Preparatory Commission for Marine Biodiversity Treaty Takes Up Issues Relating to Meetings, Subsidiary Bodies, Observers
In the third day of its first session, the commission responsible for preparing for the entry into force of a new treaty on maritime biodiversity addressed issues including the location, frequency and format for meetings of the Conference of the Parties to that accord, as well as the procedural rules that will apply to its subsidiary bodies.
The 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”, is being held from 14 to 25 April 2025 in New York. 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, which continued on 15 April.
On Meetings of the Conference of the Parties to the Agreement
On where the Conference of the Parties to the Agreement will be located, Sierra Leone’s delegate — speaking for the African Group — called for the Conference’s regular sessions to be held primarily at the seat of its secretariat or at United Nations Headquarters in New York to ensure accessibility and participation. However, she noted that her delegation values “exploring regional rotational hosting arrangements”.
The representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, supported the possibility of using different locations for meetings to allow for flexibility. To illustrate this, he cited the staggered model of the Minamata Convention on Mercury, which meets annually for the first three years and then every second year. He added that it is important to have some sort of “sunset clause” on the practice of holding annual meetings. Echoing that, the Philippines’ delegate also suggested rotating venues, aligning with the rotation of the presidency, which would allow “for more equitable participation —particularly in terms of travel costs”.
Japan’s representative voiced support for the Agreement’s current phrasing regarding the location of meetings “in a sense”, which contemplates holding them at locations other than UN Headquarters or the seat of the Agreement’s secretariat if the parties decide to do so in exceptional circumstances. On the frequency of those meetings, she expressed support for the representative of Canada’s suggestion to hold them biennially by default. As there will be a huge amount of work in the initial stages, this arrangement will facilitate networking. “For stability and foreseeability, it is better to keep some rules, even though the parties take a staggered approach in reality,” she added.
Meanwhile, Iran’s delegate said that the present phrasing allows for the latitude and flexibility to have meetings elsewhere, adding that this decision can be made by the Conference of the Parties in line with the modalities present in other agreements, such as the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime.
However, Jamaica’s representative — speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) — voiced concern over the proposal to rotate the venue for meetings without any guarantee that the relevant trust fund could defray the cost of participation for developing countries. “Attending meetings outside of New York, for example, can be cost- and resource-prohibitive, which would negatively affect our ability to attend and participate” in Conference meetings, he observed. It could also result in meetings not having the requisite quorum for decision-making.
Other delegates picked up the issue of funding, with the representative of the Federated States of Micronesia — speaking for Pacific small island developing States — stating that, if meetings transitioned to being held biennially, “it would make sense to ‘future-proof’” them by setting up the budget for two years to elect members of the various subsidiary bodies for terms that are divisible by two.
In a similar vein, Singapore’s delegate — speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States — said that funding for small and developing States will need to be considered carefully to enable their attendance. While agreeing with the notion to hold initial meetings at Headquarters and later ones at rotating locations, Sri Lanka’s delegate emphasized that “providing adequate funding for meaningful participation is vital for us”.
Argentina’s delegate, speaking for the Core Latin American Group, approached this issue by questioning the meaning of the Agreement’s use of “ordinarily” in reference to meeting at the seat of its secretariat or at United Nations Headquarters in New York. Specifically, he asked whether it referred to ordinary meetings of the Conference of the Parties, or in the sense of “usually”, which would allow for some flexibility to meet in other venues. “Once we reach an agreement on that, it will be easy to agree on a text regarding the provision that regulates the venue,” he stated.
Turning to the issue of whether the meetings of the Conference of the Parties will feature virtual or hybrid participation, a number of representatives — including from Switzerland and Singapore, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States — remained open to the hybrid format. Iran’s representative, noting that his delegation was looking into this issue, underlined the importance of in-person meetings and cited potential issues with virtual ones — including difficulties involving points of order and requests for votes, as well as inequitable access to online platforms.
China’s delegate, meanwhile, voiced strong support for in-person meetings, while adding that virtual meetings could be held in “extremely special circumstances, such as a global public-health crisis”. Moreover, the work done in virtual meetings should be “limited in scope” with no substantive decisions being made. When voting is conducted online, he said, authenticity, safety and security cannot be ensured. “We all know how powerful hackers can be online,” he added.
Similarly, the representative of Jamaica, speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), called for meetings to be held in person, with a hybrid format employed under “exceptional circumstances only”. However, he said that “voting should be possible” — including virtually — for establishing emergency measures.
On Subsidiary Bodies Established under the Agreement
In the afternoon, speakers returned to their discussion of the rules of procedure that would govern the functioning of subsidiary bodies established under the Agreement and the composition of such bodies.
The representative of Trinidad and Tobago, speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), observed that the rules of procedure for the Scientific and Technical Body resemble those of the legal and technical committee established under the International Seabed Authority. Rules of procedure could be established to enable the Body’s cooperation with relevant international institutions to regulate activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction, possibly through the Agreement’s secretariat. Additional rules — such as a silence procedure — could be established, he said, as some decisions, such as those pertaining to emergency measures, will need to be taken expeditiously.
For her part, Côte d’Ivoire’s delegate, speaking for the African Group, said that experts serving on that Body should possess adequate expertise in biodiversity and marine conservation. She further emphasized the importance of geographical representation — particularly for least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, small island developing States, coastal African States, archipelagic States and developing middle-income countries. She also proposed establishing a standardized, merit-based nomination process for members of subsidiary bodies under the Agreement, ensuring fitness for purpose, integrity and effectiveness.
Colombia’s delegate, speaking for the Core Latin American Group, observed that the functions assigned to the Scientific and Technical Body are “very varied”, as implied by its 49 references in the Agreement. Regarding such functions, the Group is analyzing several applicable models — including the scientific advisory body providing technical advice to the Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Given the technical and complex guidance it will need to provide in order to help implement the Agreement, the Group is considering whether it can be open to all States parties.
On Observer Participation
Another discussion, which bridged the Commission’s morning and afternoon sessions, focused on modalities for the participation of observers in work related to the Agreement.
Among the speakers on this topic was the representative of Nigeria, who said that relevant wording in the Agreement indicates “sufficient flexibility for this particular body to articulate proper modalities for that participation”. However, he underlined the importance of “always” respecting the intergovernmental nature of this process, stressing: “Member States cannot outsource the authority of sovereignty to observers.”
Nevertheless, the observer for the International Indian Treaty Council emphasized that, while Indigenous Peoples’ organizations “fall under the broader umbrella” of non-governmental organizations, their specific rights under international law warrant a more-distinct treatment. The Agreement itself, he noted, affirms their right to self-determination, as well as their status as rights-holders under international law and governance actors with distinct legal systems. He stressed that “this is fundamentally incompatible” with how non-governmental organizations are defined as non-State civil-society organizations.
Building on that, the observer for Greenpeace recalled that, for over 130 years, the Hawaiian people “have been represented by an occupying State, which is not here to represent us today”. Emphasizing that Indigenous People do not need to be represented by States, he called on those present to “earnestly” seek ways to “include Indigenous People throughout the entirety of this treaty”. He added: “It is critically important that there are no barriers to entry to the process for Indigenous People — otherwise, the inequities of past generations will be perpetuated.”