Marine Biodiversity Treaty’s Preparatory Commission Discusses Cooperation, Rules of Procedure, as Second Session Continues
As delegates continued preparing for the entry into force of a treaty on high-seas biodiversity today, they both underscored the benefits of cooperation with relevant instruments, frameworks and bodies and cautioned that neither new nor existing mandates, operations or activities should undermine the other.
That treaty was adopted on 19 June 2023, is open for signature until 20 September 2025, and will enter into force whenever it receives 60 instruments of ratification, approval, acceptance or accession thereto — currently eight more are needed. From 18 to 29 August, UN Headquarters is hosting the second of three gatherings of 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”. (Coverage to date is available here.)
Delegates Discuss Cooperation between Agreement, Existing Institutions
Today, as the Commission took up arrangements to enhance cooperation with legal instruments, frameworks and global, regional, subregional and sectoral bodies, Canada’s delegate said that such cooperation “is a linchpin for [the Agreement’s] successful implementation”. However, it is vital to ensure that the implementation of the Agreement does not undermine the mandates, operations or activities of those existing institutions, he said, and it “should also be expected that [they] would not be undermining the jurisdiction and mandate of the [Agreement]”.
The speaker from the World Wide Fund for Nature called for all instruments, frameworks and bodies with an interest in the biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction to be invited to participate as observers to the Conference of the Parties. She also stated that “it is important to remember that not undermining is a two-way street”. Instruments, frameworks and bodies with management competency bear special responsibilities to ensure that they do not undermine decisions made in other relevant bodies. Therefore, the Conference of the Parties “will now have a duty to provide an effective framework for meaningful exchange between otherwise isolated” institutions, she said.
The European Union’s representative, speaking in its capacity as observer, pointed out that cooperation and coordination takes “trust and time”, while the representative of Saint Lucia — speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) — highlighted the importance of equity in this context. She also enumerated various entities on whom the Agreement should target for early cooperation, including the International Maritime Organization (IMO), noting the need to harmonize procedures for ship-based activities and exchange data on vessel movement and pollution.
An IMO observer also spoke to welcome such an opportunity for collaboration, noting that IMO’s regulatory framework applies to ships “wherever they operate on the seas”. Many of those frameworks deal, directly or indirectly, with the protection of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and she added that IMO also has several area-based management tools. “These and many other tools are already available” and can be applied in the context of the high seas, she said, also highlighting IMO’s cooperation with UN agencies, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations.
Other speakers from relevant instruments, frameworks and bodies also offered their thoughts during this discussion. “This [Preparatory Commission] should prioritize key elements of consultation processes, particularly area-based management tools and environmental assessments,” emphasized the observer for the High Seas Alliance. “States should empower [the Conference] to set timebound modalities and to achieve objectives that do not require bilateral agreements or memoranda of understanding for each institution, framework or body,” he added.
The observer for the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission emphasized that, while information on biodiversity areas can be excellent, knowledge of human activity there — particularly the pressures and impacts of fishing and fishing-related activities — is “often not so good”. International fisheries organizations, however, do possess significant knowledge and data on such activities across many areas beyond national jurisdiction. For her part, the observer for the International Council of Environmental Law highlighted the need for “a clear understanding of a fragmented data ecosystem”.
Meanwhile, the observer for the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) noted that FAO is the only global body providing technical expertise and advice on fisheries. She suggested prioritizing mechanisms to support cooperation and coordination between relevant instruments, frameworks and bodies and certain subsidiary bodies established under the Agreement — such as its Scientific and Technical Body and its Implementation and Compliance Committee. This also applies to the Agreement’s Clearing-House Mechanism, as the expertise and contributions of relevant existing institutions will be critical to the success of all of these.
Speakers Also Weigh In on Rules for Subsidiary Bodies
Also on the agenda today was a discussion on the terms of reference, operational modalities and rules of procedure for subsidiary bodies established under the Agreement. With the help of a draft matrix of potential options prepared by the Co-Chairs (document A/AC.296/2025/INF/3), delegates considered, among other things, if the rules of procedure for the Conference of the Parties could also apply to the Agreement’s subsidiary bodies.
