UN Transcripts — https://transcripts.un.org/en/asset/k11/k11iddi6ve Preparatory Commission: Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (Third Session, Informal Working Group) — General Assembly — 31 March 2026 Language: en Automatically generated transcript — may contain errors. Not an official United Nations record. --- IAHWG · Co-Chair · Carolyn Schwalger [0:00]: Good afternoon, everyone. Um, welcome to our resumed discussion on under item five of the agenda on the modalities for the operation of the clearing-house mechanism. Before I proceed, I want to announce that the CRP.6 on IFBs is now uploaded on the information page. I forget the name of the page again. Information document page. You probably know where to find it, um, on the website. Um, good. I won't speak to the issues around interpretation because you will know already that in this room we do not have interpretation services and it's not for want of trying, it's for the mere fact of the liquidity crisis. Um, something that is completely out of, um, the hands of co-chairs and DOALOS. Um, my proposal, uh, for this afternoon's discussion is to get a readout from the inf-inf and, um, a colleague from Palau, um, had helped. Thank you very much with that. So we'll get the inf-inf, we'll do reactions and we'll talk about next steps. Um, Palau, you have the floor. Palau · AOSIS [1:35]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. From the outset, Palau as chair of AOSIS and New Zealand convened four informal discussions to discuss a way forward on the operationalization of the clearing-house mechanism following the two sessions held in the first week of PrepCom 3. Many thanks to New Zealand as fellow co-convener for the support and assistance navigating those discussions. The co-conveners would like to thank delegations for their constructive engagement during these discussions as well. Our informal discussions have been well attended by a wide range of states with the participation of all regional negotiating groups. The discussions benefited from the participation of the consultants who prepared the draft consolidated study on the technical aspects of the clearing-house mechanism. We were therefore able to ask questions that required technical input during our work. It was then agreed that we would take a two-step approach: one, discuss the parameter issues outlined in paragraph 131 of the draft consolidated study with the aim of facilitating clarity on guidance for the development of a prototype for the mechanism before COP 1. And secondly, we would discuss the pathways to develop this prototype and the expected outcomes from PrepCom 3. The discussions then moved to considering a draft outcome document from PrepCom 3 relating to the development of a prototype for the clearing-house mechanism before COP 1. The idea is that this decision could be appended to the co-chairs' report from this session. The draft outcome document would: A, invite expressions of interest from technical experts to support the design and development of a prototype of the clearing-house mechanism by COP 1. The best application would then be invited to develop the prototype. B, the prototype would optimally deliver on the functions of the clearing-house mechanism as articulated in the agreement, noting key functions could be implemented in advance of COP 1. These key functions could include the BBNJ standardized batch identifier, MGR notifications, ability to match capacity-building opportunities and transfer of marine technology with recipients, EIA notifications, and basic requirements for infrastructure of ABMTs. C, the technical expert tasked with design and development of the prototype would take into account the parameters for operationalizing the clearing-house mechanism discussed in the informal consultations. Interim guidance on these parameters has been included as an annex to the draft outcome document. D, the technical expert would be requested to draft: one, a detailed program of work for the development of the prototype, including a consultation plan and a schedule of work; two, a work plan including cost estimates for a fully operational final version of the clearing-house mechanism; and three, a summary report outlining the process for developing the prototype, including by identifying areas requiring further guidance from the COP at its first session. E, it would also request the technical expert under the oversight of the co-chairs, Bureau, and DOALOS to consult members of the PrepCom and other potential non-party users during the development of the prototype. The draft outcome document also makes clear that this work would be undertaken without prejudice to the COP's power to make alternative decisions at its first session on the clearing-house mechanism. As co-conveners, we have shared the latest draft of this outcome document about an hour ago and this reflects the discussions in the room today. The informal group would welcome guidance from DOALOS on how the procurement process could work, including potential timeframes and modalities for engaging different types or categories of entities, including other UN entities. With your permission, Madam Co-Chair, and open to discussion on next steps in the room today, we would propose that we continue our work as a breakout informal now in order to make our draft outcome document closer to final product for consideration at a resumed session in the morning. This would allow us to have the document available for wider circulation through DOALOS as well if the informal group is allowed to reconvene to finalize the draft outcome document. However, we are in the hands of the room and the members of that informal group as well. My co-convener and I stand ready to facilitate further discussions toward completing our work and remain in your hands. