EU Statement – UN General Assembly: Further intergovernmental consultation on the Declaration on sea-level rise to be adopted at the 2026 High Level Meeting

EU Statement - UN General Assembly: Further intergovernmental consultation on the Declaration on sea-level rise to be adopted at the 2026 High Level Meeting

10 April 2026, New York - Statement by the European Union and its Member States delivered by Roderick Harte, First Secretary, Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations, at the UN General Assembly on Further intergovernmental consultation on the Declaration on sea-level rise to be adopted at the 2026 High Level Meeting on Sea-Level Rise

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union and its Member States.

The Candidate Countries North Macedonia, Montenegro*, Albania*, Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina* as well as Monaco align themselves with this statement.

We would like to thank the co-facilitators for the elements paper they have prepared and for their inclusive process in preparing the declaration. We believe that it is a comprehensive paper that provides a sound basis to inform the drafting of the declaration. Having carefully studied the paper, we have a number of comments, which we will present today in the order of the themes. As stated previously, we recognise that certain issues may be linked to multiple themes and may therefore be hard to categorise.

Cross-cutting issues

As regards cross-cutting issues, we would first again like to repeat the importance of accurately reflecting the urgency of the issue. Scientific research that came out just last month shows that sea-level is underestimated and much higher than assumed in most coastal hazard assessments. As a result, the adverse effects may also materialise sooner than previously expected, which is deeply concerning to us.

Second, we wish to recall that sea-level rise will have negative socio-economic impacts on all coastal States, irrespective of their level of development. We believe this point could already be made in paragraph 2 of the elements paper, by adding the word "worldwide" after "[…] severe and irreversible threats […]". At the same time, we of course fully recognise the situation that Small Island Developing States are in, as reflected in paragraph 3.

Third, we also encourage the co-facilitators to continue exploring how the Declaration could cover the security dimensions of sea-level rise in all its dimensions, which we believe have only increased in complexity since 2011.

Finally, we would like to stress the importance of enhancing international cooperation at all levels. A recent example is the launch of the Ocean Rise & Coastal Resilience Coalition at the third United Nations Ocean Conference in Nice last year, which supports coastal cities by planning and implementing the transformations required to address sea level rise.

Knowledge, data and science

On the first theme of 'knowledge, data and science', we strongly support the need for policy to be grounded in the best available science and knowledge, as reflected in paragraph 6. We believe the elements paper should also stress the need for open access to data, science and knowledge.

In addition, we appreciate the reference in paragraph 9 to the Global Sea Level Observing System (GLOSS) as a relevant global ocean observation initiative. In this connection, we would like to also highlight the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), operated under IOC-UNESCO. We believe the elements paper should mention this as well, while also explicitly underlining the importance of strengthening these and other relevant international initiatives. The EU has in fact recently launched an International Alliance to support the Global Ocean Observing System globally and we encourage countries to join this Alliance.

Adaptation, finance and resilience'

On the second theme of 'adaptation, finance and resilience', we have several comments.

First, we believe the elements paper in general, but particularly in paragraph 4, should put greater focus on emission reduction (mitigation) as the only measure to limit further sea-level rise, and that further efforts are urgently needed by all states in the framework of their respective Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). This would follow the scientific consensus that sea-level rise is first and foremost driven by greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. This addition would also put greater focus in the elements paper on preventive rather than reactive measures, to which I will come back later in relation to the cost of inaction or delayed action.

Second, when it comes to finance, we favour a declaration where finance is concentrated in one place, rather than spread across different paragraphs and themes as is currently the case in the elements paper (e.g. paragraphs 4, 10, 11). We also note that the element paper focusses disproportionately on public finance. We believe much greater emphasis should be placed on private capital mobilisation, blended finance instruments and the role of multilateral development banks, development banks, and institutional investors.

With respect to public finance, we believe this should be accompanied by language on strong governance, transparency, and absorptive capacity frameworks. Public finance efforts should also remain consistent with existing international frameworks and ensure the efficient use of financial resources. In this regard, we would suggest adding references to the 'Green Climate Fund' and the 'Adaptation Fund', which are currently missing from the elements paper. At the same time, we would ask to be cautious with the references to the 'Fund for responding to Loss and Damage' in order to avoid discussions about compensation or liability. We are at this stage also unsure what is meant in the elements paper with "a one per cent community allocation from international climate finance" and "harmonisation of fiduciary requirements across climate funds", and therefore seek further clarity on both.

