WSIS Action Line C7 E-environment

WSIS 2026 Forum Session on Action Line C7: Co-Designing the Environmental Dimensions of Digital Transformation

#

Opening and Session Overview

The session was convened as part of the WSIS 2026 Forum under Action Line C7 on e-environment, jointly organised by ITU, UNEP, and WMO . Moderated by Ms. Maritza Delgado, Programme Officer at the Climate Change and Emergency Telecommunications Division of ITU's Telecommunication Development Sector , the discussion was structured around three interconnected priority areas: governance and policy approaches for measuring and managing the environmental impacts of ICTs; greening the digital ecosystem through e-waste management and circular economy approaches; and the role of digital technologies and resilient communication systems in disaster risk reduction and early warning . The overarching aim was to identify practical solutions, strengthen partnerships, and advance a shared vision for environmental sustainability in the context of digital transformation .

#

Welcome Remarks: The Dual Nature of Digital Transformation

Ms. Magda Biesiada, Senior Programme Management Officer and Global Subprogramme Coordinator for Digital Transformation at UNEP, delivered welcome remarks on behalf of her organisation . She opened by acknowledging the transformative power of digital technologies, noting that they are changing how societies communicate, work, make decisions, and respond to complex global challenges . For the environment specifically, she highlighted that digital tools help monitor climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution; improve access to environmental data; support early warning systems; and strengthen disaster preparedness .

However, Ms. Biesiada was equally emphatic about the environmental costs of digitalisation. She noted that data centres, networks, connected devices, and artificial intelligence all require energy, materials, and infrastructure, and that they contribute to emissions, generate electronic waste, and place growing pressure on natural resources . This dual reality led her to articulate what became the session's central conceptual framing: that digital technologies are simultaneously part of the environmental challenge and part of the solution . She concluded that environmental dimensions of digital transformation can no longer be treated as secondary concerns, but must be integrated into digital policy, environmental governance, and sustainable development planning from the outset . Addressing this challenge, she argued, would require collaboration across governments, regulators, UN entities, industry, academia, and civil society, with no single institution or government able to act alone .

#

Topic One: Governance and Policy for Measuring ICT Environmental Impacts

##

ITU's Contribution

Ms. Delgado, stepping out of her moderator role to present on behalf of ITU, set the context for the first thematic area by noting that while digital technologies can support climate action and sustainable development through improved climate monitoring, resource management, and service delivery, the growing environmental footprint of the digital sector - encompassing energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and resource use - highlights the urgent need for reliable data, common methodologies, and informed policies . She outlined two principal ways in which ITU's division is contributing to this agenda.

The first is through the assessment of the environmental performance of the digital industry. In partnership with the World Benchmarking Alliance, ITU publishes the annual Greening Digital Companies Report, which reviews the emissions, energy use, and climate commitments of 200 leading technology companies . The latest edition was released during World Environment Day and feeds into the Greening Digital Dashboard, which provides open data to track progress and is intended to lay the foundation for a future global ICT emissions database . The second contribution involves helping countries strengthen national reporting by supporting regulators in collecting and harmonising environmental data, building technical capacity, and developing internationally agreed indicators through the Expert Group on Telecommunication and ICT Indicators . Working with the World Bank, ITU has also published an analysis of ICT-related emissions and electricity consumption in the world's 30 highest-emitting countries, alongside a case study on France's regulator RCEP .

##

RCEP's Regulatory Model

Ms. Loïs Ponce, Policy Officer at the Market Observatory Unit of RCEP , elaborated on France's experience as a practical model for data-driven environmental regulation. She argued that the most effective starting point for integrating environmental considerations into digital policy is to improve knowledge, and that this requires reliable, comparable, and transparent data on the environmental footprint of the digital sector . Observing that such data were largely absent, RCEP launched its first environmental data collection from telecom operators in 2020, with the objective of publishing an annual survey gathering environmental indicators across the digital ecosystem .

RCEP's legal mandate was subsequently expanded in late 2021, giving it the power to collect environmental data from a large number of players across the entire digital value chain . A further extension of powers followed in 2024 . As a result, the scope of RCEP's annual survey - titled 'Achieving Digital Sustainability' - has progressively expanded from telecom operators to device manufacturers, data centre operators, and network equipment manufacturers, with cloud service providers and providers of generative AI services to be added in future iterations . The objective is to publish environmental indicators that support what RCEP terms 'data-driven regulation', by raising awareness, identifying where action should be prioritised, and monitoring progress over time .

