UN Transcripts — https://transcripts.un.org/ar/asset/k1b/k1bemao987 Preparatory Commission: Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (Third Session, Informal Working Group) — General Assembly — 26 March 2026 Language: en Automatically generated transcript — may contain errors. Not an official United Nations record. --- IAHWG · Co-Chair [0:02]: Good morning, colleagues. I don't know about the rest of you, but gee, I hate this room, I really do. Anyway, I'm sure you do all too. But I'm in here all day, as are a lot of you, I dare say, looking around the table. So, subsidiary bodies, we will begin our discussion today with part four, conflicts of interest, followed by the cross cutting paragraphs of part two, purposes and functions. After that we will turn to observers and any other essential items necessary to conclude the first round of consideration of the document. I'm going to give a little motivational pep talk now to say this is the subsidiary bodies group. We are, I think, the group in these negotiations most ahead of schedule. So give yourselves a pat on the back. I think I made it pretty clear this morning if it is possible to finish in the time we have available, it would be very convenient for these negotiations overall if we can free up our last remaining session for realistically consideration of rules of procedure. So let's see how we go. I will be trying to keep us moving. Having said that, I'm also conscious that most delegations here again are not operating in their native language. So we'll do our best and let's see how we go collectively. Okay, so the floor is open on part four, conflicts of interest. Colombia [2:02]: Thank you. Good morning, Co chair. Good morning, colleagues. I also hate this room, but. But I do think this room is more conducive to agreements than the other room. Yes, true. And this room is not as cold as the other room. So there are some things I like about it. And also you will be happy to hear that for clam, part six is pretty finished. We might perhaps suggest changing the removing brackets. All the brackets throughout the part. We would change perhaps the title instead of incompatible activities directly call it Incompatibilities. We would remove the specific placeholder for the ABS committee in 86. And as said, we would lift the brackets and we're ready to go. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [3:20]: Beautiful intervention. Columbia, on behalf of clam. And I'll let you in on a secret. Janine also actually prefers this room, which one may draw the unfortunate conclusion that she is more concerned with substance and outcome and I am more concerned with my personal comfort. But anyway, I'll leave that to everyone. I will pass to make a decision on. And I'll pass to Mike Rhenesia on behalf of psits,. Micronesia (Federated States of) [3:50]: Thank you, Kochi, if you don't mind, I'd like to defer to Palau, I think was before me. On behalf of aoc, thank you,. IAHWG · Co-Chair [4:00]: Palau, on behalf of aasis floor is yours. Palau · AOSIS [4:07]: Good morning, colleagues. Thank you very much, fsm, for deferring to Iosas. Co Chair, speaking on behalf of the alliance of Small Island States. We do have a couple of tweaks with regards to paragraphs 92 and 93. We do think that the confidentiality should apply to members invited guests, but also. And we just want to. Sorry, before I say who else it should apply to, we should also we take note of the distinction wherein 93 talks about invited experts and in 92 it talks about end experts. So we're not sure if we're intentionally creating a distinction there. So perhaps clarification is. Is required. But the other category of folks attending the meetings that should be bound by confidentiality should be observers. Can't bound ourselves invited guests, but not the observers. So we think that would be important just to ensure that the confidentiality provisions are robust. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [5:13]: Thank you. Palau for AOSIS, Micronesia for PSIDS. Micronesia (Federated States of) [5:20]: Thank you very much, Mr. Co Chair. And of course aligning with Palau on behalf of Eosis. Just a couple of additional comments on absc86. We'll just await proposals from other delegations, if they have any for that committee. Otherwise we're flexible on whether to address it here at all. We also heard the proposal from CLAM on how to refer to this section as a whole, which seems reasonable, I think, replacing incompatible activities with a different phrase that they used. We're generally fine with everything else, including text in brackets. Although I will say that in all paragraph all 90, while we support the cop doing this, there might need to be some sort of specialized mechanism established by the COP to handle these cases of conflict of interest. But maybe this is something that can be discussed later. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [6:12]: Thank you. Palau for P. SIDS. I now give the floor to Japan. Japan [6:20]: Thank you, Co Chair. Japan has just one comment regarding paragraph 93. We would like to open all the brackets, but we just think the wording shall make known is rather ambiguous. So for the clarification, we would like to suggest that we delete the known after make and add publicly available at the end of the sentence. So it should read shall make its findings and recommendations publicly available. I thank you, Kochi. IAHWG · Co-Chair [7:00]: Thank you. I see no one else looking to take the floor if you can. Oh, here we go. Cote d' Ivoire on behalf of the Africa group and then St. Kitts and Nevis to follow. Cote d' Ivoire for Africa Group. Côte d’Ivoire · Africa Group [7:19]: On the incompatible activities. The African group suggests removing the bracket around incompatible activities in the title in para. 86 Incompatible activities should be determined during the selection process. The African Group suggests providing a list of incompatible activities with the mandates of each subsidiary body. Such information will help determine the eligibility of the candidates for a membership to the SPs. Furthermore, the members, once elected, must take the engagement not to engage in any incompatible activities during the term of their office as members of a subsidiary body. Also, for para 91, 92 and 93, we suggest removing the brackets in para 91. We support specifying external experts to differentiate from the expert of SPs. The African group supports keeping or in participation in Para 92 and invited experts in Para 93. In our view, the last sentence shall make known its finding and recommendations should be kept. We also suggest adding to the members of the concerned sbs. This procedure reinforces transparency inside the SBS while maintaining confidentiality on specific matters. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [9:04]: I thank Kurt d' Ivoire for the Africa Group and I give the floor to St. Kitts and Nevis on behalf of caricom. Saint Kitts and Nevis · CARICOM [9:15]: Thank you. Co Chair on the heading of Part six, CARICOM believes that the heading speaks to conflict of interest and confidentiality. Given the supporting paragraphs, we therefore wish to delete the bracketed text stating incompatibility incompatible activities. On paragraph 92. Caricom would like the inclusion of all the bracketed text from paragraph 93. Sorry. Going back to 86, we link that to the request to the incompatible activities as requested so that we would. With that we would end our intervention. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [10:32]: Thank you very much. Sinkitson Nevis, on behalf of CARICOM and I give the floor to the European Union. EU · EU [10:47]: The EU and its 27 member states would like to introduce a new paragraph 88 bis specifically for the ICC. We are of the view that we should make clear that a member of the ICC should not take part in recommendations that concern the party that nominated him or her. This new paragraph 88 bis can read as follows. A member of the ICC shall not participate in the deliberation to prepare recommendations or vote on recommendations that relates to the party that nominated him or her. End of the paragraph. We can also submit this proposal in writing, of course. And for the rationale, such a provision is normal practice to include in the terms of reference or rules of procedure for these types of bodies. Moreover, the EU and its member States are ready to lift the brackets around paragraph 92 and we can also support the request for clarification as raised by Palau on behalf of iosis. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [11:49]: I thank the European Union and I give the floor to New Zealand on Behalf of Kansi. New Zealand · CANZ [11:56]: Thank you. Co Chair. Yes. Speaking on behalf of Kansi, we'd just like to briefly express our support for. The proposal to broaden the application of confidentiality to all participants in subsidiary bodies. And also support this proposal by Japan regarding the publication of the findings of procedures in paragraph 93. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [12:22]: Thank you. And I, the New Zealand, on behalf of Kansi and I now give the floor to Iran. Iran (Islamic Republic of) [12:33]: Thank you so much. Mr. Chair, good morning. We're listening to the views of colleagues and I see divergence on many points here. Only kind of inquiry on paragraph 93 which states that in the event of an alleged breach of an obligation relating to conflict of interest or confidentiality by a member of any subsidiary body, the Conference of the Parties may institute appropriate proceedings. So legally speaking, we're not sure what would be the basis for the COP to institute these proceedings. In the light of the agreement and also given the fact that the Conference of Party is a mostly political technical body, not a judicial or quasi judicial body, to my knowledge, I haven't seen similar provisions in many Conference of Parties Rules of procedures. So with that I would like to kindly ask the Secretariat, either now or at a later stage, provide information to us on the practice of other relevant or similar terms of reference or rules of procedure that include these instituting proceedings. This is a point of concern in terms of consistency with the mandates of the Conference. If the Conference would like to develop other avenues to examine information on this matter, maybe that's another discussion. But I don't think that the Conference of Party is legally speaking able to institute quasi judicial proceedings. So I still wait for the clarification from the Secretariat. Thank you so much. IAHWG · Co-Chair [14:25]: I thank Iran. We will pass it on. I think we all just need to be very mindful of the demands that are on Duallos at the moment and will be on doualos over the next couple of days. And with that I give the floor to the High Seas Alliance. High Seas Alliance · Observer [14:43]: Co Chair, with your permission, we were not able to intervene on decision making on Tuesday and I wonder if I could make a brief point on that as well. IAHWG · Co-Chair [14:52]: Technically you might have been able to intervene. You just would have had to have shouted very loudly. Thank you for your forbearance yesterday, for which I apologise to Rebecca and yes, please make both interventions. Thank you. High Seas Alliance · Observer [15:05]: So we heard many delegations expressing interest in learning more about existing practice with respect to intersessional decision making and recognizing that many similar bodies to the STB, such as the scientific and technical bodies that advise RFMOs various RFMOs around the world routinely make recommendations and make decisions on those recommendations intercessionally and virtually. So we therefore suggest the following text for paragraph 59 to replace the placeholder and this text would read and we'll submit this when all 59 when deemed necessary by the Subsidiary Bodies, work decision making. Adoption of any recommendations or advice, as well as matters of procedure or other activities, may be conducted intersessionally through virtual meetings, email or other agreed forms of communication. Turning to conflicts of interest, the topic of today the HSA suggests that the scientific I mean, excuse me, the Subsidiary Bodies and not the COP are best qualified to decide on individual cases of conflict of interest and to come up with the appropriate proceedings when there is a breach. We also recommend that potential conflict of interest, such as financial interests and matters before the Subsidiary Body should be one of the criteria for selection of the Subsidiary Body's members. On paragraph 92 in the TORs. To avoid the possibility of a situation where all data is determined to be confidential, we suggest amending the paragraph by replacing the words any data which are transferred to the Subsidiary Body in accordance with the agreement with the words any confidential or proprietary information. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [17:08]: I thank the High Seas alliance and again thank you also for your forbearance yesterday. That concludes, speakers for this item we shall now turn to to chapter two, purpose and functions. That's page three. Now if we can delegates, just to be clear, we're calling for basically interventions on the cross cutting paragraphs here, that is all of those preceded with the words all. So part two we will leave for now the committee specific provisions and just concentrate on the cross cutting provisions. So that is everything in part two with the prefix all in front of it. The floor is open. I have plough on behalf of aasis. Palau · AOSIS [18:18]: Thank you Co Chair on behalf of aocys and do correct me if I'm in the wrong part on the wrong paragraph. But on with regards to paragraph two we can be flexible, including in terms of including both implementation and attainment of the objectives of the agreement. We have some flexibility there. On paragraph three on behalf of aosis, we acknowledge that others have identified other provisions that are important to them. EOSIS of course would have liked to see Article 7M reflected. That said, we have listened to others. We recognize the arguments that have been made in highlighting the importance of those provisions to them. As such, we can be flexible on having it alongside having Article M7 alongside other provisions that others see as important. But its reflection here is only a reminder. Article 7M, the special circumstances of SIDS must be operationalized in the COP ROPS as well as the SB ROPS and TORs for each individual subsidiary body. Thank you, Co Chair. IAHWG · Co-Chair [19:31]: Thank you, Palau. For iosis. I'd just make the wider point as well that while not being naive about the nature of negotiations where delegations can live with both options, even if they have a preference which of course will be expressed, I think for us as co chairs that is very helpful. Thank you. So I would encourage delegations when expressing a preference to also indicate where possible, if they can live with the alternative. I thank the distinguished representative of Palau for that. And I give the floor to Mike Ranesha on behalf of psids. Micronesia (Federated States of) [20:16]: Thank you very much, Mr. Co Chair. And of course, aligning with Palau on behalf of EOSIS, just a couple of additional comments. Yes. On paragraph 02, as Palau indicated, now we have some flexibility. Well, at least for the Pacific seas, our flexibility would be to use both texts in the brackets, so implementation and attainment of the objectives. Because we think that just saying, attainment of the objectives would be too limiting, whereas implementation is broader. But if others want the second set of brackets, we can use both, if that's possible. And the only other comment we had was that we actually wanted to have a comment on paragraph STB5, but we can send that in writing if you want to focus just on cross cutting paragraphs at this point. Thanks. IAHWG · Co-Chair [21:05]: I thank Micronesia speaking on behalf of psids. And I give the floor to Columbia, speaking on behalf of clam. Colombia [21:18]: Thank you very much, Chair. And this paragraph, we as Micronesia, we could live with the two references, but we thought the best way to put it together was to say in order to support the implementation of the agreement with a view to the attainment of its objectives. And that sort of would bridge the two references. And in all three we would like the specific reference to all the paragraphs that are referred there. So we would like to remove the brackets around articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 and we would add as well as any other relevant provision of the agreement. I'll stop there. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [22:05]: Thank you very much. Columbia for clam. And I give the floor to St. Kitts and Nevis for caricom. Saint Kitts and Nevis · CARICOM [22:16]: Thank you, Co Chair. CARICOM aligns itself with the statement made with that of oasis. And as well we would prefer to retain both texts bracketed so it would read in order to support the implementation and to attain the objective of the agreement. And for all three we support lifting the brackets here as well. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [22:46]: Thank you. St Kitts and Nevis for Caricom. And I now go to Cote d' Ivoire for the Africa Group. Côte d’Ivoire · Africa Group [22:58]: Co Chair. The African Group will prefer both text in brackets, but we are flexible and we support removing all the brackets in text. All two and all three. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [23:13]: Thank you. Cote d' Ivoire for the Africa Group. And I now go to the European Union for the European Union. Funnily enough, floor is yours. Perfectly sent. EU [23:23]: Thank you so very much, Mr. Koch, for giving me the floor. One question for clarification. Actually, we do have also a comment on all one. Should we deliver that right now or should we come back to that at a later stage? IAHWG · Co-Chair [23:40]: If you don't mind? Just come back to it. We will do a swing around to cover up everything that's not already been covered. I'd like to keep the focus where we are for the moment. Thank you. EU · EU [23:49]: Yeah, we can do that. On all two. On behalf of the EU and its 27 member states, we only have a small comment with regards to paragraph two. Our strong preference there would be to reflect the language of the agreement being Article 1 47, paragraph 6 sub D of the agreement. We therefore support using the word implementation as currently between the brackets because the Conference of the Parties shall establish such subsidiary bodies as deemed necessary and I quote, to support the implementation of this Agreement, end of quote, on all three. The EU and its 27 member states do not see the need to single out specific articles of this Agreement to guide the subsidiary bodies as all articles guide the subsidiary bodies. Therefore, we propose to delete the text between brackets to para 4. We have a general comment relating to all paragraph 4 subparagraph B on the specific bodies. On the specific subsidiary bodies, we would prefer to include the word relevant in front of the word functions. In our view, this makes it more focused wording overall. Yeah, I think that's it for the moment. IAHWG · Co-Chair [25:12]: I thank the European Union for that intervention. A question, if I may. It doesn't have to be answered immediately, but other delegations that have spoken so far support the inclusion of attainment of the objectives as well as implementation. So I'd be grateful for views on whether the European Union would have flexibility to accept attainment of objectives if that's where the balance of opinion of delegations lies. Speaker 40 [25:46]: Just very briefly, we will definitely consider that for the movie. Thanks, I thank you and advice in due course would be appreciated. I now give the floor to Norway on behalf of Kansi. Norway · CANZ [26:03]: Thank you, Co Chair. And yes, speaking on behalf of Can C. So for two, we have a slight preference to include both the bracketed text so both the implementation and attainment of the objectives of the agreement. But we can be flexible here in regards all three. We're of the view that we don't see the need to reference specific articles of the agreement. All of the articles of the agreement will apply, but we don't see the need to be specific and cherry picking certain articles. So we would prefer sticking to the subsidiary body shall be guided by the agreement. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [26:50]: Thank you Norway for Kany and I now give the floor to Iran. Iran (Islamic Republic of) [26:56]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We limit our intervention on paragraph four and five. We believe that the purpose and function of the subsidiary bodies should be consistent with the agreement itself. The language on, I quote any other functions mandated by the Conference of the Parties end of code have been inserted in relation to function functions of the subsidiary bodies in paragraphs four to five. To that end, we believe it is helpful to add the term in accordance with the agreement to be added to second subparagraphs in paragraph 4 and 5. And since you mentioned the kind efforts of the dualists in your previous intervention, I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank my colleagues and the Secretary for their great efforts. Thank you so much. IAHWG · Co-Chair [27:39]: I thank the distinguished representative of Iran for those comments of appreciation for dwarlos which are appreciated and very much earned. So thank you and I now give the floor to Nigeria. Nigeria [27:55]: Thank you. Co Chair. Good morning colleagues. Just to add our voice to that of other colleagues on all two, our preference will be attainment of the objectives rather than implementation. But we are flexible on having to support the implementation and attainment of objectives where also because you do not implement objectives, you work to achieve the objectives. And so. But we are flexible on having both words as long as the attainment of the objective is kept in the text. Also on all three, we also share the concerns raised by parties or on listing specific articles. But we are flexible with the proposal from Colombia on listing these articles that have been listed here with other provisions of the agreement. And that's. I'll leave it there. Thank you. I thank Nigeria and thank you for those indications of flexibility. And I now give the floor to Egypt. Egypt [28:59]: Thank you Mr. Co chair for giving me the floor. So we align ourselves with the statement delivered by Cote d' Ivoire on behalf of the African group. And we would like to have a suggestion here for all to the last part in order to support the implementation of the agreement towards achieving its objectives. Because we believe that post the implementation and attainment of objectives are equally important to have it here as A guidance. And for all three, we concur with others that comparing the benefits of listing specific articles and the whole agreement would be equally important. So in this regard, our proposal would be in implementing their functions, the subsidiary bodies shall be guided by articles by lifting all the brackets 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the agreement, among others. So among other relevant articles, so that it would serve both purposes. Because if we said the mayor reference to the agreement and we are referring to a guidance, we should be a little bit more precise in that context and the added value and merit of having specific articles so that the SBS would be clear when they are applying their role, that these specific articles comes as a priority. But then within the bigger context of the agreement. So this is our proposal in this regard. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [30:36]: I thank Egypt and I give the floor to Japan. Japan [30:42]: Thank you, Co Chair. For paragraph two, Japan prefers implementation of the agreement for the same reason expressed by the delegate for eu. And for paragraph three we support opening all the brackets. And for paragraph four, actually Japan proposes to delete all the paragraph four because we find it unnecessary since they are all breakdown list of what's already stated in paragraph two. Thank you, Co Chair. IAHWG · Co-Chair [31:25]: I thank you Japan. And one of the reasons we're structuring the discussion as we are is subject obviously to the final opinion of delegations. That's exactly what we're intending to do. So. Yeah. And with that, for precisely the reason that you stated. With that I will give the floor to the United Kingdom. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [31:51]: Thank you very much. Good morning everyone. On all two, we, we had previously we have a preference for implementation for the reasons set out by others. It reflects the wording of the agreement. But we can be flexible and we thought in particular Klam's suggestion linking the two sounded like a neat way to go about that. On Article 3, we agree with the EU and Kanzi that we don't need to pick out here specific articles of the agreement. The agreement as a whole is important in guiding the work of the subsidiary bodies. So we think it can just say shall be guided by the agreement without going into details on specific articles. Thanks. IAHWG · Co-Chair [32:37]: I thank the United Kingdom and I give the floor to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia [32:45]: Thank you. Mr. Co Chair. I have one comment with regard to all two. This is for the words between the brackets implementation and attainment of the objective. The way I see it from the first reading, that implementation is focusing on putting plan into action and this is the function of the subsidiary bodies. However, attainment is the outcomes that we are looking to achieve and I think this is the objective of the conference. So all preference to have the implementation of the agreement. Thank you,. IAHWG · Co-Chair [33:25]: Chakra, Saudi Arabia. I give the floor to China. China [33:34]: Thank you, Chair. On paragraph two, China prefer implementation which reflect the agreement, as other delegation said, and is more pragmatic and we are flexible with this. On paragraph 5, China suggests to retain the text where available in the brackets which will be accordance with Article 7 of the agreement. Thank you, Chair. IAHWG · Co-Chair [34:02]: Thank you, China. And I give the floor to the European Union. EU [34:08]: Thank you so very much, Mr. Co Chair. The EU and its member states can be flexible as others with the wording attainment of the objectives of the agreement. And we also support the idea of using both as suggested by others such as clam PCs and the UK and for the other subsidiary bodies, we are happy to submit our adjustments in writing. Thanks. IAHWG · Co-Chair [34:32]: I thank the European Union for that very helpful intervention. Thank you, Micronesia. I meant it. I'm serious. We're at the stage of proceedings where delegations. We do need delegations to be reacting to what they've heard on the floor and adjusting. So thank you Mike Rhonesia for PSITS. Micronesia (Federated States of) [35:00]: Thank you very much, Mr. Co Chair. Just a couple of reactions actually. One, we think that clam's suggestion for how to deal with all two paragraph all two is a reasonable one and we thank them for that. Secondly, you did mention in passing that there's a potential that all of the SB specific paragraphs form might be removed in favor of the language in paragraph two. But there's still STB paragraph five and I don't know if you included that in that bundle if you are going to retain STB5. And since others have already commented on the specifics of STB5 for the Pacific SIDS, we need to clarify that the reference to objective scientific assessment in that paragraph only applies to the other reference to science and scientific information there and does not apply to relevant traditional knowledge. We can add a comma there to make that distinction clear and I will send it in writing. Thank you,. IAHWG · Co-Chair [35:56]: I appreciate that. Just to note that STB5 is basically covered in STB9 and so we will. We think it's better covered there. So we will eventually be consolidating them into STB 9. I. I apologise. It's just a reality. There's some. There's some scrub in for lawyers. The term. There's some scrubbing to be done basically and there will be a fair bit of scrubbing over the next few days. Thank you. I have. Was the UK up? No. Columbia for Clamor Columbia. Colombia [36:36]: Thank you chair. We agree with what you just said about STB5. So we think it should be there along with STB9. So that's why we were suggesting deleting it here. So I'm just reacting to what you were saying. We agree with your approach and to try to be helpful with regard to all three. We don't think that we are. By highlighting these articles, we're not choosing some articles in the agreement, we're choosing the general provisions of the agreement. So we're just singling them out because this applies to everybody, to every subsidiary organ, to the cop, to whoever reads the agreement. They have to go back to these articles. So that's why we thought it was important to just highlight those numbers. So it's not just random articles. These are the most important articles for interpretation and application of the agreement. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [37:27]: I thank you, Columbia, for clam. I don't see anyone else inscribed on this item. Excellent. We're making good progress. Thank you. So we'll now turn to observers, which is page 12. That is part six, page 12. And this is one of those items on which I think we all need to be mindful that there are discussions taking place in other bodies as well. So this is one of those items where whatever is concluded here will need to be harmonised with what is concluded in respect to the Conference of the Parties Rules of procedure, which we cannot be entirely sure of yet. I see someone who's behind the pillar who's looking for the floor. Sorry about that. Was that on the previous item? Okay, you're just saying hello. Hello. But do not hesitate to wave if you do want to take the floor because you're right behind the pillar for us. So, okay, anyone wanting to come in on observers, that is number six, subparagraph six, page 12. I see Palau on behalf of AOSIS. Palau · AOSIS [39:05]: Thank you, Co Chair, with regards to observers. And we take good note of what you've indicated to us, that there are parallel conversations taking place. We would like to insert. We would like to propose the insertion of accredited before observers. And with regards to para 52, we want to. Observers should be construed in line with the rules of procedure, the rules of procedures that we're discussing in the other room, and certainly not limited to ifbs. So if we were to remove the brackets there, it would read, shall be open to observers from ifb. So we don't want to make that limited. We want to make sure that there is openness to other observers as well, and very much in line with what we're discussing with the COP rops in terms of threshold, AOC is still considering this issue. We of course generally prefer greater transparency, but we will revert on the issue of thresholds with regard. One thing that we noticed was different with the cop ROP's and what we have here is the COP ROP sets out closing the meetings for a time bound period which is not here. It may merit us having that time bound element in this section as well. Again, just to repeat, we do want to ensure that there is concurrence in what we're discussing in the other rooms and that all these category of observers that we have in that list is allowed to attend the meetings here. Nevertheless, and this may be administrative, but I think still worth reflecting to colleagues the purpose for clear the four purposes of a clear record of who attends the SB meetings. There should be a registration process for each meeting of the sb and we see this not as a means to exclude anyone, but more in terms of an administrative step for record keeping. So we know who attended the meetings. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [41:22]: I thank Palau speaking on behalf of aosis. And I now give the floor to Columbia, speaking on behalf of clam. You have the floor. Colombia [41:36]: Thank you very much. Chair and I there are several points on which we agree with eosis, starting with the fact that, well, as we all know, this conversation on observers is being had elsewhere too. So we depend a little bit on what happens in another room. But we do agree that this section should not be limited to observers from ifb. So we would delete that reference the one in brackets after the word observers on the majority. We know that is connected also to the conversation on majorities for closed meetings of the cop. So whatever we agree on there should be, we think should be reflected also here, although we of course understand subsidiary values are smaller. But we think that that should be discussed or maintain some unity with what we say there and here. In all, 54 we would delete the reference to on a regular basis. We think it depends on the subsidiary bodies. We think it depends on the kind of meetings the subsidiaries are going to have. So that in no way means we would prefer worse transparency or how do you say that, less transparency. But we think that that should be a decision of the chairs of the society bodies to decide when invitations to meetings of our subsidiary bodies can work. So we think that on a regular basis sort of constrains the chairs of the subsidiary bodies and we would delete. 