Third, we believe the environmental dimension should be strengthened and feature more prominently in the elements paper. When mentioning "nature-based solutions" and "restoration and protection" in paragraph 12, for example, we believe that rather than stating that these "can support adaptation" and "can strengthen resilience", the elements paper should state that restoration and protection "are essential to support adaptation" and "essential to strengthen resilience". When it comes to the listing of specific ecosystems in paragraph 12, we believe "sea grass meadows" and "kelp forests" are missing, which are crucial in carbon sequestration (they are also known as "blue carbon sinks") and in coastal protection. The final sentence of this paragraph on habitat loss also seems to put the focus on the marine resources dimension. We believe, however, that it would be more appropriate for the elements paper to start this sentence by acknowledging the loss of valuable coastal ecosystems, both terrestrial and marine ones, and how that may threaten biodiversity and the achievement of global biodiversity goals and targets. In this regard, we have also noticed that the elements paper does not include references to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity.

Livelihoods, socioeconomic challenges and culture and heritage

On the third theme of 'livelihoods, socioeconomic challenges and culture and heritage', we believe the elements paper could be strengthened in a few ways.

First, when it comes to the aforementioned marine resources, we believe the paper could mention fisheries management more explicitly, in particular the need for regional or international solutions to manage changing access to fisheries resources, given their crucial importance for livelihoods, economic opportunities, food security and nutrition around the world. Secondly, the paper could include more details on the risks for maritime transport (such as port infrastructure), linking this to broader economics risks of sea-level rise for the global economy as a whole. Third, we note that the economics risks relating to "un-insurability" and climate insurance markets, which we mentioned at the last informal, were not explicitly included in the elements paper. Finally, we believe it is appropriate to add language to the elements paper highlighting the cost of inaction and the cost of delayed action, which links to both mitigation and adaptation measures.

In addition, in paragraph 14, we believe that a reference to "children" should be added alongside "youth", and that the reference to "other groups in vulnerable situations" at the end should be reformulated to avoid any ambiguity in the paragraph as a whole about who are considered to be in vulnerable situations.

Finally, in paragraph 16, we believe that apart from recalling the resolution from the Human Rights Council, it would also be appropriate to refer to the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on climate change.

Legal dimensions

On the fourth theme of 'legal dimensions', we have the following observations.

First, we welcome the inclusion in the elements paper of language on the universal and unified character of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which sets out the legal framework within which all activities in the oceans and seas must be carried out.

Second, it is our view that references to the preservation of maritime zones and base lines charts or lists of coordinates, should, as a matter of principle, follow the wording of the ICJ Advisory Opinion.

Third, we find that the references and elaboration of obligations stemming from international human rights law are not sufficiently developed in the elements. We note that the adverse effects of climate change induced sea-level rise may impair the effective enjoyment of human rights. States have a duty to respect, protect and fulfil their human rights obligations in the context of sea-level rise. The Final Report of the ILC Study Group on Sea Level Rise in relation to International Law and the ICJ Advisory Opinion provide guidance in this regard on which we can base exchanges. More specifically, the ICJ affirmed that States must therefore take their obligations under international human rights law into account when implementing their obligations under the climate change treaties and other relevant environmental treaties and under customary international law (AO para 404). A reference in the Declaration along these lines is important.

Lastly, the EU and its Member States see positively the possibility of agreeing on the continuation of the discussion on the legal dimension in the General Assembly.

Implementation and review

On the final issue of 'implementation and review', we stress the importance of the complementary of existing processes, including under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. At the same time, we agree with the need for coherence and complementarity between different intergovernmental agencies in light of the existing fragmentation. In this regard, we would like to know if the co-facilitators view the Declaration as an opportunity to make concrete progress on this issue, or if they prefer to leave the details to the ongoing UN80 initiative?

Excellencies,

Let me conclude by thanking you again for your excellent work on the elements paper. We would like to ask what the next step will be in the process, in particular if you plan to circulate a revised version of the elements paper?

We look forward to the draft declaration by the end of April for intergovernmental consideration during May and June.

I thank you.

1. ^ North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.
2. ^ Seeger, K., Minderhoud, P.S.J. Sea level much higher than assumed in most coastal hazard assessments. Nature (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10196-1.