UN Transcripts — https://transcripts.un.org/en/asset/k14/k14alsffej Preparatory Commission: Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (Third Session, Informal Working Group) — General Assembly — 23 March 2026 Language: en Automatically generated transcript — may contain errors. Not an official United Nations record. --- PrepCom · Co-Chair [0:01]: Good afternoon, colleagues, Distinguished delegates. We shall now resume our work under item 5 of the Agenda to consider Financial Rules and Financial Resources and mechanism. This afternoon we will consider the issue entitled Operationalization of Other Provisions on Financial Resources and Mechanism focusing on the Special Fund. Delegations are reminded that due to the ongoing liquidity crisis facing the United nations, interpretation services will not be available in this room. We wish to thank you in advance for your understanding and flexibility. We also wish to kindly remind observer delegations. You'll hear this probably pretty often. Sorry. That due to the limited capacity of this room, parity and seating should be given to state delegations. Therefore, if needed, observers should be seated at the back seats or yield their seats to state delegations. Thank you once again for your understanding. Webcast is available should anyone not be able to find a seat. Standing is not allowed for safety reasons. You will recall that the Commission at its second session requested that the CO Chairs prepare a draft decision of the Conference of the Parties for the purpose of operationalizing the Special Fund for consideration by the Commission at its third session. This draft decision is contained as an annex to a Note by the CO Chairs issued as document A AC 2962026 6. In preparing the draft decision, my CO Chair and I have taken into account the views expressed and and written input provided by delegations during and after Prepcom 2 and have drawn upon the experiences from relevant processes to operationalize existing funds under other instruments, frameworks and bodies. So you have that document, hopefully before you Colleagues. The way I will proceed is power by power. You know that there are two sets of issues that we're going to deal with. One is the issue regarding operationalizing the Special Fund through a quote unquote process, and the other relates to interim arrangements. In the first part, the aspect of the process for operationalizing the Special Fund. There are already two main options in relation to that, and I think what we need to work towards is trying to see if there's a way that we can agree to one option and then try to build that out. Now, I appreciate this is the first time we're coming together, so it's really helpful to hear all the views. So this is, of course, without prejudice to the discussion that we'll have, but I will go from starting from the preamble and then move into the options. And I would encourage you, if. What. You see before you is acceptable, not that you're agreeing in any way, but if the language is fairly reflective of views, then we can move on. I would want to try to limit as much as possible. Extensive elaboration of text if necessary, if that's possible. So we'll start off with the draft decision and look at the preamble. It's a brief preamble. It has four paragraphs. I will not take each in turn just because it's a preamble. But let me hear your views on these paragraphs. Uruguay, on behalf of the group of 77 in China, Uruguay · G77 + China [4:11]: thank you very much. Madam Chair. I have to start apologizing because you are proposing a procedure, but I must read a general statement if you allow me. Thank you. Dear Madam Co Chair, I have the honor to speak on behalf of the group of 77 and China. We would like to thank for the documents on the Voluntary Trust Fund and the Special Fund. In this regard, the Group would like to offer the following observations. As the Group mentioned in previous meetings of the Commission, without the participation of representative of developing countries, the Commission could not fulfill its mandates and works. This position reflects the very fact that developing countries have contributed remarkably to the BB and J processes and that the Agreement itself has also recognized the special status of developing countries in conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. Pursuant to the article 524 of the agreement, a voluntary Trust Fund is to be established by the Conference of the Parties to facilitate the participation of representatives of developing countries, in particular LLDCs and seats in the meetings of the bodies established under the Agreement. In our view, the Trust Fund should cover the attendance of cops or representatives from developing countries at all meetings of the CoP and its subsidiary bodies. This includes Ordinary and Extraordinary meetings of the Conference of the Parties, meetings of bodies established under the Agreement, as well as informal meetings at other relevant meetings held under the auspices of of the cop, such as at work groups, working groups and subcommittees established under Subsidiary base. As for the scope of financial support to be provided through the Voluntary Trust Fund, the Group is of the view that it should cover all the necessary expenses. In this regard, we believe that it's crucial that the Preparatory Commission have a scheduled discussion on the polarization of the Special Fund. The Group