It’s all well and good to adopt an Agreement on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ), but without adequate finance such an agreement will remain but a paper tiger. The Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) for the BBNJ Agreement is trying to address just that. At the mid-way point of the Commission’s first session, delegates exchanged views on the funding of the Agreement’s secretariat, Conference of the Parties (COP), and subsidiary bodies, as well as arrangements with the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
One key way in which multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) are resourced is through assessed contributions: parties have to agree on a scale defining how much each party is expected to contribute to the Agreement's trust fund each year. Many supported using the UN’s scale of assessments as a basis, with the the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and Pacific small island developing states (P-SIDS) emphasizing a cap for SIDS. With experiences from other MEAs showing that countries often fall behind on their payment obligations, AOSIS suggested the suspension of voting rights to incentivize the clearing of arrears.
Delegates largely converged on a budgetary period of two years. The European Union (EU) and the Core Latin American Group emphasized that budget proposals should include information on proposed activities to allow for results-oriented decision making. Timor Leste and the High Seas Alliance suggested mandating the chairs of the subsidiary bodies to prepare programmes of work with estimated costs to inform the budget discussions.
With regard to the funds aimed at supporting the implementation of the Agreement, developing countries urged timely contributions to the voluntary trust fund to support their participation in BBNJ meetings. They also stressed capacity building and the transfer of marine technology to support national-level implementation, with P-SIDS, the African Group, and the High Seas Alliance calling for simplified access and approval procedures for GEF funding.
The EU, UK, Japan, Switzerland, and Norway emphasized grounding the discussions on arrangements with the GEF on experiences gained in the context of other MEAs, and cautioned against micromanagement. AOSIS and the African Group suggested the COP commission an independent assessment of the GEF’s support and for the GEF Council to take action to address the resulting recommendations and report back to the COP thereon. CARICOM and P-SIDS emphasized the importance of delineating a procedure to address disagreements, including with regard to decisions on project funding.
In the late afternoon, delegates started exchanging views on the modalities of the finance committee, echoing many points raised with regard to subsidiary bodies more generally. CARICOM and the UK emphasized the importance of collaboration between the finance committee and the committee on capacity-building and transfer of marine technology. In terms of membership, China suggested emulating the approach of the International Seabed Authority, giving the five largest contributors to the Agreement’s budget dedicated seats.
As Friday is a UN holiday, delegates will reconvene on Monday, 21 April 2025, to continue discussions on finance.
To receive free coverage of global environmental events delivered to your inbox, subscribe to the ENB Update newsletter.
All ENB photos are free to use with attribution. For this meeting, please use: Photo by IISD/ENB.