Preparatory Commission for Marine Biodiversity Treaty Continues Consideration of Clearing-House Mechanism, Discusses Upcoming Agenda
The commission charged with preparing for the entry into force of a new treaty on marine biodiversity continued its first session today, with delegates resuming consideration of modalities for the operation of the instrument’s Clearing-House Mechanism and exchanging views on issues to discuss during the body’s second session in August.
The treaty, formally known as 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, was adopted on 19 June 2023. The first session of the Preparatory Commission for the Agreement’s entry into force and for the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the instrument is being held from 14 to 25 April in New York. It focuses on practical issues, addressed in a series of informal working groups involving Member States and other stakeholders. (Coverage of the Commission’s first session to date is available here.)
Before the first session began, the Agreement had 112 signatories, 21 of whom had also ratified the accord. Thailand announced on 17 April that it had become the 113th signatory to the Agreement. It will enter into force 120 days after the date of deposit of the sixtieth instrument of ratification, approval, acceptance or accession thereto. Pursuant to the Agreement, the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties shall be convened by the United Nations Secretary-General no later than one year after the Agreement’s entry into force.
Delegates Continue Discussion of Agreement’s Clearing-House Mechanism
In the morning, the representative of Mexico, speaking for the Core Latin American Group, welcomed broad support for the proposal to establish a pilot phase for the Mechanism and to advance intersessional work through a working group, affirming that the Commission had the mandate to do so. He reiterated the importance of that group being open-ended and composed of State representatives, with the possibility of inviting technical experts and representatives of relevant bodies to its meetings.
However, Norway’s representative advocated for an open-ended and informal advisory group versus a working group, as the latter is more suited to negotiations. The former, on the other hand, could advise the Commission’s Bureau, after which results would be disseminated to Commission members. Meetings of such a group might occur monthly online, with physical meetings depending on resource availability, and the group should have 50 members: 6 from each regional group for broad representation and 20 other stakeholders with expert views and technical backgrounds.
Meanwhile, Singapore’s representative called for a flow-chart, detailing relevant information, to be created ahead of the Commission’s second session “so that we would be able to review it, digest it and give input on it”. He further suggested the preparation of draft terms of reference before the Commission’s second session to facilitate discussion.
Concurring, the representative of Malaysia said this comprehensive flowchart would illustrate the connection between the Mechanism, the Agreement’s secretariat, subsidiary bodies and other pertinent instruments. She further called for the Mechanism to “emphasize the importance of the human element behind the system, as dedicated human resources are crucial for supporting its functions and maintaining technical support”.
Viet Nam’s delegate suggested first developing a road map with clear timelines, milestones, technical benchmarks and governance structures. Moreover, the Mechanism should be designed and operated under the oversight of the Agreement’s secretariat in close collaboration with the UN system, regional and subregional organizations, relevant stakeholders, scientific institutions, technical experts and developing countries’ representatives.
Canada’s representative agreed that a road map would be helpful in identifying how best to undertake a phased approach, further recognizing the need to bring in experts from other organizations who have undertaken this process. Similarly, the representative of New Zealand offered his delegation’s support to developing that road map, and on financing, Australia’s representative suggested voluntary financial contributions to support the design of the Mechanism.
For his part, India’s delegate called for establishing a detailed operational framework that clearly defines the Mechanism’s role and responsibilities related to data-collection, dissemination and user access. This framework should cover key areas such as marine community resources, environmental-impact assessments and capacity-building initiatives. Further, he called for developing a national network of focal points for the Mechanism to enhance its effectiveness, foster national ownership and ensure the relevance of shared information.
Other Matters
Next, Vladimir Jares, Director of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, reported on the trust fund established to assist developing countries in attending Commission meetings. Noting that the fund has an estimated balance of $218,400, he stressed the importance of making contributions well in advance of Commission meetings. “Even small contributions, made regularly by a number of States”, would help sustain the fund, he said. Some delegations, including those of Chile, New Zealand, Norway and the European Union, then noted their contributions to the fund.