55 Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [43:33]: I thank Columbia on behalf of clam. Just to say, for the sake of Clarity. You're of course exactly right on the interconnection. And I think when we have what is produced by in the COP rules of procedure negotiations and what is produced here, we will have to line both of them up and then make changes which we will put back to delegations to try and ensure that they. They don't need to be identical, but they need to sit alongside each other. But thank you for flagging that. I give the floor to Mike Rheneja for pseuds. Micronesia (Federated States of) [44:15]: Thank you, Mr. Co Chair. Aligning ourselves of course with Palau on behalf of EOSIS. Just a couple of additional comments. In paragraph all 52, we prefer 2/3 majority or maybe even a higher threshold in order to close the meeting. So that's our preference there. And our other comment has to do with paragraph absc55. In general, the Pacific seats support the inclusion of intellectual property organizations in the work of this and perhaps other committees. But maybe we need to consider this in a cross cutting paragraph somewhere rather than here so we can see possible movement. Thank you. Thank you very much. IAHWG · Co-Chair [44:59]: I'm not sure what's going on in the back of the room, but can we please keep it a little bit quieter? It makes it very hard to hear. So with that I will give the floor to St. Kitts and Nevis, speaking on behalf of caricom. Saint Kitts and Nevis · CARICOM [45:16]: Thank you, Co Chair. CARICOM aligns itself with the statements made by oasis and we also agree to insert accredited observers given discussions with the room with our P's, we'll have to see the outcome of that as it relates to listing the ifbs here, so including accredited observers. And we would also like to drop the brackets around the 2/3 majority. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [45:56]: Thank you Caricom. Thank you. S. Kitson, Nivis, speaking on behalf of Caricom. And I now give the floor to Cote d', Ivoire speaking on behalf of the Africa Group. Côte d’Ivoire · Africa Group [46:11]: Thank you, good Chair on Observers. The African Group reiterates its general support to openness and cooperation with the observers, while also linking observers arrangements to a broader corporal of procedures discussion. And we underscore that observers participation should remain consistent with the intergovernmental nature of the agreement. Then we wish to await for the outcome of the rope's negotiation before finalizing our position on observers. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [46:55]: Thank you. On behalf of the Africa Group noted on that last point. And of course entirely reasonable. So thank you. And I will now give the floor floor to Japan. Japan [47:11]: Thank you. Kochi. On paragraph 52 for the threshold, Japan considers that a simple majority should suffice to decide the meeting should be closed and paragraph 53 we would like to propose to replace shall be implied invited on the first line. We may attend because we just don't think it's necessary to invite all state parties to every single meeting. That's all. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [47:43]: Domore, Gato, Gazaimus and I give the floor to Australia, speaking on behalf of Kansi. Thank you. Australia [47:54]: And with regards to the first bracket of text, our position is that subsidiary bodies must remain open to IFB observers in order to achieve the objectives of the agreement. Relevant IFBs must be effectively integrated into the Agreement's processes and involved in continuous dialogue with its institutions. However, observer participation should not be limited to ifbs, which we would view as unduly restrictive with respect to Article 48.4 of the agreement. And to that end we would prefer deletion of the first bracketed text as others have suggested. But otherwise we could support the addition of including before the reference to IFBS on the second bracketed text of paragraph all 52. We are of the view that it is appropriate for subsidiary bodies to have the discretion to close its meetings to other observers or limit the number where necessary, having regard to logistics and any sensitivities. But we are generally comfortable with the decision on such matters being made by a 2/3 majority in that instance. Thank you, Coche. IAHWG · Co-Chair [48:56]: I thank Australia on behalf of Kansi and I give the floor to the European Union. EU · EU [49:06]: Thank you, Mr. Kocha, for giving me the floor. The EU and its 27 member states attach great importance to the provisions on observers. Transparency is an important objective of the agreement throughout all its procedures. Can only me that hears that. I tried to continue. Sorry. No worries. We appreciate hearing other delegations supporting transparency as well. Therefore, active observer participation is also important in the proceedings of the subsidiary bodies. The chairs of the subsidiary Bodies should ensure time for observers active participation while ensuring that the bodies work in a timely and efficient manner. Turning to paragraph 52, we do not see a need for the categorization of observers and therefore have a preference to delete the part of relevant instruments, frameworks and bodies as currently between brackets. We think that in exceptional circumstances the Subsidiary body should be able to have closed meetings where the proposed 2/3 majority to decide on closing a meeting seems reasonable, as also suggested by Micronesia. We think that in exceptional. Read that already. Sorry. We suggest adding another part to the sentence for improved clarity. The objective is to provide the chair the option to give some more guidance and participation of observers. I read it out. The chair of the subsidiary body shall Be responsible for ensuring the efficient, orderly and purposeful conduct of meetings of subsidiary bodies, including allocating time, subject to time and agenda limitations for observers to deliver statements, end of quote. For a more specific case specific to the ICC, we suggest a new paragraph based on Rule 15 of the the Rules of Procedure for the ICC under the Minamata Convention and that would Read as follows. Para. 52B. Deliberation to prepare recommendations or voting on recommendation shall be closed to all observers. Thank you, Mr. Co Chair. IAHWG · Co-Chair [51:21]: I thank the European Union. I think we're looking into this issue of a little bit of feedback coming through the system and I apologise for that and I now give the floor to Singapore. Singapore [51:39]: Thanks very much, Mr. Co Chair. We align ourselves with AOSIS. We have just one comment, or rather a question on paragraph 55. We understand why intellectual property experts are important to ABSC discussions, but we question the need to single out representation of intellectual property organizations. We suggest deleting it here and similar to what P suggested, to discuss whether this provision is necessary at a future juncture. Thank you very much. IAHWG · Co-Chair [52:14]: I thank Singapore and we will revert on that. I didn't quite catch at the beginning was that on behalf of AOSIS or Singapore nationally. Nationally. Nationally. Thank you very much. Philippines, you have the floor. Philippines [52:35]: I got a bit confused about how to raise my flag. Thank you for the Philippines. As we've expressed before, transparency is an important element for us for the rules of procedure, both in cop. COP rules of Procedure and also those governing the subsidiary bodies. So for us, our preference would be to delete the first bracketed text on ifbs to ensure that servers would not be limited to ifbs. Although we have also noted and can be open to language proposed on including IFBS in relation to this, in paragraph 55, we find this. Our preference is for the deletion of this paragraph, considering it