Nearing End of Second Session, Preparatory Commission for High-Seas Biodiversity Treaty Discusses Rules of Procedure, Cooperation Arrangements
On the penultimate day of its second session, the commission preparing for the entry into force of a new marine biodiversity treaty focused once again on the rules of procedure that will apply to meetings of its Parties, also considering cooperation arrangements with relevant instruments, frameworks and 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 taking place at UN Headquarters from 18 to 29 August. (Coverage to date is available here.)
That treaty was adopted on 19 June 2023 and is open for signature until 20 September 2025. During the Commission’s meeting on 27 August, it was announced that the Republic of Moldova signed on 26 August and Cabo Verde ratified on 27 August, bringing the total number of signatories to 140 and the total number of ratifications to 54.
Commission Continues Discussing Rules of Procedure
In the morning, the Commission returned to the topic of the rules of procedure for meetings of the Conference of the Parties, guided by a compilation of draft rules prepared by the Co-Chairs (document A/AC.296/2025/CRP.3).
Among the many rules discussed, the representative of the Federated States of Micronesia — speaking for Pacific small island developing States — said that the one related to the submission of credentials “could do without the provision” allowing any person authorized by a Head of State, Head of Government or Foreign Minister to issue such credentials, as “it just complicates the procedure”. On the examination of credentials, the Commission should “stay with precedent” and adhere to the General Assembly’s procedure in this regard, he said.
However, the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, expressed support for the addition of language allowing any person authorized by those high-level individuals to issue credentials to that rule, citing its use in the rules of procedure for the International Criminal Court’s Assembly of States Parties. He also supported the original language on “examination of the credentials” as it reflects the UN General Assembly’s rules of procedure.
On another issue — the Conference of the Parties’ Bureau — Argentina’s delegate, speaking for the Core Latin American Group, favoured one comprising “a President and 15 Vice-Presidents”. On whether members in arrears can serve on the Bureau, he noted that “issues related to arrears are already mentioned in the financial rules” and suggested referencing those rules instead of adding language to the rules of procedure. The representatives of the United Kingdom and Norway voiced support for a provision on “penalties for arrears”, similarly noting that a cross-reference to the financial rules could be appropriate.
Morocco’s representative, speaking for the African Group, said that the Bureau must be sufficiently sized to ensure equitable and inclusive representation — suggesting between 12 and 15 members to this end. However, he stressed that any formula should not disadvantage “or weaken the voice of developing countries”. “Our overall objective is a Bureau that is balanced, representative and effective,” he emphasized.
The representative of the Federated States of Micronesia, speaking for Pacific small island developing States, proposed a Bureau with 17 Vice-Presidents — 15 from the regional groups, 1 from small island developing States and 1 from least developed countries. Regarding the provision that the President shall not exercise the right to vote, he said that this is correct here. However, he added that the States for whom he speaks feel differently about the subsidiary bodies, in which a President would be acting in a more personal capacity.
Singapore’s representative, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, stressed that the rules for Bureau officers must “make clear that seats for small island developing States and least developed countries are in addition to the seats allocated to the regional groups”. To that end, Japan’s delegate also voiced support for a Bureau with 3 members per regional group, plus 1 member each from small island developing States and least developed countries, comprising a total of 17 Vice-Presidents.
China’s representative, too, expressed support for a Bureau of this size, with representation for small island developing States and least developed countries. However, he also recommended that proportionality be considered, given “the big difference in the [number of] member States in each regional group”. On the granting of credentials, he noted that — in the General Assembly’s rules of procedure — “there is no language allowing any other person to grant credentials” than the Head of State or Government or the Foreign Minister. Allowing other persons to do so, he warned, would further complicate the work of the credentials committee, and give rise to questions around States’ internal procedures.
For his part, Iran’s delegate supported the highest number allocated for Vice-Presidents in the draft rules, which “shall be from regional groups”. Noting the draft’s reference to gender balance in the composition of these officers, he stressed that any such reference should be consistent with the Agreement. Regarding the draft provision that would exclude a party from Bureau membership due to arrears in contributions, he noted that it would be unfair to apply this to developing countries.
