Preparing the entry into force of the new Ocean Treaty – moving quickly into operationalisation

Discussions started on the Scientific and Technical Body (STB) regarding its size, composition, selection of members. First ideas about possible size of the STB were exchanged, with preferences ranging between a large body (each state party) and a rather small body (approx. 30 members) with the option to draw upon external knowledge. Greater support was voiced for a smaller body. Most delegations refrained from naming specific expertise, with general agreement on a broad and multidisciplinary body with the option to draw on external expertise from a roster of experts (or establish working groups on specific issues, where needed). Questions remain as to how to select the experts to reflect the required diversity, expertise and equitable geographical representation and gender balance. The idea was raised to have an Indigenous Peoples and local communities Advisory group, which could also be a standalone group to advise more generally on all aspects of the agreement – not limited to recommendations to the STB. This could be a way to allow self-nominations of traditional knowledge holders, who, as mentioned in a side event on traditional knowledge, generally nominate themselves and would not serve in their positions when ‘nominated by Parties’, as it is the case for members of all subsidiary bodies. 

The Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) Committee has its number of 15 members established in the Treaty. As the aim of the committee is to support access and benefit sharing of marine genetic resources (MGRs), experiences from other agreements, including the Plant Treaty on Genetic Resources and interlinkages with other bodies and frameworks under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will be needed.

The Capacity Building and the Transfer of Marine Technology (CBTMT) Committee is meant to incorporate multidisciplinary expertise, act proactively, and assist in developing guidelines for needs assessments, as well as in monitoring and review, and mobilisation of funds. Cooperation with other sub bodies, in particular with the Clearing-House Mechanism and the Scientific and Technical Body will be crucial. Such collaboration will also be needed with other frameworks and bodies will be crucial, including under the Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as the involvement of civil society and Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, When considering the composition of the CBTMT committee, it was highlighted by delegates to keep it to a “manageable number”, while ensuring gender balance and equitable geographical representation, including from different States groups, such as Small Island Developing States (SIDS), Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs).

The Implementation and Compliance Committee (ICC) is supposed to facilitate the success of the agreement after its entry into force. While there is agreement that such a committee cannot punish non-compliance and should rather serve in a non-punitive and non-adversarial manner, details about composition in regard to conflicts of interest, and how to portray the special circumstance of SIDS, and situations of LDCS and LLDCs, as well as represent gender balance and equitable geographical distribution will still require further deliberation.

The Nervous System of the BBNJ Agreement – the Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM)

The Clearing-House Mechanism will be central for implementation of the BBNJ agreement and ensure transparency and accountability. As defined in the BBNJ Agreement, such as mechanism aims to be a centralised infrastructure, and associated practices, that facilitate the digital exchange of information among diverse stakeholders, while enabling a broader set of users to directly register and access information. The Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM) was discussed at several days of the conference session. While not mandated for COP1, delegations voiced the need for the CHM to be set up and ready as soon as the agreement enters into force. While it is clear that a cost-effective design is preferred and interoperability will be needed, technical details will eventually require technical experts to figure out the nitty-gritty part of the agreement. Ideas by Parties included a multilingual, interoperable design of the CHM and to guarantee special requirements to State Parties, sustained capacity building, a dedicated section of the mechanism for SIDS in form of an individual tab on the website. It is envisioned to serve as a centralised platform for ABS, generate the batch identifier for MGRs and match CBTMT needs with available capacity. To carry out its functions, it will need to be appropriately financed, include human resources and expertise and will need to effectively collaborate with other subsidiary bodies, as well as with other international frameworks and bodies. Moreover, it is envisioned to facilitate access to traditional knowledge (TK) of IPLCs. An incremental and phased approach might be needed to meet the expectations the CHM sets out. A pilot or interim phase was suggested by Parties to begin with the design and test it before entry into force of the agreement in order to ensure smooth operation when 60 countries have ratified. The idea was raised to establish intersessional work to further prepare the technicalities, with formalities of such a group yet to be decided. Prior to the next PrepCom Meeting in August, the Secretariat will provide a flowchart explaining data flows and interlinkages of the CHM with other bodies.

Funding implementation

It is well understood that the implementation of the BBNJ agreement will require initial and consistent long-term financing. Across the two weeks, preliminary discussions took place on the Finance committee, financial rules and a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Prior to the session, the Co-chairs provided an overview of different models, which could serve as potential examples – including options to be independent (as in the case of the ISA) versus incorporated into the UN system, with accountability over financial issues to the UN General Secretary (like with UNFCCC), or the head of the secretariat (as the Basel/Stockholm/Rotterdam and Minamata model), or the option to have a trust fund, managed by a different organisation, as in the case of the CBD (see aid to discussions provided by UNDOALOS). The model to which the financial rules will apply, therefore will depend on the model which is chosen for the Secretariat. Delegates highlighted the need for finance to be predictable, new, and additional, with effective participation of recipient countries, accounting for special requirements of SIDS. Regarding the Special fund, inspiration can be drawn from other instruments and the importance of minimising administrative burden and building on experience of trust funds was voiced. Further intersessional work on financial resources and the financial mechanism will be needed, also in regard to the ecological fund (52.5).

Cooperation with other institutions

BBNJ will need to find its place alongside already existing frameworks and bodies covering different geographical areas and sectors of international waters and biodiversity governance. Other IFBs, including the the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) were present and participated in discussions in the plenary and in side events on how to “not undermine”, and still “enhance cooperation and coordination”. Constructive contributions to the debate included examples of cooperation with other bodies and existing instruments that may provide examples of establishing links or examples of data needed for BBNJ (such as the CBD CHM on ABS and biosafety). Parties agreed to BBNJ being mutually supportive and non-duplicative.