Preparatory Commission for High-Seas Treaty Continues Second Session
As the commission tasked with preparing for the entry into force of a treaty on high-seas biodiversity concluded the first week of its second session today, Member States debated the eventual composition, location, functioning and funding of the Agreement’s secretariat, as well as issues related to the latest replenishment of a crucial trust fund.
That treaty was adopted on 19 June 2023, is open for signature until 20 September 2025, and will enter into force upon receipt of 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.)
Commission Discusses Functioning of Agreement’s Secretariat
Today’s meeting opened with Member States debating arrangements for the functioning of the Agreement’s secretariat. As a starting point, the representative of Palau, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, advanced several options — a standalone institution, a hybrid model with some linkages to the UN or a secretariat fully integrated into the UN system. Similarly, she proposed two options for its head: either wholly selected by the parties, or appointed by the UN Secretary-General in consultation with the Conference of the Parties’ Bureau. She also called for recruiting secretariat staff “on as wide a geographical basis as possible”.
On monitoring, the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, noted that the secretariat “should be subject to oversight by the Conference of the Parties, with additional accountability through institutional linkages through the UN, with the head of the secretariat also accountable to the Secretary-General”. The model for the secretariat must be established “without undue delay”, she stressed, to facilitate the smooth transition of functions currently undertaken by the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea.
Representatives, including those of Iceland and Norway, also emphasized the need for impartiality, competence and professionalism in appointing the head of the secretariat and selecting its staff. The latter underscored: “It is key to ensure that the relevant candidates have the appropriate qualifications and expertise.” The process must be effective, transparent and provide for equitable and geographical representation and gender balance, she added.
Addressing the secretariat’s size, Japan’s delegate urged it be kept manageable to ensure both cost efficiency and swift start-up following the Agreement’s entry into force. Further, she called for a “prudent” approach in institutionalizing a geographic rotation for the head of the secretariat. The representative of China, meanwhile, stressed that privileges and immunities must be granted to the secretariat, its staff and their dependents as well as representatives of State parties and participating experts. She further emphasized that developing countries “should not only enjoy equitable representation in the secretariat, but also receive priority under equal conditions”.
Other representatives — including Iran’s — echoed this sentiment, with Malaysia’s representative stressing that “developing countries have unique interests, needs and priorities”. It is therefore “essential for the Commission to explore salient approaches to ensure that developing countries are well-represented in the respective appointment and selection processes,” he emphasized. And, on finance, South Africa’s delegate — speaking for theAfrican Group — underlined the need to agree on a budget that ensures a robust and sustainable secretariat, and provides for the inspection of host State infrastructure requirements.
For his part, the representative of the Federated States of Micronesia, speaking for Pacific small island developing States, raised the question of how to ensure transparency in the appointment process for the head of the secretariat — particularly in relation to the entity or person that would be responsible for making that decision. He noted, for example, that public hearings are held as part of the election process for the Secretary-General of the United Nations, wherein each candidate has an opportunity to present their vision and answer questions.
Mexico’s delegate, speaking for the Core Latin American Group, suggested a “regional rotation mechanism, through which each group would appoint or nominate” a qualified person to be elected by the Conference of the Parties as head of the secretariat. However, while voicing support for the principle of equitable geographical representation, the United Kingdom’s delegate asked how that would work in practice. Others also pointed to the need to elucidate this and other issues, with Oman’s delegate urging clarification on “the qualifications and the controls for the selection” of the secretariat’s head, under whom the secretariat would be affiliated and who would review its budget.
Speakers Also Stress Global Environment Facility Must Support Developing States
The Commission then turned to an exchange of views on the ninth replenishment of the Global Environment Facility — with Co-Chair Adam McCarthy (Australia) noting that any input in this regard “must come from this Preparatory Commission”.
Palau’s delegate, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, stressed that the Facility’s system for the transparent allocation of resources “must finally address its bias towards terrestrial global environmental challenges”. As part of the multilateral regime seeking to govern the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in 65 per cent of the world’s oceans, the Facility’s policies must adapt. This, he said, means ensuring that all developing countries — especially small island developing States — are eligible for finance. The Facility “is being left behind” on the empowerment of developing countries, he added, urging that direct access to its resources — at scale — is “the only path” to ensure such States’ sustained capacity.
Similarly, engagement with the Facility “should prioritize the urgent financial requirements of developing countries”, emphasized Guyana’s representative, speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Noting that the replenishment process is under way, she proposed that the Co-Chairs formally communicate to the Facility’s secretariat the emerging financial needs of the Agreement — which must, in turn, be reflected in replenishment priorities. Further, the Commission should participate as an observer in Facility meetings to ensure that the interests of developing States are brought to the attention of donor countries.
For her part, the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, affirmed the continuation of support for developing countries as they ratify and prepare for implementation of the Agreement — emphasizing that “it has never been the intention” to stop such support once the Agreement enters into force. Additionally, the Facility could provide support for studies, meetings and pilot programmes, while further supporting developing countries in their State-led needs-assessment processes.
On mobilizing the necessary resources, Malaysia’s delegate called for the exploration of innovative financing approaches, including blended finance and partnerships with regional and private-sector initiatives. He also stressed the need for synergy between the Facility and other international funding mechanisms, including the Green Climate Fund.
Papua New Guinea’s representative, speaking for the Pacific small island developing States, said that the Commission’s provisional guidance to the Facility should include instruction relating to needs-assessments, capacity-building and Indigenous Peoples, as well as local communities, women and youth. On that, Brazil’s delegate, speaking for the Core Latin American Group, noted that there is no memorandum of understanding in place between the Agreement and the Facility. He therefore asked what format the Commission’s message to the Facility would take. “Should the membership decide to move forward with such a message,” he added, “it should be subject to important safeguards.”
Delegates Conclude with Debate on Reporting Requirements
In the afternoon, as the Commission took up the topic of reporting requirements under the Agreement, the representative of Iraq — speaking for the Group of 77 developing countries and China — stressed that such a mandate “should not be onerous for developing countries”. Further, reports should take into account the “self-identified challenges and needs” of developing countries, and should be not be intrusive, adversarial, political or selective in nature; rather, they should remain technical.
Echoing that reporting should not be “onerous”, Palau’s representative, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, urged that countries be supported to ensure these requirements can be met. Reporting is an opportunity for developing States to highlight their needs and challenges in implementing obligations under the Agreement, “but we must strike a balance between meaningful reporting and administrative burden”, she emphasized. “For capacity-constrained States like ours, excessive reporting requirements frequently divert us from actual implementation efforts,” she observed.
Meanwhile, the representative of Antigua and Barbuda, speaking for CARICOM, called for the reporting format to be “hardwired” with flexibility for small island developing States. Requirements in this context should result in minimal burden and take into account the capacity constraints faced by certain States. Expressing a preference to use the Agreement’s Clearing-House Mechanism as a “backbone” for submissions, he also suggested the creation of a help desk or other contact point in the secretariat itself to assist in this regard, as well as scope for financial assistance to help with reporting costs.
The Conference of the Parties must “strike the right balance between transparency and confidentiality”, emphasized Peru’s representative, speaking for the Core Latin American Group. This, he noted, would ensure the public dissemination of information of collective interest, while protecting strategic or sensitive information. He called on the Co-Chairs to prepare options for reporting models and templates — as well as for reporting intervals — adding that the reporting model employed by the Minamata Convention on Mercury “could serve as a basis for potential options”.
The Preparatory Commission will reconvene on Monday, 25 August, to discuss the Agreement’s Clearing-House Mechanism and cooperation with relevant instruments, frameworks and bodies.