The representative of Saudi Arabia called for deleting the entire provision “punishing countries with arrears, since this Agreement is to ensure strengthened cooperation and participation of all State Parties”. The speaker for the Philippines added that “State Parties that are in arrears should not be deprived of their voting rights”. Regarding the term limit for the President of the Conference of the Parties, she welcomed the option of a maximum of two — “because it is the clearest guarantee of fairness, inclusivity and rotation”.
Delegations also addressed the Bureau’s role, underscoring its consultative function. Türkiye’s representative noted redundant language in the proposed text, but expressed support for retaining the reference to Bureau members “regularly consulting with the Parties from their respective regional groups” in the interest of transparency and inclusiveness. Noting the provision for a proportional allocation of seats among the UN regional groups, she cautioned that such a formula “could complicate the process and risk undermining inclusiveness — particularly for smaller regional groups”.
Support for the allocation of special seats for small island developing States and least developed countries, given their unique circumstances, was heard throughout the meeting. However, Switzerland’s representative stated that, “in principle, sub-groups should be part of the regional representation in the Bureau”, voicing concern that separate seats for sub-groups “would open a dangerous Pandora’s box”.
While the Commission also addressed rules relating to subsidiary bodies later in the morning, it did not complete its full review of the revised draft rules of procedure for the Conference of the Parties during this meeting. Co-Chair Adam McCarthy (Australia) emphasized that “it is essential to complete this task” during the Commission’s current session, so that a further revised draft can be prepared during the intersessional period.
Speakers Also Debate Cooperation Arrangements
In the afternoon, the Commission returned to the issue of cooperation arrangements with relevant instruments, frameworks and bodies.
Argentina’s representative, speaking for the Core Latin American Group, was among those who underscored the role of the Conference of the Parties as the central governing body of the Agreement. He stressed that, consequently, any cooperation mechanism must ensure that “it is the Conference of the Parties that preserves the coherence, control, oversight and political direction over coordination processes, consultations and technical exchanges carried out by subsidiary bodies with instruments, frameworks and bodies”. Such activities must operate “within clear mandates emanating from the Conference of the Parties”, he added.
There was also general support for the development of a draft decision or strategic framework on cooperation. Tonga’s representative, speaking for Pacific small island developing States, proposed that the Preparatory Commission create such a draft decision and forward it to the Conference of the Parties for consideration and adoption. She cautioned, however, against referring to such a document as “guiding principles”, as this may result in a negotiation exercise.
Saint Lucia’s representative, speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), added that a strategic framework in line with article 47 of the Agreement — which establishes the Conference of the Parties — would “ensure coherence across regimes, avoid duplication of efforts and ensure efficiency in the use of limited resources”. The framework would capture the key thematic areas of cooperation, key actors for such collaboration and the various types of arrangements to this end.
The representative of Côte d’Ivoire, speaking for the African Group, emphasized that cooperation modalities must be aligned with the Agreement’s unique objectives and legal obligations. Further, they must effectively address the needs and priorities of African developing States, including least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States.
Palau’s representative, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, noted that “cooperation goes both ways” — therefore, any cooperation arrangement must be reciprocal. For its part, the Commission could recommend that the Conference of the Parties invite representatives of relevant instruments, frameworks and bodies to become observers to the Agreement’s institutions. It could also mandate that the Agreement’s secretariat develop cooperation arrangements, she added.
The representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, emphasized that the Agreement’s secretariat and subsidiary bodies should have significant autonomy when interacting with relevant instruments, frameworks and bodies, with any decision ultimately taken in this respect giving such bodies the flexibility they need to carry out their tasks.
Following this discussion, the Co-Chairs confirmed that they intend to prepare a draft decision on this topic during the intersessional period for consideration at the Preparatory Commission’s third session.
The Commission will reconvene on Friday, 29 August, to conclude its second session.