might be duplicative and also unnecessary. If we widen the scope of the observers in paragraph 52, we would also. We also support lifting the brackets around 2/3 majority. Thank you,. IAHWG · Co-Chair [53:49]: Mabuwai. And there's no need to apologise. I should be apologising to you. It's a handy reminder that participation does change and that the procedure is to not push the button but to raise the flag and wait for the call. Wait till you get the call and then push the button. And that's entirely my fault, so I apologise for that. Turkey. Türkiye [54:17]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Regarding the paragraph 52, we also in support of deleting the bracketed text as it is not consistent with the existing paragraphs. One of the Rules of Procedure Observers categories are already clearly defined and should not be modified in this context. And we also do not support the inclusion of a 2/3 majority requirement for closing meetings to observers and it will be preferable to allow the COP or the subsidiary body concerned to decide on this matter without predefined majority requirement as necessary. And also for paragraph 55 we also seek some further clarification. We noted inclusion of intellectual property property organizations may raise issues related to mandate, potential overlap with other international frameworks and a lack of clarity regarding the rule. Thank you Mr. Chair,. IAHWG · Co-Chair [55:17]: I thank Turkey and I give the floor to Indonesia. Indonesia [55:26]: Thank you Mr. Kochi. Are also figuring out how to raise my placard. So with regard to observers, Indonesia is closely following the statement conveyed by the African group as currently we're discussing observers in the discussion of rules of procedure of the cop. So it will be easier to just refer to ROP COP. As paragraph 1 has already mentioned that ROP COP will apply mutatis mutandis unless otherwise decided by respective subsidiary bodies. Indonesia views that this wording will allow the subsidiary bodies to invite additional observers in each meeting if needed. With regard to paragraph all 52, Indonesia agreed to delete the bracket in on relevant IFBs as part of observers since in the Rules of Procedure of the Conference of the parties, IFBs have been included as one of the listed observers in Rule 6. So if ROP COP applies mutates mutandis, we don't need to single out IFBS. This also applies to paragraph ABSC55 on the representation of intellectual property organizations as it has also been included in the definition of IFBs. Indonesia also echoes the statement and the views of all delegations that we need to maintain transparency and openness of the meetings of subsidiary bodies. So Indonesia would like to emphasize the importance again of the reporting mechanism and also the Clearinghouse mechanism function as it will also ensure transparency in cases where subsidiary body members decide to have a closed meeting. So this might be one of the consideration by Member States in this regard and one of the main element I think for observers that Indonesia looks at was no reference on decision making capacity of observers. Again, if it's currently being addressed in the ROP cop, it can easily also apply mutatis mutandis to the meeting of subsidiary bodies. Thank you Mr. Cout Chair Tira Mukasi,. IAHWG · Co-Chair [57:47]: Indonesia and I give the floor to the United Kingdom. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [57:54]: Thank you very much. Like others, we're very supportive of transparencies and of the observer's role in this process. We agree with others though that we don't want to be looking like we're singling out certain observers only for observing subsidiary body meetings. So we would delete the words in the square brackets. We also agree that there may be some certain limited circumstances in which subsidiary bodies will need to close their meetings and we can support this with a 2/3 majority. IAHWG · Co-Chair [58:25]: Thank you. Thank you very much for that. United Kingdom and I now give the floor to China. China [58:36]: Thank you, Chair. China is supposed to open two brackets in paragraph 52 and retain the text which will be useful to achieve the objectives of the agreement about cooperating with other relevant ifvs. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [58:56]: I thank China and I give the floor to the fao. FAO · Observer [59:07]: Thank you, Mr. Co Chair. Our statement is in line with what we mentioned yesterday in relation to working with IFP's, so I will be reading a sort of a general remark and a very short suggestion for what we do with the paragraphs. Service, as we know, will play an essential role in ensuring the effectiveness and relevance of the subsidiary bodies under the Agreement. In light of its comprehensive mandate and experience, FAO stands ready to contribute to various subsidiary bodies. For example, the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, a normative intergovernmental body that negotiates policy tools for conservation, sustainable use and access and benefit sharing in relation to genetic resources, is well positioned to contribute to, to and support the Access and Benefit Sharing Committee. For example, FAO can also contribute to data science capacity building and operational expertise to the Scientific and technical Body Implementation and Compliance Committee and capacity building and transfer of Marine Technology Committee. Against this background, FAO believes that the square brackets around the world of service in the heading of subsection 6 should be lifted as well as those in paragraph 52, while retaining the text that is currently bracketed. Of course, this intervention is in the context of all contributions already made and the most important thing for FAO is inclusivity and consistency with the agreement. I thank you, Sir. I thank the FAO and I give the floor to the High Seas Alliance. High Seas Alliance · Observer [1:01:09]: Thank you, Co Chair. The High Seas alliance strongly recommends that observer participation and transparency at meetings of the subsidiary bodies should be no less restrictive than the COP to ensure that meetings of subsidiary bodies are subject to the the same observer process as outlined in draft Rule 6 of the COP Rules of Procedures. We strongly recommend deleting the bracketed language in paragraph 52, starting with from observers through to bodies. That would limit observers to only IFBS. We also recommend in paragraph 52 that any proposal to close a session of a meeting of a subsidiary body should be subject to a 2/3 threshold by removing the brackets around the words by a 2/3 majority and add language in paragraph 52 to read, and I quote, any decision to close a subsidiary meeting will be time bound and limited to exceptional circumstances. Thank you, Co Chair. IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:02:03]: Thank you, High Seas Alliance. And that concludes the inscribed speakers on this item. What I now propose to do delegations is to, as I was discussing with the European Union previously, open up now the entire document for what is remaining. If you like to sweep up any remaining comments, I would make three observations. The first one is be aware that there will be substantial scrubbing of this document, so there's no need to highlight potential linkages with for instance the COP rules of procedure. We will attempt to take those up when both documents are finalised. Please try to concentrate on essential items if at all possible texts that you absolutely have to have or you can't possibly live with. And I would also note, I think we will need to wrap up at about 1205 to 1210, probably 12:05 to get back for Chile's presentation. I think 12:05 to be safe actually. So we've got about 20 minutes. If we do conclude consideration of this item, it does open up the Friday session for rules of procedure, which would be very handy and it would mean that this group is officially the best performed group in the entire negotiations. And we'll get the Janine and Adam gold star for top effort. Okay, the floor is open. I can't. Can you turn Maldives? I'm sorry about that. It's hard to see down here. Maldives, the floor is yours. Maldives [1:03:56]: Thank you, Chair. The Maldives would like to provide a suggestion with regards to paragraph on STB. On paragraph 12 the both the option. As noted, there are significant divergent of views with regards to the modality of the stb. We would like to suggest a paragraph in addition into paragraph 72 and we have already communicated it to the Secretariat. As mentioned, we would like to propose two permanent working groups under the STB which would be open to experts nominated by parties and observers. And we've had a discussion with some of the observers and then also member delegates. And we are open for further suggestions to improve the text as we believe that this would be a possible landing zone to merge the two divergent views. I'll stop it there. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:05:03]: Thank you Maldives. Much appreciated. And I give the floor to Mike Renesia on behalf of P. Sits. Micronesia (Federated States of) [1:05:12]: Thank you very much, Mr. Co Chair. A couple of comments, but first to maybe a reaction to intervention from Maldives just now. We appreciate their effort here to potentially bridge views and the Pacific Seas will very seriously consider the proposal they just made. Thanking them very much for that. We wanted to comment. Honestly, I cannot remember if we ever touched on paragraph 01 at all. I've lost parts of my memory at this point. But this is the whole issue of the relationship between the rules and procedure of the COP and the terms of reference, et cetera for the subsidiary bodies. As my colleague Martin Arthur articulated on behalf of the Pacific States in the COP Rules of Procedure room the other day, our view is that notwithstanding the mutatis mutant language in the rules of procedure etc. If the cop adopts new terms of reference for existing or new subsidiary bodies that either add on to or potentially displace existing COP Rules of procedure, then the new action by the copy, the new terms of reference etc will take precedence and will not be considered to be conflicting with the COP Rules of procedure. So that is also relevant to paragraph all 90 96. Paragraph all 96. Paragraph all 96 talks about if there's a conflict between the terms of reference modalities etc for the subsidiary bodies and any provision of the Agreement, the Agreement shall prevail. I think this is generally fine, but we need to be clear about what is meant by conflict because these terms of reference sometimes don't explicitly don't verbatim copy language from the agreement, sometimes they add on to the language or sometimes they omit some things for various reasons. So we need to be clear that in those instances those are not considered to be in conflict with the agreement because that's what the Parties have decided. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:07:13]: Thank you. Micronesia for P SIDS Thailand SA cup thank you. Thailand [1:07:20]: Thank you Co Chair. So Thailand thanks the delegation of the MA for their constructive textual proposal regarding the establishment of the Standing Thematic Working groups under the STB. And we support the proposed paragraph 72bis and 72ter which would establish standing working groups on the EIAs and ABMTs. These are the operational heart of the agreement and their works required to broadest possible scientific inputs. Also, in our view, these Working group offer a vital capacity building pathway. So by keeping these open groups open to experts nominated by all parties, we ensure that when the Agreement talks about special interests and needs of developing state, they are not mere words. So it allows our national expert to contribute directly to the global ocean governance while at the same time strengthen our domestic scientific frameworks. So we believe this proposal provide a pragmatic compromise and a bridge so it still maintain the efficiency of the STB as the core body while ensuring that the door remains open for technical experts from the Global south on the issues that are potentially impactful to them. Thank you, Ko Chair. IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:08:42]: Koh Khun Cup Thailand and I give the floor to Palau, speaking on behalf of aosis. Palau · AOSIS [1:08:52]: Thank you, Co Chair. I may be having the same problems as Micronesia in terms of memory, but so apologies if I come back after I've realized I haven't spoken about something. But for now with regards to paragraphs 50 and 51, I'm not sure if we managed to get through that. Speaker 100 [1:09:16]: No. Okay, thanks. I'll proceed then. So again here the alliance of Small Island States has flexibility in terms of formats, the in person virtual hybrid participation. We did want to comment on work being done intersessionally, including via email. Palau · AOSIS [1:09:36]: We were okay with that. They should be able to undertake work intercessionally, including via email. Virtual meetings should take into consideration the different time zones of all regions, especially small island developing States, as well as the technological limitations that members experience because of platforms used. We can be supportive of language, as I've already mentioned on work on email, but this being very cognizant of the technological limitations of certain members of the subsidiary bodies who might not be able to readily access reliable Internet or secure email services, We should just let me make sure I'm. And yes, we're happy to. To ensure that there's appropriate resources being made available to support effective participation of developing countries in virtual or hybrid meetings. Of course. Thank you Co Chair. IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:10:42]: Thank you Palau, on behalf of aosis. And you were correct, they weren't covered. And apologies in one way it would be. In one sense it would be easy to go through paragraph by paragraph, but we've done this system of gathering and focusing in groups in order to consider issues in groups and also to sort of get through the main sort of headlands of the. Of the article. In the case of modalities, there are some that we've removed or put back because we think that they can be worked out later either by the COP or the subsidiary body itself. But if people have. Sorry, if delegations have very strong views, they should certainly put those on the record right now. So I appreciate that. And having turned 60 a week ago, don't worry about the memory. I think I'm suffering from early onset Alzheimer's. So with that I will give the floor to Columbia speaking on behalf of clam. Colombia [1:11:52]: Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you for this space to discuss some things we think might have been left out on the issue raised by Micronesia, we also have the same impression. So what we saw is that we have two routes. Root A is the larger or more overarching instrument, sort of sets general rules, and then we have less overarching agreements, so we have to decide how they interrelate. So one thing is when one thing is not regulated, and a different thing is when there is a conflict. And as Micronesia was saying, the issue we have is when do we say there is a conflict, when do we say we are just developing further a rule? And that is when it's going to get tricky. But I guess that we cannot preempt all possible conflicts. So we're going to have to leave with some general language that sort of give us guidance. So. So that has to do with all one, we saw in CLAM that it is different to refer to the rules of procedure, applying mutatis mutandis for matters not regulated than it is to say what happens in the event of a conflict and in the event of a conflict in clam. We had this discussion, but we seem to be aligned with what P SITS was saying about the more special or lex specialis principle would have to apply. So the more specialized rule will prevail. And that has to do also with the relationship in 95 and 96 with the agreement in which we do think that always the agreement shall prevail, but there has to be first a conflict in order to establish whether they contradict each other, the different rules contradict each other. Then on the STV in particular, we were thinking in CLAM that it might be necessary at some point that the STV sort of splits itself into two subcommittees. And that's why we were thinking, leaning towards a bigger STB that can perform all of the amount of functions it has specifically with regard to AVNTs, and all of the amount of functions it has specifically to EIAs. And that's why we were thinking large enough so it can sort of divide itself and work on these different obligations, which are very different from each other. So that's why we want to have that possibility of the STB in creating subcommittees. And that has to do with 72 and 73. And then there was something in Article 50 and 51 in particular for clam, because we do agree, and let me get there, we do agree that virtual participation, hybrid participation, email exchanges might be necessary for the subsidiary bodies to work effectively, especially intersectionally or intersectionally with regard to their own meetings. But for climate, it's Important that decisions are always taken in person. While we agree that they could exchange communications and with all the caveats, virtually should be possible if circumstances so allow, we are concerned that decisions are taken in a virtual format. So. So we would suggest some language on decisions by the subsidiary bodies to be adopted exclusively in in person sessions. So we will submit some language with regard to that. And I think that it's all for now. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:15:45]: Thank you, Columbia. On behalf of CLAM delegations. I'll. I'll try to set this out clearly and if you can pay attention, and this is thinking aloud. So I will need to talk to Janine. What I would suggest we will go through as much of the list as we can before 12:05. I also do want to take some of the pressure off, particularly the regional groups. So what I would propose we have the Friday afternoon session, which I anticipate needing for rules of procedure. But what I will do to give especially the regional groups time to consult and see if there are any provisions that they need to come in on, because this is confusing with the whole rest of the agreement opened up. We will start the Friday afternoon with, if you like, a sweep up of issues from subsidiary bodies. So if there are any provisions that delegations have missed that they look at overnight and realise that they need to come in on, we will have an opportunity Friday afternoon. I would like to keep it disciplined, please, because I do anticipate that we will need to move into rules of procedure or if not, you can all have an early mark. But if we can really hone in on any issues in any of the provisions we haven't already covered, that people kind of identify over the course of the next 24 hours. I'll open up on Friday afternoon on subsidiary bodies with a view to then transferring over to rules of procedure as soon as we're done. Does that just looking around the room, does that sound like an acceptable modality to everybody? Okay, good. I see a lot of nodding. So my list at the moment is Cote d' Ivoire on behalf of Africa, Indonesia, China, Saudi Arabia and Japan. We'll get through as much as we can. I will draw a strict line under this at 12:05 and the European Union. Thank you. So I'll start with Cote d' Ivoire for Africa Group. European Union. So we'll try and get through the regional groups, then see where we are. Okay. Cote d' Ivoire for the Africa Group. Côte d’Ivoire · Africa Group [1:18:06]: Thank you. Co Chair. The African Group would like to commend you for your excellent management which make us the best group in this PBNG process management. Thank you for that. We have a few general comments and we'll just like to recall that the African Group has been emphasizing on the particular importance of the subsidiary bodies for an effective implementation of the Agreement and for each of them provided specific element that in our view will contribute to facilitate the work of each body while taking into account the needs of different regional groups, particularly the developing states and those with special requirements, namely the LDCs, the LLDCs and the seeds. We underscore that while consistency across subsidiary bodies is desirable for efficient governance, sufficient flexibility must be maintained to accommodate the unique nature and functions of each body. This balanced approach will ensure that the institutional arrangements effectively serve the agreement objectives while enabling meaningful participations participation by all parties, particularly developing nations. Therefore, the African Group reiterates its preference for a general draft of the term of reference and modalities for consideration by the COP at its first meeting and separate documents or annex addressing technical and specific issues of each subsidiary body to focus, to facilitate focus and avoid confusion. I thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:20:03]: I thank Cote d' Ivoire very much and thank you for the kind comments which give me an opportunity to do something I don't do enough, which is to acknowledge my wingman Harry Aitken and all of the extraordinary work that he does too. So it's a team and with that I will give the floor to the European Union. Floor is yours. EU · EU [1:20:25]: Thank you, Mr. Kocher, for giving me the floor. The EU and its 27 member states would have some more comments on all one, FC12 and FC12 one and the language regime under para 4444 quarter in our view that the Rules of Procedure of the Conference of the Parties need to apply mutatis mutandis to all matters not specifically dealt with under these terms of reference, as now also formulated in the first sentence of all 1. To ensure consistency with the rules of procedure for the COP, we suggest aligning the text in para 1 with that of Rule 26 of the Rules of Procedure for the COP. Consequently, we suggest this parent paragraph will start as follows. I quote, the Rules of Procedure of the Conference of the Party shall apply mutatis mutandis to the proceedings of the Subsidiary Bodies, end of quote. And then the rest of the paragraph continues like Micronesia and Columbia. We're however, wondering how to interpret the second sentence of all one which concerns the rule on possible conflicts between the ROP and the TORs, namely, in our view, the there might be some conflicts already when it concerns, for example, the working language. If Rule 56 of the ROP would stipulate that the official language of the Conference of all parties shall be Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. All 44 to the TOR would stipulate that English shall be the working language on the subsidiary bodies. This might assume there is a conflict in which the Iraq shall prevail. This might be interpreted interpreted as a conflict between the TOR and robs. We are of the view it might be better to delete the second sentence, but we are happy to get clarification from the Co Chairs or hearing the views of others on this matter. On FC 12 and 12.1 the UN member states consider that the composition of the Finance Committee, which we may not have elaborated on previously, is very important. The size of the Finance Committee should be reasonably concise in order to carry out its tasks in a swift manner. The Co Chair's proposal referring to budget contributions adequately sheds light on the dynamic character of economic capabilities and associated stakes, but we will submit this in writing on the language regime under para 4444 quarter for the meetings of the subsidiary bodies, the EU and its member states have a priority preference for option one. If the working language of the subsidiary bodies is English, this would allow the bodies to work in a more swift and efficient manner while also reducing costs. On para 50 the EU and member states have a strong preference for virtual meetings for subsidiary bodies in combination with at least one in person meeting per year. While taking into account financial implications. On para 51, we are open to considering interstellar work begin carried out by email thank you so very much and sorry for taking the floor so long. IAHWG · Co-Chair [1:23:26]: No thank you very much European Union so I will draw a line under it in a minute just to say inscribed now which we will preserve is Indonesia, China, Saudi Arabia and Japan. We will then open up the floor Friday afternoon for any additional comments on any parts of the agreement not already covered, with a view to moving as quickly as possible as we can to the rules of procedure. I thank you for all of your cooperation and terrific contributions this morning and we'll now all move back to CR4 for the presentation by Chile. Thank you very much.