enabling all nations to meet their environmental obligation.” It also appreciated UNEP’s efforts “to diversify its funding base through mechanisms such as Planetary Funds and softly earmarked contribution.” It encouraged “continued dialogue to ensure these tools are inclusive, transparent and responsive to the needs of developing countries.” It also “proposed building partnership with the regional financial institutions to co-finance UNEP’s programmes tailored to local context, establishing a clear framework for softly earmarked contribution to preserve flexibility while accommodating donor interests, enhancing transparency in resource allocation and reporting, to strengthen confidence and incentivise greater voluntary funding, exploring innovative financing to complement traditional sources.”

[Planetary Funds are a flexible pooled funding mechanism of UNEP where it can receive funds from all partners and donors. UNEP has three Planetary Funds: Climate Fund, Nature Fund, and Pollution Fund. These were launched in 2022. Softly earmarked funding refers to flexible funding provided to UNEP. It is a type of corporate funding that is provided usually at the sub-programme level.]

Chile referred to UNEP’s presentation on the current financial landscape and asked  if “the private sector contribution is US$ 1.1 million, which means actually 0% [as per UNEP’s presentation], and the foundations and NGOs [contribution to UNEP’s funding] is 1%…what’s the strategy of UNEP regarding outreach to the private sector and to the foundations and NGOs? It seems that funding from Member States could decrease in the near future.” Adding further, it said, given that some of the other sources of UNEP’s funding are UN bodies like the Green Climate Fund [GCF], Global Environment Facility [GEF], “which are also funded by Member States. So at the end, even though it’s separated, it comes from the same pockets.”

Mozambique suggested that UNEP’s “efforts in supporting developing countries through the development of legal frameworks on these and other matters… should be complemented by additional mechanisms to strengthen law enforcement. In our view, some of our countries already have reasonable national legal frameworks, but the lack of robust institutional mechanism to ensure the implementation remains a major challenge.”

The EU welcomed the progress made on resource mobilisation. Calling the updated  resource mobilisation strategy “a key step to mitigating the risks posed by the global decline in Official Development Assistance (ODA)” it requested the secretariat to present to Member States at the earliest the strategy document. It emphasised “predictable and flexible funding for UNEP, particularly through the Environment Fund” calling it “essential to the organization”. It said the updated strategy should learn from “lessons” and “practices from other UN agencies to identify options to further expand the donor base to non-state actors, including the private sector and philanthropy foundations and address potential barriers for such contributions.”

Adding further, it said, “Options to leverage funding from the financial sector, including IFIs, and MDBs and address also potential barriers to leverage such investments. Broadening UNEP’s funding base cannot really rely only on the Member States, and we have been saying that to UNEP consistently in the past as well.” It said EU’s invitation to widen the funding base is “not to replace Member States contributions, but is about reinforcing, strengthening and diversifying UNEP’s funding foundation.” Highlighting the “liquidity issues that UN is facing”, it asked if UNEP is expecting a bigger cut in its funding share. In this context of reducing trend of global funds it asked how UNEP plans to mitigate risks that may arise due to declining contributions to Green Environment Facility (GEF) and Green Climate Fund (GCF), both of which are key funding sources for UNEP.

France, Sweden, Finland, and Norway shared positions similar to that of the EU.

Canada said “we fully understand that predictable funding is essential to support UNEP’s important work at a time when multilateral action is needed more than ever to address environmental crisis.” It encouraged “Member States in a capacity to do so to commit to multi-year pledges to support UNEP work.” It said  “we’re concerned about the high reliance on the top 15 contributors. It is critical to encourage a wider and steady contribution from a diverse set of members, as well as partners.” It asked for reasons due to which “Member States could not contribute to the Environment Fund.”

Germany said “we believe it is ever more vital that we engage in frank conversations about the funding situation of UNEP” especially in the current geopolitical situation  whose “repercussions… continue to shape the multilateral system. While the long-term trend of the Environment Fund is positive, we cannot ignore the realities of limited financial resources. The times are seemingly changing from a traditional donor’s perspective as well as globally.” It encouraged Member States that “are in a position to do so…to join the Environment Fund… to further help UNEP to diversify the resource base.”

Portugal encouraged UNEP to include “a clarification of the roles and responsibilities to promote a more coherent and consistent approach to current and potential funding partners” in its updated resource mobilisation strategy. It asked for the development of a framework that takes into account not just financial inputs but also “the diversification of sources” and “flexibility of those”. On contributions from the private sector and philanthropies, it said they “don’t have to contribute directly to UNEP, but they can with the use of public resources be a source of partnerships to leverage more funding.”

Netherlands asked UNEP “what is exactly the scope” of the updated resource mobilisation strategy going to be. It asked for the inclusion of the “broader set of funding resources” that UNEP relies on in addition to the Environment Fund in the updated strategy. It asked UNEP what it considered would “be the next steps and how they will be… placed in the context” of the strategy. Referring to UNEP’s “comprehensive exercise to develop an institutional strategy framework and policies for outreach to philanthropies” it asked if UNEP has had any outcomes on that and how that would translate into the resource mobilisation strategy. Adding further, it said, “we also noted that you intend to strengthen the business case for UNEP as a partner of choice in your revised mobilization strategy to implement a forthcoming medium term strategy… what do you think is the business case for UNEP, in particular also in the context of the discussions that are taking place of UNEP. Furthermore you indicated that you will work towards creating an enabling environment for partners to provide funding. So what would that enabling environment look like and what are the type of actions you are considering and which actors so to speak in this broader financial landscape does it speak to.” Finally, it asked how UNEP plans to be “more strategic about earmarked funding.”

Member States are scheduled to consider draft decision text relating to the management of trust funds and earmarked contributions at the meeting of CPR’s sub committee to be held on September 18, 2025 in hybrid mode. – Third World Network