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair · Carolyn Schwalger [5:50]: Thank you very much, Palau, and thank you New Zealand as well for co-facilitating that discussion on the clearing-house mechanism. Um, I note that you've requested, um, some information, but let me open up the floor in case there are any, um, further reflections that we should be, um, mindful of. I don't see that to be the case. May I offer to the secretariat? Oh, um, I recognize the, um, request for the floor from IOC-UNESCO. IOC [6:33]: Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chairs. Uh, IOC-UNESCO wishes to thank member states for their receptivity to the technical proposal put forward by IOC last week. Uh, we welcome the progress made throughout the last days and the clear direction for advancing the development of a prototype clearing-house mechanism before COP 1. We wish to make a number of observations. First, we recall that the IOC proposal is rooted in the provisions of the agreement itself. Article 51 explicitly foresees collaboration with a number of UN bodies in the development and operation of the CHM and names the IOC among them. IOC's engagement in this process is therefore not incidental, it's anticipated by the agreement. Second, IOC brings a unique set of capabilities to this work. We have decades of experience in designing and operating global ocean data and information systems. We bring scientific and technical expertise, existing data infrastructure, and established networks across the global ocean science community. IOC's contribution includes significant in-kind support through staff, IT infrastructure, and technical expertise that goes well beyond what a contractor arrangement would deliver. Third, we note that the draft outcome text envisages an open call for expressions of interest and refers throughout to a consultant. IOC would like to propose a hybrid approach. Under this model, the secretariat would manage the overall process while IOC provides both technical guidance and substantive technical work drawing on its existing expertise, infrastructure, and in-kind resources. At the same time, we also recognize that certain specialized competencies will need to be brought in through targeted contracting. For example, a back-end developer to support the build, testing and security auditing of the platform, a user experience specialist to design a user-friendly and accessible interface, including proper support for all six official UN languages. This hybrid model ensures that IOC institutional expertise is fully leveraged while allowing the flexibility to complement it with external skills where needed, all under the oversight of the co-chairs and the secretariat. Fourth, IOC fully supports the consultation process envisioned. Engaging accredited members of the preparatory commission and other potential non-party users throughout the development of the prototype is essential to ensure that the platform meets the needs of all stakeholders. Equally, IOC underscores the importance of integrating capacity-building and training activities into the development process from the outset, including demonstrations, user-oriented guidance, and practical training sessions so that developing states in particular are not merely consulted but are genuinely enabled to engage with, test, and provide informed input on the prototype. Fifth, on the question of process and timeline, an open procurement involving non-UN entities will be lengthy and resource-intensive. There is however an existing UN-to-UN mechanism that allows for rapid and efficient allocation of resources between UN entities such as IOC and DOALOS. This is a well-established administrative vehicle that can be activated swiftly, enabling work to begin without unnecessary delay. Sixth, on scope, the clearing-house mechanism prototype will be developed as a stand-alone new platform. With cross-cutting functionalities at its core. We note that a second phase of development post-COP1 may focus on interoperability with other systems and the development of regional nodes. The prototype is a first deliverable to support COP1 in its deliberations. It will be for COP1 to decide on the next steps, including the future architecture, hosting arrangements, and any further development. Finally, to be clear on next steps, as indicated during the meeting, IOC will be submitting an expression of interest to the co-chairs. This will include a detailed and costed work plan setting out what can be delivered before COP1 in line with the parameters identified by the Preparatory Commission, including paragraph 61 and 131 of the consolidated draft study. IOC is prepared to work under the full supervision of the co-chairs throughout this process. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair · Carolyn Schwalger [10:54]: I thank the representative of IOC UNESCO. I'd now like to revert to the questions that were raised by the informal-informal group on procurement, and we do have responses from the UN procurement in particular. So I'm pleased to give the floor to Dmitri. UN Secretariat · Director of Procurement Division · Dmitri Dovgopoly [11:14]: Thank you, distinguished co-chair. We have some preliminary responses. So I wouldn't be a lawyer if I did not insert a disclaimer before my response. So, colleagues, we are consulting relevant offices regarding the procurement process and indicative timelines for such process through formal methods of solicitation, and we have received the following preliminary information. In general, a formal solicitation process, which would include advertisement to the open market, issuance of a request for quotation, invitation to bid, or request for proposal, the evaluation of submissions, and the approval of the award, typically take from seven to nine months. Efficiencies may be achieved under the most optimal conditions, potentially reducing the solicitation phase by optimistically a couple of months. Following the solicitation phase, additional time would be required for contract negotiations. In cases where vendors are not familiar with the organization's privileges and immunities, this stage may take approximately another six months. This timeframe may be shorter where the selected vendor has prior experience contracting with the organization or is willing to be flexible with accepting the required UN contracting terms, which is usually not the case. Overall, the best-case scenario would be approximately