is is on the view that the discussion on the Special Fund could be more pragmatic to ensure the important aspects of these matters are duly addressed in the Commission. Scope and guiding principles and modalities for the Special Fund are important. Nevertheless, it is also of utmost importance sorry to ensure that any arrangements for this Fund could support capacity building projects under the Agreement and assist developing countries in implementing the Agreement. In our view, discussions on the Special Fund needs to be expedited so as to ensure that it's operational as soon as possible. We look forward to engaging in the discussion on this important item and the member states of the G77 and China will enter into further detail. PrepCom · Co-Chair [7:00]: Thank you. I wish to thank Uruguay on behalf of the group of 77 and China. Allow me to just remind you that if you wish to take the floor, please raise your wooden flags and please put it so we can see the countries, so the white part of it doesn't like. Unless I can see the front. I can see. Yes, I will be given the floor to State delegation and time permitted. Then of course, the observers. But just a little quick housekeeping. European Union, you have the floor. EU · EU [7:41]: Thank you very much. Chair. It's an honor for me to take the floor today on behalf of the EU and its 27 member states. At the outset, we wish to express our sincere appreciation to the Co Chairs for their note concerning this draft decision of the Conference of the Parties on the operationalization of the Special Special Fund. This document certainly provides a sound basis for our discussion today and we trust for achieving a consensual outcome within this Preparatory Committee. We have no objection to the first Recital, though we would propose the insertion of the word objectives before principle to ensure the full alignment with Article 2 of the agreement. Given that the resources allocation of the Special Fund must be guided by both the general and specific objectives of the Agreement, this amendment would ensure greater precision. We have always emphasized the benefits that the BB&J agreement could derive from the lessons learned from existing funds under relevant instruments, frameworks and bodies. However, the Special Fund should also benefit from the experience gained and the operating modalities in place under the existing funds. That's why in the second Recital we would, after the word learned, add the words experience gained and operating modalities in place under existing funds. We will of course, send you this in writing afterwards. And thirdly, and finally, we suggest the deletion of the third Recital. While the EU and its Member States fully recognize the special circumstances of seats and LDCs and likewise acknowledge the special interests and needs of landlocked developing countries, it remains essential that the Special Fund adhere to all the principles and approaches set forth in Article 7 of the agreement. So either we mention Article 7 or we delete the preambular paragraph. Thank you very much. PrepCom · Co-Chair [10:10]: Thank you very much, European Union. Do I have any other delegation wishing to take the floor on the preamble? Papua New guinea, on behalf of P. SIDS. Papua New Guinea · PSIDS [10:25]: Thank you. And let me say what a pleasure it is to see you back here again. You may not feel it's a pleasure, but it is a pleasure and thank you. And thank you and the Secretariat for the hard work. Very much appreciated. It is an honor for me to speak on behalf of the Pacific Small island developing states or PSITs. We aligned with G77 in China and EOSIS. So if I forget to say it, you know, it should be taken for granted. We just want to obviously support. Express our strong support for the third recital on the special circumstances of sids. I wouldn't say any more than that, but that. That is a fundamental point for us. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. PrepCom · Co-Chair [11:13]: Papua New Guinea. And I now see Palau on behalf of eoc, followed by Brazil on behalf of clam. Microphone for you have it? I think it. Yeah, I think it's on test. Test. Yeah. Palau · AOSIS [11:29]: Okay. Thank you very much, Madam Co Chair. So we want to align ourselves first with the statement made on behalf of The Group of 77 in China, Uruguay and we would like to also, similarly to png, just allude to our preference for retaining the third Preambula paragraph. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [11:52]: Thank you Palau on behalf of aosis. And I now give the floor to Brazil on behalf of clam. Brazil · CLAM [12:02]: Thank you very much, Madam Co Chair. I'll be indeed speaking on behalf of the core Latin American Group for all the matters related to the operating entities of the financial Mechanism of the BB&J. It goes without saying that this discussion on the Special Fund is a priority for the Group. And in this regard we would like to commend the Co Chairs and to all those for preparing document 20266 on the draft decision for the operationalization of the Special Fund. With your indulgence, Madam Co Chair, I would just like. Before presenting specific comments to the Preambler session, I would just like to highlight three approaches that this Group will be taking when it comes to negotiations of this document. First of all, we will support the establishment of a clear, time bound, efficient and inclusive process