Ms. Ponce described RCEP's methodology as collaborative and gradual: stakeholders are involved from the very early stages to identify relevant indicators, every annual data collection is formalised through a regulatory decision adopted after public consultation, and the scope has been expanded incrementally rather than all at once . She drew three key lessons from this experience: that a collaborative and incremental approach is essential; that collecting environmental data requires specific expertise beyond traditional statistical monitoring; and that a clear legal mandate is needed to ensure consistency in reporting and a high level of compliance . She also noted that RCEP's environmental work is embedded within its broader Ambition 2030 strategy, which identifies environmental issues as a key priority in digital regulation, with objectives both to improve knowledge of environmental impacts and to take action to reduce them . In late May, RCEP published a dedicated report on the environmental impacts of AI, setting out recommendations across four key areas, though the transcript enumerates three of these explicitly: improving measurement, promoting the eco-design of AI services, and supporting the sustainable development of data centres . Ms. Ponce concluded that better measurement is the foundation and starting point for more sustainable digital regulation .

##

UNEP's Perspective on AI Environmental Risks

Ms. Irene Mwoga, Regional Digital Transformation Coordinator for Africa at UNEP , addressed the environmental risks associated with accelerating AI deployment. She framed AI as presenting two sides of the same coin: enormous potential to accelerate environmental action across climate monitoring, biodiversity tracking, disaster risk reduction, and resource efficiency, alongside significant and growing environmental risks that demand urgent attention .

She identified four principal risk areas requiring policymaker attention. The first is the rapidly growing demand for energy and water: research shows that data centres consume large amounts of electricity annually, and various studies project that if current trends continue, water and electricity demand from this sector could double by 2030 . The second is material consumption, including the growing demand for critical minerals driven by digital infrastructure expansion, as well as the contribution of digital devices to e-waste, estimated to reach 2.5 million by 2030 if current trends continue . The third risk area, which she described as frequently overlooked, concerns evidence and transparency: the lack of consistent evidence and reporting frameworks means that it is impossible to obtain a clear picture of what actions are needed, invoking the principle that 'what you cannot measure, you cannot control' . She called on all stakeholders to come together to develop common methodologies, metrics, and reporting frameworks to enable the private sector and other relevant actors to monitor and mitigate AI's environmental footprint . The fourth risk area is inclusion: as AI systems are designed, planned, deployed, and trained, it is essential to include all stakeholders and all countries - developed and developing alike - as well as major groups and civil society, given that countries are adopting AI with very different needs and capacities, with some lacking infrastructure, energy access, governance policies, and technical capacity .

Ms. Mwoga noted that these risks had been insufficiently addressed until the United Nations Environment Assembly Session 7, at which Member States adopted a resolution requesting UNEP to work with stakeholders and partners to understand the environmental sustainability of AI, with the principal asks being to strengthen the global evidence base on both opportunities and risks, and to facilitate knowledge exchange and sharing of scalable use cases . She concluded with a call for responsible and cautious use of AI to ensure that it benefits both people and the planet, rather than calling for a halt to its deployment .

#

Topic Two: Greening the Digital Ecosystem and E-Waste Management

Ms. Noémie Pralat, Associate to the Circular Economy Programme at ITU's Climate Change and Emergency Telecommunications Division, addressed the challenge of electronic waste and circular economy frameworks . She drew on ITU's Creating a Circular Economy for Electronics programme, which has been supporting regulators, governments, and industry stakeholders in more than 23 countries since 2018 to develop e-waste policy, regulation, and implementation mechanisms .

She outlined four key components of an effective national e-waste management framework. The first is accurate data, grounding her argument in the principle that 'you cannot manage what you cannot measure' . An effective framework requires reliable information on the quantities of e-waste generated, collection and recycling rates, material recovery performance, and other indicators . She noted that e-waste remains the fastest-growing waste stream globally, with billions of dollars' worth of valuable materials - including copper, gold, iron, and rare earth elements - embedded within it, yet much of this waste continues to flow outside formal collection and recycling channels . ITU's global and national e-waste monitors provide comparable data on these trends, with a new edition of the Global E-Waste Monitor to be released the following year .