six months in total, but that's really very, very optimistic. Though a more realistic estimate is about 12 months from the advertisement to the signing of the contract. In the exceptional case of sole-source procurement, particularly with a vendor with which the organization has previously contracted, the overall timeline could be reduced to approximately three months or three to four months in total. However, such an approach would require really strong justification, especially in cases where the market is well-established. It is further noted that pursuant to the United Nations financial regulations and rules, there are exceptions where formal methods of solicitation are not required if it is determined that a particular procurement action using formal methods of solicitation is not in the best interest of the United Nations. Such exceptions include when the proposed procurement contract is the result of cooperation with other organizations of the United Nations system. The rules and regulations also provide that the Under-Secretary-General for Management may cooperate with other organizations of the United Nations system to meet the procurement requirements of the United Nations, provided that the regulations and rules of those organizations are consistent with those of the UN. The Under-Secretary-General for Management may then, as appropriate, enter into agreements for such purposes. Such cooperation may include carrying out common procurement actions together or the United Nations entering into a contract relying on a procurement decision of another UN organization or requesting another UN organization to carry out procurement activities on behalf of the UN. However, there's a caveat to this. If a decision is taken to run both a normal outside procurement process with outside vendors and solicit proposals from the UN system, and an organization from the UN system is selected as a vendor, of course, the normal solicitation process for outside vendors would have to be terminated, perhaps at an advanced stage, which will, of course, not bode very well for the relationship of the United Nations with such vendors. So this is what we have at an instant, distinguished delegates. I hope that somewhat clarifies the possible timelines involved. I should also mention that the processing and the actual receipt of voluntary contributions for the purposes of the operationalization—hey, I did it on the first try—of the clearinghouse mechanism will also take time, at least a month. So that's an additional month on top of everything else. Thank you, distinguished co-chair. IAHWG · Co-Chair · Carolyn Schwalger [17:25]: I wish to thank the Secretary for the information, the preliminary responses on the procurement process. As you've heard, two separate types and many nuances in between. The representative of Palau has indicated an interest of the wider membership, wider group, to continue in informal-informals to further progress the pathway forward, and I'm happy to allow that to occur. I want to make sure that I know which room that would be in before I do that. I will give the floor to the Bahamas on behalf of CARICOM. Bahamas · CARICOM [18:18]: Thank you, co-chair. We just wanted to indicate our support for the proposal to continue our discussions in an informal-informal setting. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair · Carolyn Schwalger [18:30]: Thank you very much. I'm just confirming what room you can go to. Okay, let me offer the floor to European Union. I think we do have a room, CR7, but European Union, you have the floor. EU · EU [19:00]: Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair, for giving us the floor. Just to thank the lawyer from DOALOS for the explanation. Thank you very much, much appreciated. And we also support to continue the informal setting. Thank you very much. And also thanks to AOSIS and New Zealand for the excellent work so far. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair · Carolyn Schwalger [19:24]: Thank you very much, European Union. Brazil on behalf of CLAM, you have the floor. Brazil · GRULAC [19:28]: Thank you. Is this on? Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. And yes, on the outset, thank you so much for Palau and New Zealand for their excellent work in co-facilitating. Thank you, DOALOS, for your explanation, this preliminary explanation on procurement. My question is—oh, and also happy to continue work in the informal-informal. My only question would be what was the process for the consultation that was hired— Norway [20:00]: ...between PrepCom 2 and PrepCom 3, because this was rather an agile process, so if you have any any ideas on that, thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair [20:11]: I'll give the floor to the Secretariat. UN Secretariat [20:16]: Thank you, distinguished Co-Chair. So this was a different process. That was a consultancy. The terms of reference were negotiated at PrepCom 2. So we put out an advertisement for that consultancy after the end of PrepCom 2, but that still took us a couple of months to finalize the selection of the consultant, and then it took us about a month to finalize the contractual requirements, and then it took us another month to get the voluntary contributions needed to fund the consultancy. So while this did take a little less time than the timeframes that I've read out earlier, this will still take a consultancy still takes some several months to finalize. Thank you, distinguished Co-Chair. IAHWG · Co-Chair · Carolyn Schwalger [22:00]: Thank you very much for that information. So I want to confirm that we do have CR7 available for your use. And I also wanted to just give you a quick indication of what we will be doing tomorrow. So thank you for indicating that potentially you could have some information for the morning. So we will be taking up clearinghouse mechanism in the morning, I think in this room, well after after plenary and after hearing from Belgium. We would take up clearinghouse mechanism and our intention then would be, my intention would be to come back to key issues that are outstanding in the GEF MOU, then the financial rules and regulations, and time permitting, we would go to special fund. I would just flag that at least later on tonight, we do have an INF scheduled for the special fund at 6:00 p.m. and don't ask me the room because I've already forgotten it. It's either E or D. I think it's E. Norway, you have the floor, and then I will adjourn the meeting. Norway. Norway [23:24]: Thank you, Madam Facilitator, and thank you for that response from Duallos. However, it wasn't clear to me why the process would be different in this case than it was when the consultants were hired for to do the the study, the consolidated study. So if you could please explain why why the process would be different in this case before we go into the group, it would be highly appreciated. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair · Carolyn Schwalger [24:00]: Whilst the Secretariat prepares to respond, I want to give the floor to Japan so that we just take one lot of questions. Japan, you have the floor. Japan [24:11]: Thank you, Madam Chair, and also thank you Palau and New Zealand for working on the our discussion, leading the discussion. And also thank you for the Secretariat explain about the procurement process. Japan's question is the same line with Norway. I was wondering this type of the contract or procurement can use, I mean, this type of the contract can use, I mean, the our task to the until the COP can use the procurement process as you explained. And if so, I think we have to consider for the procurement. And I'm wondering whether the right contractual tool is procurement or consultancy in the case of the our task until the COP 1. Maybe it is a bit difficult to answer the question, but if the it is a procurement, we have to think about as the procurement process. Thank you. Also, I want to thank you also the IOC Secretariat for explaining detail and your contribution, willingness to the contribute to the this process. Thank you very much for your contribution as well. Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair · Carolyn Schwalger [25:38]: Thank you very much. I'll give the floor to Thailand, and then I'll come back to the Secretariat for the response. Thank you. Thailand. Thailand [25:46]: Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. Just a quick question for Duallos. Thank you for highlighting the two routes which are options for the procurement process. I just wanted to check, is there any requirement or conditions for choosing either route, and whose imperative is it to choose one or the other? Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair · Carolyn Schwalger [26:13]: Any other requests for the floor? China, you have the floor. China [26:17]: Thank you, Madam Chair. And we also have a quick question about could clarify the arrangement for the cleaninghouse mechanism in the next two days and what outcomes are expected to be delivered, achieved at the end of the meeting? Thank you. IAHWG · Co-Chair · Carolyn Schwalger [26:43]: Based on the readout that we've had from the INF, my understanding is that there would be some decision that would be appended to the Chair's report. And basically that would set out the steps between PrepCom 3 and COP 1, and then the further steps that will be taken at COP 1 will be determined. Thank you. So I'll give the floor now to the Secretariat. UN Secretariat [27:12]: Thank you, distinguished Co-Chair. Distinguished delegates, there are limits to what to what we know at this stage, and basically what I read out is the extent of the information that we have from our procurement division. However, on the question of why we cannot use a consultancy contract in this case, I would respond that it's first of all the output which is sought, and then the the legal terms for for a consultancy. First of all, a consultant is an individual, and there is usually a well-defined and quite a limited output or result that a consultant is asked to produce, such as a report, which was done in this case, by the way. There are limits to the sums of remuneration that a consultant can be paid. And in this case, I understand that the output is much more complex, much more scaled up than a simple report or any other such deliverable, and in all probability, the development of such an output will require the work of several, perhaps more than a dozen individuals. So this the consultancy sort of parameters do not fit the the expected the expected output. I would I would probably stop at that. On the issue of whose decision it is to follow the either a general solicitation with outside vendors or the decision to employ, so to speak, an an agreement with a UN system organization, well, that's basically the the Under-Secretary-General for Management level decision. IAHWG · Co-Chair · Brian Wallace [30:00]: I think, of course, that would also require probably some guidance from the PrepCom or its Bureau at least at some point. Thank you very much, distinguished Co-Chair. IAHWG · Co-Chair · Carolyn Schwalger [30:18]: Thank you very much, and colleagues, of course, we're operating with some constraints because we get a certain set of questions and then you have further questions which we're not in a position to elaborate further on. So we've heard the questions. I think it would benefit the room and as supported by CARICOM, European Union, and CLAM, that you revert to Room 7 and continue your discussions there so that we could regroup again tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. Sorry, it will be 10:00 a.m., but let me caveat that with we do have a presentation in the morning from Belgium, which is one of the bidders for hosting the Secretariat. We will have a short report back and then we'll do clearinghouse mechanism. I hope that's clear. I want to thank you very much for really constructive engagement. I know this is complicated because we all have different timelines in our minds and the issue of procurement obviously preoccupies you. However, I think the focus is, you know, what are the steps that we want to take between now and COP1 and let's focus on that. Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.