The commission charged with preparing for the entry into force of a new treaty on marine biodiversity resumed today its consideration of the mechanism by which information about treaty-related activities will be shared amongst States, with delegates debating the tasks, composition and working methods for the informal group of experts that will be responsible for its operationalization.
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 Revisit Discussion on Operationalizing Agreement’s Clearing-House Mechanism
Under the Agreement, a Clearing-House Mechanism is to be established to serve as a centralized, open-access platform to enable parties to access, provide and disseminate information with respect to treaty activities. Aiding today’s discussion were revised draft terms of reference prepared by the Commission’s Co-Chairs on the creation of an informal group of experts dedicated to operationalizing that Mechanism (document A/AC.296/2025/CRP.2). The document accounts for discussions and written input on this topic to date.
As the Commission considered the tasks with which the informal group of experts will be charged, the Russian Federation’s representative asked delegates to reflect on the appropriate name for this group. She emphasized that “this is, first and foremost, not a working group — but an expert group”.
Along those lines, Vanuatu’s delegate, who spoke for Pacific small island developing States, expressed concern over the use of the term “scientific” in relation to the group’s proposed activities — as the term “technical” is broad and would cover many areas. The speaker for Norway, whose delegation proposed that language, explained that the intent was distinguish “between the political and the scientific and the technical”. As the term “technical” would also cover “scientific”, he said that his delegation “could go forward” with removing references to the latter term. “The most important thing is that the group deliver technical advice to the Preparatory Commission and not political advice,” he underscored.
With respect to the group’s activities, the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, expressed flexibility, but noted a slight preference for language that would task the informal expert group with preparing a comparative assessment of existing multilateral clearing-house mechanisms with similar functions to that called for in the Agreement. She said that the bloc holds this position “because it seems to be more feasible in the time constraints for the expert group that we have”.
Japan’s delegate, however, expressed concern over adding such a comparative assessment “on top of the other tasks already prescribed”. Instead, she voiced support for language calling on the group to “take stock” of existing mechanisms to use as a baseline, with the representatives of Canada and the Philippines in agreement. New Zealand’s delegate noted that, while a comparative report would be an additional task, it is wise to learn lessons from other clearing-house mechanisms. “Taking stock of existing mechanisms and platforms provides a practical and efficient basis for developing a roadmap for operationalization of the Clearing-House Mechanism,” said Türkiye’s representative.
Meanwhile, Australia’s representative expressed concern over both options, stating that his delegation was “very reluctant to micromanage the expert group on its work when it reviews the existing clearing-house mechanisms” and therefore did not prefer language requiring a comparative assessment. However, he also noted that language tasking the group with taking stock of existing mechanisms — and then using this as a baseline for developing a road map to operationalize the Agreement’s Clearing-House Mechanism — is potentially problematic because existing mechanisms “are potentially different” from the one envisioned by the Agreement.
Maldives’ delegate added: “It is important that the informal working group has a clear direction on where the Preparatory Commission needs guidance.” Samoa’s representative, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States, said that, while undertaking a comparative assessment would help to inform the group’s guidance and recommendations to the Commission, “a stocktake — on its own — might not sufficiently inform this work”.
The representative of Kenya, speaking for the African Group, stressed the need to “remain mindful of the limited time available” for the informal expert group to complete its mandate and deliver its report 120 days before the Preparatory Commission’s third session. She therefore stressed the need for efficient, inclusive working methods. Regarding the reference to the “guidance and advice” the group is to provide the Preparatory Commission, she stressed that it must be made clear that any outputs “remain in the nature of recommendations”.
With respect to the technical aspects of the group’s work, Thailand’s delegate voiced concern that the draft terms of reference “at the moment is too descriptive”, stating: “If we are going to task an informal group or set up a group to work on behalf of us, we should trust them.” He added: “They should be able to interpret the text of the Agreement and Mechanism designed by the Agreement.”
Meanwhile, the United Kingdom’s representative noted that, while “the substance of what the Clearing-House Mechanism needs to cover are set out in the Agreement”, the technical details in the draft terms of reference describe “how is this going to work on the ground for the users”. Her delegation is “comfortable this is not expanding what’s in the Agreement or changing it”, she added.
Delegations also elaborated on other aspects of the informal expert group, including its deliverables, with Canada’s representative expressing preference for the term “initial” versus “pilot” to describe the phase of the Mechanism’s operationalization on which the group would focus. The latter, he pointed out, usually connotes “a testing period”. Mexico’s delegate, speaking for the Core Latin American Group — which proposed the term “pilot” — said that “initial” is acceptable. He stressed, however, that “the operationalization of the Mechanism is an ongoing process; it’s not going to be interrupted at some point”.
Indonesia’s representative expressed support for the deletion of language concerning the group’s tasks relating to marine genetic resources and environmental-impact assessments. However, Cuba’s delegate pointed out that language referring to marine genetic resources, benefit-sharing and environmental-impact assessments are not reflected elsewhere, and must be retained.
An observer for the High Seas Alliance noted that the timeline and sequencing envisioned in the draft terms of reference is still keyed to the third session of the Preparatory Commission, which is scheduled to meet two to three months after the likely entry into force of the Agreement in January. To address this, he proposed that the current Preparatory Commission — in addition to discussing the draft terms of reference — develop separate instructions for interim arrangements to cover that initial gap.
Speakers Also Take Up Refreshed Memorandum of Understanding with Global Environment Facility
In the afternoon, the Commission continued its exchange of views on the revised draft terms of reference, then turning to a refreshed draft memorandum of understanding between the Conference of the Parties to the Agreement and the Council of the Global Environment Facility (document A/AC.296/2025/CRP.1).
Some disagreement emerged concerning preambular paragraph 9 of that document, which refers to provisions in the Agreement setting out the general principles and approaches by which Parties to the Agreement shall be guided. Further, the paragraph in question goes on to refer to the special circumstances of small island developing States and the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
The representative of the European Union, speaking in its capacity as observer, while voicing support for the reference to the Agreement, said: “We do not see the need for insisting in the memorandum of understanding on certain principles more than on others.” Brazil’s delegate, speaking for the Core Latin American Group, reserved the right to return with additional comments on the added value of outlining those particular principles.
However, the representative of Papua New Guinea, speaking for Pacific small island developing States, voiced strong support for the inclusion of references to the special circumstances of small island developing States, as well as to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. He pointed out that the special circumstances of those States are mentioned 20 times in the Agreement — with the article concerning funding mentioning this five times. “Which reminds me of that joke: ‘New York, New York — a town so nice they named it twice’,” he said.
The Agreement is replete with references to special circumstances, he continued, adding that such references are relevant in the memorandum of understanding, as well. Further, he stressed: “Indigenous People are rights-holders, they’re not stakeholders or civil society.” Therefore, their rights need to be recognized, and that principle needs to be included in the memorandum. The representatives of Canada and Antigua and Barbuda, the latter of whom spoke for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), expressed support for that position.
For her part, the Russian Federation’s delegate said that, unfortunately, the financing mechanism in the Agreement has become intertwined with the Global Environmental Facility, which works in a non-transparent way. Before finalizing the memorandum, “we need to come to grips with how the funds are allocated for the needs of the Agreement”, she said. “It is unclear why we have this text,” every provision of which requires additional clarification, she added.
The Preparatory Commission will reconvene on Tuesday, 26 August, to discuss the selection process for members of the Scientific and Technical Body and other subsidiary bodies to be established under the Agreement, as well as the operationalization of other provisions on financing.