The second component is clear legal and regulatory frameworks. Ms. Pralat presented compelling empirical evidence: in countries where e-waste legislation exists, the average collection and recycling rate is approximately 25%, whereas in countries without such frameworks, collection rates remain closer to zero . Without a clear regulatory framework, she argued, e-waste management efforts tend to stall and remain fragmented . The third component is fair and sustainable financing through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which she described as one of the most effective policy tools available . Under EPR, producers and importers of electronic and electrical equipment bear financial responsibility for supporting the collection, treatment, and recycling of products at end of life . When designed effectively, EPR goes beyond financing waste management to create incentives for increased repairability, longer product lifespans, and greater resource efficiency, and serves as a powerful platform for collaboration between the private and public sectors . The fourth component is strong administrative arrangements: legislation alone is insufficient without documented procedures, clearly defined institutional responsibilities, and practical systems for tracking information, material flows, and financing .

Ms. Pralat also addressed the role of regulators in encouraging participation from industry, consumers, and local stakeholders. She argued that regulators should be understood not merely as enforcement bodies but as facilitators, conveners, and ecosystem builders , noting that businesses are far more willing to invest in compliance systems and take-back programmes when there is a clear and transparent regulatory environment . She cited innovative examples from Zambia, where ITU supported the development of an ICT sector-led EPR approach through a voluntary partnership between the regulator and the ICT Association , as well as from Rwanda and Paraguay . She also directed regulators and policymakers to ITU's latest toolkit on circular economy and the programme webpage as practical resources. She concluded by noting that regulators can stimulate circular business models by supporting repair and refurbishment initiatives, encouraging secondary markets, and promoting sustainable public procurement .

#

Topic Three: ICTs for Disaster Risk Reduction and Early Warning Systems

##

WMO's WIS 2.0 System

Dr. Enrico Fucile, Chief of the WMO Information Systems Section at the World Meteorological Organization, explained the foundational logic of WMO's approach to early warning systems by working backwards through the chain from warning to forecast to observation . He emphasised that generating an accurate forecast requires millions of observations per day, and that this in turn requires the willingness to share observations and a system capable of sharing them in real time globally . If any part of this chain is not functioning, the forecast will be inaccurate, the warning will not reach populations on time, or will not be precise enough to be actionable .

A critical milestone in enabling this chain was the WMO Unified Data Policy, adopted by all WMO members in 2021, under which they agreed to share data globally on a free and restricted basis . Building on this normative foundation, WMO developed the WIS 2.0 - the WMO Information System 2.0 - to replace the previous data-sharing system, which had been in operation since the 1970s and required modernisation . As an editorial synthesis of Dr. Fucile's presentation, WIS 2.0 rests on three interconnected elements: open data, in accordance with the unified data policy; open standards, enabling interoperability across very different national systems and vendors; and open-source software, to support broad participation . The global infrastructure is currently supported by 11 countries - the United States, China, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom - which run the system despite having very different technical environments, made possible precisely because of the open standards architecture . A strong capacity development programme and the provision of open-source software enabled broader participation, and as of early 2025, when the system became operational, more than 90 countries are sharing data in real time . Dr. Fucile summarised the achievement as a demonstration that open data, open standards, and open-source software can together make a genuinely global data-sharing system a reality in support of early warning systems .

##

ITU's Role in Warning Dissemination and Enabling Environments

Ms. Delgado provided complementary inputs on ITU's work in supporting countries to use ICTs for disaster risk reduction, making a point of emphasis that technologies alone are not enough . She argued that every technology must be supported by an enabling environment comprising clear roles and responsibilities, effective coordination mechanisms, standard operating procedures, institutional capacities, and robust policy, legal, and regulatory frameworks - without which no technology or programme can advance on the ground . In this context, she highlighted ITU's support for countries in developing national emergency telecommunications plans, which address how ICTs and digital technologies should be integrated into disaster risk reduction and early warning systems . Spectrum management and the clear allocation of roles and responsibilities within national plans are essential prerequisites for advancing the use of ICTs in disaster preparedness .

ITU leads Pillar 3 of the Early Warning for All initiative, which focuses on warning dissemination and communication . Within this framework, ITU is supporting countries in implementing cell broadcast technology - similar to an SMS, it uses a separate channel of mobile networks that does not congest the network, ensuring that alerts reach recipients even during emergencies - as well as the Common Alerting Protocol, which enables any technology to be used for alert dissemination .