The European Union’s representative, speaking in its capacity as observer, was among several delegations who said that this matrix was comprehensive and well-structured. She also stressed the need for consistency and coherence between the terms of reference and rules of procedure for the Conference of the Parties and any subsidiary bodies, especially on matters such as quorum.
Côte d’Ivoire’s representative, speaking for the African Group, expressed support for the proposed structure of the terms of reference for the subsidiary bodies. The representative of the United Kingdom echoed that and stressed: “It is critical that the terms of reference accurately map the language of the Agreement and do not go further than what is on the Agreement.”
Iran’s representative also said that “the draft model should follow the same language as stipulated in the Agreement”, while Colombia’s delegate — speaking for the Core Latin American Group — said that her group had not observed any sharp contradictions between the draft and the rules of procedure for the Conference of the Parties itself. Though, if there were, it might be better to resolve them in the latter document, “which is the more generic instrument”, she added.
However, the Russian Federation’s representative said that the draft raised questions that must be carefully studied. “Not everything was extremely clear”, she said, noting “many repetitions” and “some imprecisions and distortions”. On the criteria for selection or eligibility, she stressed: “Each State should determine, based on their own requirements, whom they would like to nominate as representatives to these posts.”
Norway’s delegate stated that the rules of procedure are “not a one-size-fits-all”, with the Agreement providing for different rules for the Conference of the Parties and subsidiary bodies. Noting that the Scientific and Technical Body performs functions that “requires it to be up and running from the get-go”, she called for considering a procedure for nomination and selection of its members closer to the first Conference of the Parties, rather than waiting until the second one. An observer for the High Seas Alliance echoed that call.
“The rules of procedure are really how does a meeting work; the terms of reference is like what is all the work that you’re doing,” said the representative of the Federated States of Micronesia, speaking for Pacific small island developing States. He added that, taken together, they represent “the how and the what”. The mutatis mutandis application of the Conference’s terms and rules to subsidiary bodies provides a “fail-safe”, he emphasized, “because not everything is going to be perfect and not everything is going to be in place at the very beginning”. Stressing the need to keep options open, he said that it is also necessary to keep the procedure for amending the rules or the terms of reference as straightforward as possible.
Also speaking today was an observer from the secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, who expressed willingness to share experiences and best practices. She highlighted the role and work of its standing committee, composed of members representing the major geographic regions. That committee oversees matters related to the Convention’s implementation, including compliance and enforcement. In addition, the Convention has two scientific advisory bodies composed of experts representing each of the major geographic regions, as well as an ex officio nomenclature specialist to oversee technical and scientific issues, she said.
Discussion Resumes on Rules of Procedure for Conference of the Parties
In the afternoon, the Preparatory Commission also returned to the topic of the rules of procedure that will apply during meetings of the Conference of the Parties to the Agreement. Aiding that discussion, as before, was a compilation of draft rules prepared by the Co-Chairs (document A/AC.296/2025/12).
Singapore’s delegate, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, said that the Conference of the Parties should meet annually, given the urgency and scale of the work to be done. The representative of Argentina, who spoke for the Core Latin American Group, said that the general format for participation should be in-person meetings. However, bearing in mind lessons learned from the pandemic, he noted the benefit of having modalities in place for other meeting formats under exceptional circumstances. Since “we run the risk of having ambiguity” over when a virtual meeting can be held, he also expressed support for defining those circumstances.
Morocco’s delegate, speaking for the African Group, noted that it has become clear “that many delegations feel that the [draft] text is now mature enough for textual negotiations”. And the representative of the Federated States of Micronesia, speaking for Pacific small island developing States, highlighted the importance of youth participation in the Conference of the Parties: “What we’re talking about here is not our ocean anymore — it is theirs — and their participation is very important.” He added that it is “imperative” to listen to youth both now and once the Conference of the Parties commences its meetings.
The Preparatory Commission will continue its work tomorrow, 22 August, with a discussion on arrangements for the functioning of the Agreement’s secretariat as well as on reporting requirements.