The commission tasked with preparing for the entry into force of a high-seas biodiversity treaty continued its second session today, returning to a discussion on the financial rules that will govern its eventual secretariat and subsidiary bodies as many delegates emphasized the needs and special circumstances of developing countries in this context.
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. The second of three planned sessions, it will build on the first session’s work that took place from 14 to 25 April by addressing a series of issues in the format of informal working groups. (Previous coverage is available here.)
The Agreement addresses marine genetic resources; measures such as area-based management tools; environmental-impact assessments; and capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology. It was adopted on 19 June 2023 and is open for signature until 20 September 2025. During today’s meeting, 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.
Delegates Discuss Rules on Funding
In the morning, the Commission discussed the financial rules governing the funding of the Conference of the Parties, the secretariat and any subsidiary bodies established under the Agreement. In doing so, delegates were aided by a document — drafted by the Commission’s Co-Chairs — containing draft rules to that effect (document A/AC.296/2025/CRP.4 ).
Addressing draft provisions on a budget, Iran’s delegate affirmed that “it is important to fully consider the requirements of developing countries” as he recalled that the Agreement itself contains this language. Further, he noted that the finance committee on financial resources — to be established under the Agreement, and mentioned in the draft rules — is also responsible for needs-assessment, particularly for developing State Parties.
On that, Oman’s representative called for ensuring an objective basis on which to determine those needs. “Drawing on the UN financial rules would ensure a high level of efficiency, efficacy and transparency,” he emphasized. He also suggested looking to the Convention on Biological Diversity as a model and underlined the need for stronger representation of developing countries to improve governance and promote inclusive participation.
Meanwhile, the Philippines’ delegate stressed the importance of respecting the principles of equity, transparency and accountability when developing the financial rules. Based on the first of those, “we are leaning towards a more conservative position of a minimum 10 per cent among the options presented for the transfers between appropriation lines”, he said, adding that too much flexibility could cause funds earmarked for developing States’ participation, capacity-building or technology transfer to be diverted elsewhere.
On structural matters, Nigeria’s delegate, speaking for the African Group, welcomed the draft language establishing a clear relationship between the secretariat preparing the budget and the finance committee, which also looks at the budget and reports to the Conference of the Parties. He also took note of the phrase that “any expected miscellaneous income shall be estimated conservatively” when the secretariat’s head prepares a budget proposal each financial period, calling for further clarification in this context.
Saint Lucia’s representative, speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), emphasized that the finance committee’s role “should remain strictly advisory”, and that the financial rules “should make clear that the Conference of the Parties retains full authority over budgetary and financial decisions”. In that regard, she proposed that the draft financial rules specify that “the budget may be shared with the finance committee for technical input, but shall be transmitted directly to all Parties at least 90 days prior to the Conference of the Parties for consideration”.
Papua New Guinea’s representative, speaking for Pacific small island developing States, noted that his delegation’s position might be even more cautious than CARICOM’s. While numerous draft provisions are modelled after the International Seabed Authority’s finance committee, the Agreement “seems to have a different orientation in terms of mobilization of funds and the assessment of needs”. He therefore questioned whether that model “is the perfect fit”.
Meanwhile, Canada’s delegate emphasized the need for the finance committee to engage directly with other subsidiary bodies to ensure that their resource needs are considered. Subsidiary bodies are struggling as many of their programmatic areas are persistently unfunded or underfunded, he noted — especially important for the mandates of the Scientific and Technical Body and other subsidiary bodies under the Agreement. However, he pointed out this has not “been addressed here at all”.
For his part, the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, noted that questions on the Agreement’s financial-governance structure still depend upon undecided arrangements for the functioning of its secretariat. He further called for consistency between the discussion on financial rules and that pertaining to the terms of reference for the Agreement’s voluntary trust fund.
Delegates also discussed draft rules relating to funds, with Nigeria’s delegate, speaking for the African Group, expressing concern over the proposed rule by which the procedures for facilitating the participation of representatives of developing State Parties shall ensure their full eligibility and give them priority. This may offer the wrong impression about eligibility, he said, adding that the current wording is not consistent with article 52 of the Agreement, which governs funding.
Similarly, the representative of Maldives, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, stressed that it is vital to ensure that all small island developing States are eligible and prioritized under the Agreement’s voluntary trust fund. This is an important aspect of operationalizing the special circumstances of those States in the financial rules, she added.
On that fund, the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, urged adherence “to the wording of the Agreement, which provides for the participation in the meetings of the bodies established under the Agreement, without specifying the nature of those meetings”. He suggested deleting language specifying that the financial rules do not apply to any additional funds established, as it is “too early to have this type of consideration”.
Chile’s delegate, speaking for the Core Latin American Group, called for avoiding the repetition of rules for issues that are not necessarily in the document — for example, referring to the voluntary trust fund for participation, and rules relative to the general fund. Further citing references to the creation of new funds, he urged the Commission to “focus on our priority today, which is the operationalization of the special fund”.
Commission Also Revisits Conference of the Parties’ Rules of Procedure
In the afternoon, the Preparatory Commission 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/CRP.3).
Jamaica’s representative, speaking for CARICOM, agreed with other delegations that in-person meetings “should be the default position”. Nevertheless, it is essential that the Conference be able to meet virtually or in a hybrid format under extraordinary circumstances. The recent COVID-19 pandemic “has demonstrated that events not foreseen” can suddenly create unusual circumstances, she pointed out.
Morocco’s delegate, speaking for the African Group, echoed that in-person meetings “must remain the norm, particularly for decision-making”. Virtual or hybrid formats should be reserved for clearly defined circumstances, and he emphasized that any such meeting would require equity safeguards — including balanced time-zone scheduling, technical and financial support to address Africa’s connectivity challenges and secure mechanisms for delegate authentication, forum verification and roll-call voting.
The representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, noted that “online”, “hybrid” and “virtual” seemed to be used in an interchangeable manner in the text, “and we think that different considerations apply to different meetings”. Rules of procedure should focus on procedural matters in a thematic way, and some aspects of the draft rule governing participation modalities “veer into overly prescriptive procedures”, he said. Meetings shall be in-person and, if they are not, they should be held virtually — “we don’t support the idea of hybrid meetings” of the Conference of the Parties, he added.
Singapore’s representative, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, noted that the Alliance’s suggestion of giving States the option to deliver virtual or pre-recorded statements “has not been taken on board”. He also reiterated that the rule on in-person or virtual participation should be streamlined and kept minimal. He welcomed views on whether that rule is consistent with the text of the Agreement; if this language must be retained, it should leave scope for flexibility.
Echoing the need to simplify this rule, Norway’s representative said that her delegation, together with those of Singapore, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Iceland, “have tried to make sense of this [rule]”. She voiced hope that their joint proposal for streamlining the rule would address the concerns raised. The rule should simply set out when virtual meetings can be held — including the required threshold, the procedure for deciding whether to hold such a meeting and the scope of decisions that can be taken in a virtual format.
Meanwhile, Argentina’s representative, speaking for the Core Latin American Group — noting that “the document is already a faithful reflection of what happened in the room” — voiced concern about the Commission’s use of its time. Turning to the draft, he reiterated that the section providing definitions could include one for ‘exceptional circumstances’.
The Preparatory Commission will reconvene on Thursday, 28 August, to discuss matters yet to be determined.
