Highlights and images for 27 August 2025

Delegates strived to make progress on key items in the agenda of the second session of the Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) under the guidance of Co-Chairs Janine Coye-Felson (Belize) and Adam McCarthy (Australia), who underscored that advances in these key elements will allow for a productive intersessional session prior to the decisive PrepCom III, scheduled to be held from 25 March–2 April 2026. The day’s deliberations focused on financial rules and regulations and the rules of procedure for the Conference of the Parties (COP).

In the morning, delegates resumed discussions on financial rules governing the funding of the COP, the Secretariat, and any subsidiary bodies on the basis of a revised document (A/AC.296/2025/CRP.4) circulated by the Co-Chairs on Monday, 25 August. Discussions focused on provisions on the budget, funds, and contributions.

On the budget, delegates focused on the role of the finance committee. Many underscored that the finance committee has a strictly advisory role and authority on financial decisions rests with the COP. Others emphasized that the finance committee under the BBNJ Agreement has a distinct role, including with respect to fund mobilization and needs assessment, expressing skepticism on whether the relevant model of the International Seabed Authority is applicable.

On funds, discussions focused on provisions on eligibility, the working capital reserve, the potential establishment of new funds, and potential termination of a fund. Many delegates noted that discussing the establishment of new funds is premature. They further addressed contributions, focusing on the due date for the payment of assessed contributions, maximum contributions thresholds, cases of countries in arrears, investment, and contributions by non-parties.

Co-Chair McCarthy noted that a revised aid to negotiations will be issued for further consideration at PrepCom III.

In the afternoon, delegates engaged in parallel sessions to discuss a draft memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Global Environment Facility (GEF) (A/AC.296/2025/CRP.1), a working document on draft terms of reference for the scientific and technical body, and draft rules of procedure for the COP (A/AC.296/2025/CRP.3).

On the draft MoU with the GEF, discussions focused on:

• reporting requirements;
• the periodic review of the financial mechanism and independent assessment of the GEF, with delegates expressing divergent opinions on the need for an independent assessment and some preferring an alternative title for the section on “monitoring and evaluation of the contribution of the GEF to the financial mechanism”;
• complementarity and coherence within the financial mechanism; and
• provisions on cooperation.

Co-Chair Felson noted that “while challenges still exist, they are not insurmountable,” expressing optimism for successful conclusion of the deliberations at PrepCom III.

On draft terms of reference for the scientific and technical body, delegates focused on modalities for the operation of the body, including the establishment of ad hoc and working groups, engagement with the advisory group on Indigenous Peoples and local communities, experts, and financial arrangements. They further addressed provisions on cooperation and coordination as well as conflict of interest and confidentiality.

Co-Chair Felson highlighted interlinkages between the discussions and those under the rules of procedure for the COP and cooperation with relevant bodies. She emphasized that an aid to negotiations containing draft terms of reference for all subsidiary bodies will be circulated in the intersessional period for further discussion at PrepCom III.

Regarding the rules of procedure of the COP, delegates addressed a revised text circulated by the Co-Chairs on Monday, 25 August. Some delegates stressed the need to move to textual negotiations, noting that all suggestions are still included in the document and querying next steps.

Delegates devoted a considerable amount of time discussing provisions on meeting modalities, including in-person and virtual participation, meetings on emergency measures, dates, and notifications, as well as provisions on the agenda. A group of countries offered a streamlined proposal on in-person and virtual participation.

Co-Chair McCarthy invited delegates to informally work on the basis of the aforementioned proposal, which enjoyed general support. He further noted that while half of the rules of procedures still need to be addressed, “some of the thorniest issues have been tackled,” highlighting the need for focused deliberations on provisions on observers.