#

Cross-Cutting Themes and Areas of Consensus

Across all three thematic areas, a number of cross-cutting themes emerged with remarkable consistency. The principle that reliable, comparable, and transparent data is the indispensable foundation for effective environmental governance was articulated independently by every speaker. Ms. Biesiada called for evidence-based policies ; Ms. Ponce stated that 'better measurement is the foundation, the starting point for more sustainable digital regulation' ; Ms. Mwoga invoked the principle that 'what you cannot measure, you cannot control' ; Ms. Pralat stated that 'you cannot manage what you cannot measure' ; and Dr. Fucile's entire WIS 2.0 system is premised on the need for millions of real-time observations to generate accurate forecasts . This convergence across three distinct policy domains reflects a deep, shared commitment to evidence-based governance.

Similarly, all speakers agreed that clear legal and regulatory frameworks are prerequisites for effective environmental governance. Ms. Ponce demonstrated this through RCEP's experience of expanding its legal mandate ; Ms. Pralat provided empirical evidence that countries with e-waste legislation achieve on average a 25% collection and recycling rate compared to near zero without such frameworks ; and Ms. Delgado emphasised that an enabling environment with robust policy, legal, and regulatory frameworks is a prerequisite for any technology to function effectively . The necessity of multi-stakeholder collaboration was equally consistent across all contributions, with Ms. Biesiada stating explicitly that no single institution or government can address these challenges alone , and other speakers reinforcing this through examples of public-private partnerships, collaborative regulatory processes, and community-of-practice approaches . Dr. Fucile's WIS 2.0 discussion further illustrated the value of international data-sharing agreements as a foundation for global cooperation .

#

Tensions and Divergences

The session also implicitly surfaced some differences in emphasis and approach that are worth noting as editorial observations. A tension emerged between Ms. Ponce's advocacy for a deliberate, incremental regulatory approach - starting with a limited number of indicators and actors and progressively expanding scope - and Ms. Mwoga's sense of urgency, warning that data centre energy and water demand could double by 2030 if current trends continue and that risks had been 'left on the side way' . While both agreed that better data is needed, they differed in the implied pace and manner of building governance frameworks.

A related divergence appeared between Ms. Ponce's emphasis on mandatory legal mandates as essential for ensuring consistency and compliance , and Ms. Pralat's highlighting of the Zambia voluntary EPR pilot as an innovative and pragmatic interim model . This reflects a broader tension between mandatory regulatory frameworks and voluntary, collaborative compliance mechanisms - a tension with direct implications for the effectiveness of e-waste and environmental reporting frameworks, given Ms. Pralat's own empirical evidence that countries without mandatory legislation achieve near-zero collection rates . Additionally, when addressing AI governance, Ms. Ponce focused primarily on technical and regulatory solutions such as improved measurement and eco-design , while Ms. Mwoga placed greater emphasis on equity and inclusion, noting that developing countries with different capacities and infrastructure must be central to the design and deployment conversation .

#

Unresolved Issues and Areas for Further Action

The session identified several significant unresolved issues. The specific methodologies, metrics, and reporting frameworks needed to consistently measure and monitor the environmental footprint of AI systems have not yet been agreed upon globally, and the lack of consistent evidence and transparency in this area remains an open challenge . The question of how to ensure that developing countries can participate equitably in the design, deployment, and governance of AI and digital technologies was raised but not fully resolved . The session also did not address in detail how to coordinate the various national and international environmental data collection efforts into a coherent global ICT emissions database, though ITU's Greening Digital Dashboard was noted as a step in this direction .

Several concrete action items and commitments were nonetheless identified. ITU committed to continuing publication of the Greening Digital Companies Report and supporting national regulators through the Expert Group on Telecommunication and ICT Indicators . RCEP indicated it would further expand its annual environmental data collection to include cloud service providers and generative AI service providers . UNEP, following its UNEA-7 mandate, will work with stakeholders to strengthen the global evidence base on AI's environmental sustainability and facilitate knowledge exchange . WMO will continue operating and expanding WIS 2.0, which became operational at the beginning of 2025 . ITU's Creating a Circular Economy for Electronics programme will continue supporting regulators in more than 23 countries, including through the voluntary EPR pilot in Zambia . A new edition of the Global E-Waste Monitor with updated data is also planned for release the following year .

#

Closing Remarks

Ms. Delgado closed the session by thanking all panellists and participants, noting that the discussion had reinforced the need to address digital transformation and environmental sustainability together through strong cooperation, evidence-based policies, and practical action on the ground. Due to time constraints, a live question-and-answer session was not possible, but participants were invited to submit questions, with the organising team committing to share a contact email address for follow-up . The session concluded with an invitation to participants to return for the Action Line C7 session on e-environment at the following year's WSIS Forum .