Additionally, the representative of France recalled that her country and Costa Rica are organizing the 2025 United Nations Ocean Conference, to be held in Nice in June. On 9 June, there will be a special treaty ceremony organized to allow States who wish to do so to sign or deposit their instruments of ratification for the Agreement. She noted that new signatures and ratifications will contribute to reaching the threshold for the Agreement’s entry into force, representing “a strong political signal of our commitment to the oceans”.
Items for Consideration at Preparatory Commission’s Second Session
In the afternoon, the Commission held a preliminary exchange of views on issues for consideration at its second session, to be held in August. These included: arrangements to enhance cooperation with relevant legal instruments, frameworks and bodies; operationalization of provisions on funding and the Agreement’s financial mechanism; and reporting requirements.
The representative of Barbados, speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), underscored that the Commission’s consideration of cooperation arrangements should promote coherence and coordination with — not undermine —relevant instruments, frameworks or bodies. She also requested clarity on the parties to be involved in such arrangements and on how those arrangements will be facilitated and captured, such as in relevant rules of procedure or terms of reference.
A number of speakers, including the observer for the International Seabed Authority, underscored that sentiment on coherence, with the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, further urging that the Conference of the Parties be well-informed on cooperation and coordination processes facilitated by the Agreement’s secretariat. Emphasizing that cooperation is “at the heart of the [Agreement]”, the representative of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) spotlighted the “evident nexus” between fisheries management — part of FAO’s expertise — and environmental protection. “Cooperation is not an option, but a necessity,” she stressed.
Sierra Leone’s delegate, speaking for the African Group, similarly stated that such cooperation should not be “merely aspirational, but effectively operational”. This means identifying specific mechanisms for institutional coordination, she said, including joint scientific assessment and integrated monitoring systems. Japan’s representative noted that this cooperation is critical to balancing conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity, avoiding confusion as to which set of rules or regulations apply to various activities and ensuring efficient work.
Along those lines,China’s delegate called for comprehensive discussions with a view to avoiding “redundancy of functions or even conflict”. The Agreement’s provisions establish that the treaty “shall not prejudice other international organizations”, she pointed out. The Agreement “should not focus only on how to cooperate and coordinate”, she urged, as it is equally necessary to reflect on “how we can make sure that it will not prejudice the functions of other international organizations”.
The Maldives’ representative suggested consultative meetings as a practical entry point to engage with existing frameworks and institutions, which could serve as a useful first step in identifying willing partners and exploring practical cooperation modalities. Some bodies — such as the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission — have already established formal mechanisms for data-exchange and cooperation with the Agreement, which could be leveraged early to build momentum and establish good practices. Türkiye’s delegate proposed the development of regular dialogue platforms to ensure coordination, information exchange and mechanisms for joint monitoring and data-sharing.
On the operationalization of funding provisions, the representative of the Maldives, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, noted the significant work ahead to give effect to the Agreement’s provisions concerning the “special fund” established under the accord. Some topics to consider include its institutional model, its governing instrument and its host or trustee. Given the special fund’s role as the custodian of monetary benefits defined in the Agreement, its design must be customized to ensure efficient and timely receipt of proceeds, she said.
Echoing that, the representative of Barbados, speaking for CARICOM, also reiterated a request to add an agenda item for the Commission’s second session on provisional guidance for the ninth replenishment process of the Global Environment Facility. Sierra Leone’s delegate, speaking for the African Group, concurred, also urging that the Agreement’s financial mechanism be equitable, fit for purpose and accessible in terms of reporting.
On that, the representative of Maldives underlined the need to minimize administrative burdens on small island developing States. To that end, Barbados’ delegate, speaking for CARICOM, suggested creating standardized reporting templates, also requesting clarity on the timing and synchronization of reporting. For her part, the Russian Federation’s delegate stressed that “no reporting or accountability mechanism has the right to dictate to States how they are going to implement an international treaty”.