Ocean Biodiversity Treaty’s Preparatory Commission Continues Session, Discusses Subsidiary Bodies and Future Secretariat
The commission tasked with preparing for the entry into force of a new treaty on maritime biodiversity continued its first session today, taking up issues relating to how subsidiary bodies established under that accord will function as well as those pertaining to the functioning and location of its future secretariat.
This gathering, formally known as the “Preparatory Commission for the Entry into Force of the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction and the Convening of the First Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Agreement” — will be held from 14 to 25 April 2025. It will focus on practical issues, addressed in a series of informal working groups involving Member States and stakeholders.
The Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, as it is formally known, was adopted on 19 June 2023. The Preparatory Commission opened its first session on 14 April.
Delegates Discuss Issues Relating to Subsidiary Bodies Established Under Agreement
The first part of today’s deliberations focused on the rules of procedure that would govern the functioning of subsidiary bodies established under the Agreement, as well as the composition of such bodies.
Colombia’s representative, speaking for the Core Latin American Group, said that such rules of procedure should provide legal certainty and clarity to avoid any ambiguities or legal gaps. A lack of clarity, she stressed, leads to the constant adoption of new rules — which, in turn, leads to a breakdown of the integrity and transparency of the guiding framework.
The observer for the High Seas Alliance emphasized that transparency is essential to ensure that the work of subsidiary bodies is trusted. Therefore, if separate rules of procedure are developed, they should incorporate the same transparency rules as those governing the Conference.
China’s delegate voiced support for the creation of independent rules of procedure for each subsidiary body, thus favouring a case-by-case — rather than a one-size-fits-all — approach. He also suggested that the rules of procedure for each subsidiary body be incorporated into a single document, which will ensure such bodies can operate smoothly when the Agreement enters into force.
On composition, the representative of Palau — speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States — called for dedicated seats for such States in subsidiary bodies in recognition of their special circumstances; otherwise, they risk being marginalized. “Our unique vulnerabilities, ecological fragility, limited capacities and disproportionate reliance on ocean resources necessitate specific considerations throughout all subsidiary bodies,” she stressed.
The representative of Bangladesh, similarly, called for the process to ensure adequate representation for developing countries — particularly from least developed countries, small island developing States and landlocked developing countries. Such States, she pointed out, are often underrepresented in technical and scientific bodies, despite being disproportionately affected by ocean-related challenges.
Norway’s delegate echoed calls for ensuring equitable geographical representation, including for small island developing States, developing countries and least developed countries, as well as gender balance. Voicing support for staggered terms for all groups to ensure continuity in each organ, she also welcomed renewable terms — provided there is a cap on the number of terms for each member and that group membership is limited.
Meanwhile, Switzerland’s delegate pointed out that, while limited composition has advantages, “there is a danger that, if States are not represented, they will take on discussions to the Conference of the Parties”. As well, he voiced support for members to be allowed re-election for the retention of knowledge, with terms of appropriate length to allow other delegates and parties to be represented.
The representative of Saint Lucia, speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), noted that, while the Agreement prescribes gender balance among representatives of the various bodies and nominating parties, “in practice we know that it’s not always guaranteed”. The bloc is therefore considering language to affirm minimum representation for women in individual bodies. On cross-cutting issues, she noted that CARICOM supports the nomination of early career ocean professionals across the subsidiary bodies.
Côte d’Ivoire’s delegate, speaking for the African Group, stated that the Scientific and Technical Body must function as an expert advisory body to the Conference of the Parties and be large enough to provide a range of expertise. Suggesting it be comprised of between 15 and 25 members, she added: “We recommend a rotating expert system, which will allow continuity and renewal and help integrate regional centres of excellence and traditional orders of knowledge.” The representative of Gabon added that experts from the realms of both scientific and traditional knowledge should be included.
On that, the observer for the International Indian Treaty Council emphasized that the Agreement should not frame such Indigenous engagement as consultative or observational. Further, references to considering Indigenous knowledge alongside science should not imply that the former is supplementary or lesser. Additionally, he emphasized that all nominations of Indigenous-knowledge holders must go through Indigenous regions, rather than being determined by State parties.
Meanwhile, a speaker for the International Union for Conservation of Nature, recalling her organization’s foundational role in the operationalization of the Agreement, said that the Scientific and Technical Body must be protected from political influence — including in the nomination of experts, formulation of advice and dissemination of outputs. She also called for safeguards to be included in the rules of procedure concerning matters such as conflict of interest, transparent reporting and ensuring the separation of scientific deliberation and political negotiation.
Speakers Also Address Functioning, Seat of Agreement’s Secretariat
In the afternoon, delegates turned to issues concerning the functioning of the Agreement’s secretariat, including its seat.
Iraq’s delegate, speaking for the Group of 77 developing countries and China, said that such secretariat must have the necessary flexibility to fulfil its mandate under the Agreement and obligations arising from any future court decisions, while also ensuring that it complies with high levels of transparency and accountability. Further, the secretariat’s institutional design — including its size, structure and funding — must take into consideration its relationship with the UN system. A comprehensive comparative analysis of existing multilateral secretariats might be required to proceed, he observed.
Along those lines, the representative of Mexico, speaking for the Core Latin American Group, proposed that the interim secretariat prepare a comparative report compiling information on different secretariats in the global multilateral system, including details such as how closely they are bound to the UN, their privileges and immunities and the process to appoint executive secretaries. He also emphasized the need to focus on defining operational parameters, underscoring that States need more elements to make “informed decisions on how to get the secretariat rolling”.
For her part, the representative of Trinidad and Tobago — speaking for the Caribbean Community — called for a bespoke model for the operationalization of Agreement provisions relevant to establishing the secretariat. However, “we do not intend for the Preparatory Commission to begin from scratch”, she said — rather, it should draw from existing models where appropriate. Further, she called for provisions establishing the inviolability of the secretariat’s premises and archives; guaranteeing the immunity of its property, funds and assets; specifying whether it owns or administers them; and providing legal protection for staff undertaking their duties.
Iran’s representative, relatedly, emphasized the obligation of the host State to facilitate the presence and participation of representatives of other States — including granting required visas on an equal basis. “Such matters have been well established under relevant international law and constitute a rudimentary requisite to safeguard and ensure independent exercise of functions of representatives in connection with the Agreement,” she said.
Meanwhile, Uganda’s delegate — speaking for the African Group — voiced strong support for a secretariat with robust institutional linkage to the UN system, while preserving sufficient autonomy to effectively implement the Agreement. He expressed concern about some of the models mentioned — such as that of the International Seabed Authority — due to their relatively weak links to the UN, which raise concerns regarding transparency and accountability. He further urged that selection criteria value geographical distribution with special consideration for developing States, “recognizing the significant burdens that travel and participation can place on our countries and limited resources”.
Iceland’s delegate also stated that the Agreement’s secretariat should have a linkage to the United Nations — similar to the model of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — respecting both the autonomy of the secretariat and of the Agreement while enjoying the efficiency gains that are associated with being a member of the broader UN family. He observed: “Establishing a standalone secretariat as an island would not be in the interest of the Agreement’s central function to be a bridge-builder.”
For her part, the representative of Chile highlighted the active role her country has played — for more than 70 years — in strengthening the law of the sea. This has included the signing of a declaration in Santiago in 1952 that established the principles that “ultimately led to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982”, she observed. “Chile cannot be understood without the ocean, and that’s why we have formally presented our candidacy for the seat [of the secretariat],” she said, underlining that her country wishes to provide the Agreement a “safe harbour in the Pacific”.