to advance the operationalization of the special fund at COP2. The benchmarks from the UNFCCC taken by the document you circulated clearly demonstrates that it is possible to deliver on the creation of the Multilateral Fund with urgency, clarity and institutional fiduciary robustness. Secondly, we will support the option of the Ad hoc committee tasked to design the governing instrument of the Fund in one year through at least four in person meetings. And this will of course be articulated throughout the tax and or amended proposals to the consideration of bodies and members of the Preparatory Commission. We think that the open ended working group test with only making recommendations would delay important decisions that Cobb needs to take and would send a wrong signal signal to the international community in this regard. And thirdly, we support that the assessed contributions of developed country parties from from 2027 onward to be reserved on a general trust fund for a short term interim arrangement. And again we'll come back to this when time allows. When it comes to the Preambler section, we also commend the approach taken here on a concise short preambler session. We commend also the references to relevant articles including 2, 7, 14 and 52 on pp. 3. The group is still considering the current articulation in light of Article 7 of the Agreement, but bringing this section closer to what has been agreed in the actual text of the BB&J Article 52 paragraph 12. We would like to reformulate the fourth preambler paragraph by bringing verbatim language from paragraph 12 of Article 52 and this would be our first and as of the moment the amendment we would like to present for the consideration of the membership of the Commission. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [15:08]: I wish to thank Brazil speaking on behalf of clam and I now wish to give the floor to Antigon Barbuda speaking on behalf of Kentucky caricom. Antigua and Barbuda · CARICOM [15:21]: Thank you Madam Co Chair and good afternoon colleagues. First, CARICOM would like to thank you for this document. We see it as a useful basis for discussion and we look forward to engaging with all others as we proceed this week. As you would know, the Special Fund is a very important to caricom, so we look forward to positive and fruitful developments as we further elaborate this document. As you invited us to receive comments on the Preamble, I would like to express Caricom's preference in retaining preamble paragraph 3 as drafted. Thank you. And also align in our position with overall with the statement initially given by Uruguay on behalf of G77. Thanks. PrepCom · Co-Chair [16:20]: Thank you very much. Antigua and Barbuda speaking on behalf of caricom Nigeria, Will you be speaking for African Group? Yes, I wish to give the floor to Nigeria on behalf of the African Group. Nigeria · Africa Group [16:37]: Yes, thank you very much Chair for convening us and at the outset I want to appreciate you on behalf of the Africa Group for the documents that was circulated ahead of our meeting and we would like to express the views of the Africa Group. Even though these views are preliminary, we reserve the right to actually come back with additional thoughts. First, the Africa Group views the Special Fund as the principal vehicle through which the agreement's transformative promise of equity, capacity building and technology transfer will be realized. The urgency of its operationalization cannot be overstated. We would like to see the inclusion of equitable geographical representation and participation throughout the text and plan for the operationalization. The Group approaches this draft decision with the firm conviction that a Special Fund must be designed to provide adequate, accessible, new, additional and predictable resources to developing States with full regard to African states, LDCs seats, and respecting the special circumstances of small island developing States States on the Preamble Chair the Africa Group supports the articulation of the Fund's purpose in the Preamble and is pleased that the language is anchored explicitly in the Treaty's own terms in articles 52, paragraph 12 and articles 52, paragraph 4, soft paragraph A. It is important that the Preamble reaffirms the need to assist parties with special requirements, including LDCs, LLDC states, geographical disadvantaged States, Coastal African States, Archipelagic States and developing Middle Income countries. That will be our comments on the Preamble. Thank you very much. PrepCom · Co-Chair [18:29]: I wish to thank Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group and I don't see any further flags on the Preamble. So let's move to operative paragraph one which decides to operationalize the Special Fund. Oh, sorry, United Kingdom. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [18:53]: Thank you Madam Co Chair for giving me the floor and thank you to the Co Chairs and Secretary for the helpful paper on this topic. There's lots to consider and lots for us to get through, so apologies for waving just as you're about to move on. I agree with colleagues who have spoken previously about the importance of a clear time bound and efficient way forwards on this particular subject. I'd also like to take the opportunity to support the comments made by my colleague from the EU about the the recital 3 in the preamble of either deleting or mentioning Article 7 as they suggested. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [19:48]: I thank the United Kingdom. I would now like to move on to operative paragraph 1. European Union. EU · EU [20:02]: Thank you very much Chair. Actually, regarding this paragraph, we propose to delete it. We consider this paragraph not necessary and potentially misleading. The present draft decision does not operationalize the Special Fund, but rather establishes a process towards that goal and the outcome of this process will remain subject to a subsequent decision by the Conference of the Parties. And it is that decision which has yet to be adopted which will ultimately give effect to the operationalization of the Fund. Thank you very much Chair. PrepCom · Co-Chair [20:45]: I wish to thank the European Union and I now wish to give the floor to Palau on behalf of eoc. Palau · AOSIS [20:53]: Thank you very much Madam Co Chair so as it relates to operative paragraph one, just a general question on whether we're using US English or UK English currently has American, but I know that the US the UN has a specific set of rules on how they deal with formatting. So that's just one thing. On operationalization, spelling onto the point of the saying that the Special fund referred in paragraph 4b AOCs would rather it to specify that it was established in paragraph 4b if possible, given that that is the understanding that we have from Article 52 and then where it then has the latter part of the phrase which establishes instead of saying which establishes, it should read which forms a part of the financial mechanism. Just for clarity, noting that this is in line with other documents that we have in front of us at the PrepCom and on the retention of the entire paragraph, we would argue that it is very important for us to as a COP to decide to operationalize the Special Fund. It is not saying that we that the Special fund is operationalized and that is our understanding of why the the OP is needed. Just to to clarify other comments that are made by colleagues. Thanks. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [22:25]: Oxford, Papua New guinea on behalf of P. Papua New Guinea · PSIDS [22:36]: But my distinguished brother representing Palau has made my job easy, right? Because we affirm everything he says. We echo everything he says. We think that Paraguan has value added. It does definitely have value added and my distinguished brother from Palau has pointed out in addition, at the end of the paragraph it says in accordance with the modalities set up below. So it's not just a oh, we're operationalizing, it's in accordance with the modality set up below. So because of the holistic reading of the paragraph, it does have value added and we support the retention of the paragraph. Thank you very much. IAHWG · Co-Chair [23:17]: I wish to thank Papua New guinea on behalf of the Pacific small island developing States and I now give the floor to Indonesia. Indonesia [23:27]: Madam Chair, First Indonesia align itself with the statement delivered by the delegation of Uruguay on behalf of the group of 77 in China and also Indonesia would like to thank to the Secretary for the preparation of the document and then move to the preambler paragraph. Regarding the preambler paragraph concerning the full recognition of the specialist Rome tenses of small island developing State or seats and least developed countries LDC Indonesia support this principle. We recognize the unique vulnerabilities this group face and the necessity of ensuring their effective participation and implementation through targeted financial support. Initially, I would like to also emphasize that the operationalization of the Special Fund must strictly adhere to the Inclusive spirit of Article 52, paragraph 12 of the Agreement specifically Indonesia underscore that Article 5 52, paragraph 12 explicitly recognize the Assistant needs of the Azpilic States, landlocked developing countries, coastal African State and developing middle income countries. For a country like Indonesia as an archibactic state, the Special Fund must remain a mechanism that is accessible and responsive to our technical and capacity building requirement to ensure the in conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in apng. In conclusion, the Special Funds will be aimed at ensuring efficient and simplified access to funding for all developing state parties identified in the agreement. Thank you, Madam Co Chair. IAHWG · Co-Chair [25:00]: Thank you very much. Indonesia, Brazil on behalf of clam, you have the floor. Brazil · CLAM [25:08]: Thank you very much Madam Co Chair. We would just like to support the retention of OP1 and we also support the rationale that was very wisely articulated by the colleagues from AEOSIS in regard to the value added of this paragraph. We also read it in an overarching manner not only in terms of the decision to operationalize the Special Fund but also in light of the process we are hopefully establishing through this decision. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [25:44]: I wish to thank Brazil on behalf of CLEM and now wish to give the floor to Norway. Norway [25:57]: Thank you Madam Koch. Sorry I didn't find my. My. My sign over there but I'm happy you recognize me. So Norway would also like to delete operational paraguan. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [26:14]: Thank you very much. Norway. We hope to locate your flag. Let's move on to OP2 and the floor is open for comments. Switzerland. Switzerland [26:36]: Thank you. Thank you very much for giving me the floor. First, we would like to thank the Co Chairs for preparing those documents that provide a good basis for advancing the work. As this is our first intervention on this matter, we would like to offer just a couple of introductory comments. We note that the Co Chairs drew on other experiences of establishing a new fund. However, one of the most recent and very successful experiences is missing, namely the establishment of the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund which was established and operational in just over six months under the GEF and we think that it's a relevant experience to draw upon. We, while Switzerland did not support the creation of this fund, we believe that it's important to give effect to this provision and we are ready to engage constructively. Accordingly, we support a process that that leads to the best possible outcome. That is a streamlined structure that operates in a complementary manner to the JEF and other multilateral funds with a limited budget. And with respect to OP1, we would also like to echo the comments made by the EU and Others on the operationalization of this. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [28:20]: Thank you very much. Switzerland. I now give the floor to Palau on behalf of AOC. Palau · AOSIS [28:27]: Thanks a lot, Madam Co Chair. So on OP2, AOSIS would like to support the modality of an ad hoc committee as being the process to be included where it has the square brackets. We find that this in line with what others have said, this is the most efficient and cost effective modality at this point. We'd like to ensure that, and we'll talk about it when we talk about the composition of this process is that there would be dedicated seats for sids within this process. Thanks a lot, Madam Koj. PrepCom · Co-Chair [29:00]: Thank you very much. A On behalf of Palau, on behalf of aosis, I wish to give the floor now to Nigeria on behalf of the African Group. Nigeria · Africa Group [29:15]: Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair. Before the Africa Group takes the floor to intervene on paragraph two, we would like to indicate our support for your language. In paragraph one, we agree with a statement made by AOCs by clam. Your wording, your drafting, reading it on the whole gives the clear meaning and direction that we would like to go. On paragraph two, the Africa Group takes note of the bracketed word process and the explanatory notes by the co chairs that it serves as a placeholder for an agreed modality of the Special Fund. So when we get to choosing the modalities and whatever we agree, we believe that it will not have to be inserted in the bracketed space on paragraph two. That will be our comment. Thank you very much. PrepCom · Co-Chair [30:05]: Thank you very much. Nigeria, on behalf of the African Africa Group. Brazil, on behalf of clam, you have the floor. Brazil · CLAM [30:13]: Thank you, Madam Co Chair. As outlined in my opening remarks, CLAM supports the option of an ad hoc committee to design the governing instrument of the Special Fund. And in this regard we would like to change. Change all the references that bracketed references on process to the reference of the ad Hoc Committee in light of in a very similar fashion of what eoses also supported. And in this regard we also support the current articulation of the elements in OP2. Thank you. Thank you very much. Brazil, speaking on behalf of clam, I don't see any other requests for the floor. Can we now move to operative paragraph three where we have two options? It would be good for your delegation when taking the floor to indicate the preferred option. PrepCom · Co-Chair [31:13]: Floor is open. European Union, you have the floor. EU · EU [31:24]: Actually has a preliminary comment regarding the options for the process to operationalize the Special Fund. The EU and its member states welcomed the inspirational precedence of the Green Climate Fund and the Loss and Damage Fund reflected in the explanatory notes. But we also believe, as Switzerland, that this could be enriched with the experiences that led to to other relevant funds such as the gbff, in which case a simple sentence in a COP decision led to the establishment of a dedicated fund. The EU and its Member States do not support option one in paragraph three, the reference to developing and recommending an operational document, including a governing instrument, risk prejudging the outcome of the process before it has even commenced. Instead, we favor option two, under which the process would formulate recommendations in accordance with the terms of reference to be defined in an annex to the decision for the consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [32:33]: I thank the European Union. The floor is still open. Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group. Nigeria · Africa Group [32:54]: Yes, sorry, please. I'm just trying to get the actual paragraph. So. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Africa Group favors option one in paragraph three which provides clear mandate, develop and recommend operational documents, including a governing instrument for the Special Fund in accordance with the terms of reference for consideration and adoption by the cop. We think that the elements in this particular option is clear and directly linked with the views that have been expressed by Member States about the process that we are embarking on. So the Africa Group supports option one, paragraph three. Thank you very much. PrepCom · Co-Chair [33:36]: Thank you very much. Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the Africa Group. And now I give the floor to Palau, speaking on behalf of aoc. Palau · AOSIS [33:46]: Thanks again, Madam Co Chair. So the lines of small island States would like to choose option 1 similarly above and as Clem alluded to the fact that we'd like in every place where it has square brackets for there to be included at our committee. Further to that paragraph where it reads shall develop and recommend. We would like to delete the words operational documents including and just focus specifically on a governing instrument similar to other colleagues around the table. We've had experiences where we do not specify what exact outcome that we would like. We spend a lot of time wasted around other different matters as opposed to what is needed for operationalizing this special fund which would be a constituent instrument of this fund. So we want to make it very clear the mandate we want out of it, again linked to the fact that we want it to be a cost effective time bound process. Thank you. Thank you. Palau, speaking on behalf of eoc. PrepCom · Co-Chair [34:45]: I now give the floor to Papua New guinea, speaking on behalf of the Pacific Small island developing States. Papua New Guinea · PSIDS [34:55]: Option one. So maybe let me make a few observations. One is as the distinguished representative of Palau, on behalf of aoc, has stated, we are actually going to say we're going to focus on the governing instrument. So the co chairs helpfully provide a language, operational documents, including a governing instrument. And indeed our markup would be we focus on this one thing, the governing instrument. Right. And the purpose for that is we want to be clear and specific in the mandate. And the lessons learned from other funds setting up other funds is that when the mandates are not clear, the outcomes are not clear and specific and concrete, then they lose a lot of time. So that's the purpose for focusing on the governing instrument. We are certainly not prejudging what's in the governing instrument. Certainly not. And there's nothing in here that says we're prejudging the substance of governing instrument, but we must have a clear destination in mind. So that's why we go for option one and focus on the governing instrument. The other point I want to make is this, right, because this committee is going to be working between Cop 1 and Cop 2, not between PrepCom 3 and Cop 1. It's going to be working between Cop 1 and Cop 2. So if you don't have a clear mandate to get to a outcome for Cop 2, you're actually going to likely delay the process. Right. If you're constantly having options. So that's why in OP2 we talk about early operationalization. So for that second reason for early operationalization, we want that clear mandate to be established so that the work of the committee can then accomplish it by COP2. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [36:41]: Thank you. Papua New guinea, on behalf of P. Sids I now give the floor to Antigon Barbuda on behalf of caricom. Thank you. Antigua and Barbuda · CARICOM [36:53]: Thank you. Madam Co facilitator and I have the pleasure of speaking after my colleagues from pieces and palaus, they have clearly articulated our views on this. We choose option one and we do also would propose removal or deletion of the second line operational documents, including. We see that a governing document is a clear mandate and a clear focus for the work of this ad hoc committee. And I also would like to indicate that going back to paragraph 1 1, we do support the, the. The retention of op paragraph 1. Thanks. Thank you very much. Antigon Barbuda on behalf of caricom, I now give the floor to Switzerland, followed by Indonesia and then Turkey. Switzerland [37:50]: Thank you very much. With respect to paragraph three, we would like to favor option two. That is a process that shall make recommendation in accordance with the tors. We see this option as less prescriptive and less restrictive. By contrast, we do not see option one as a viable option since it would preclude the options certain options possibilities for the establishment of the Fund. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [38:21]: I wish to thank Switzerland and now Indonesia. You have the floor. Indonesia [38:25]: Thank you, Madam Chair. Indonesia wishes to address the mandate key feature and expected output of the process to operationalize the Special Fund as set out in paragraph 3 of the draft decision. With regard to that paragraph 3, Indonesia prefers for option 2, while Indonesia agrees with the eventual necessity of a governing institute instrument. We believe that the official operationalization of the Special Fund can be most effectively achieved through recommendations that lead to a conference of the Party resolution. This preference is informed by best practices observed in other relevant legal frameworks, specifically by UNFCCC when the Operationalization Fund, such as the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund was successfully facilitated through the COP adopted guideline and resolution. We further stress by selecting option two, the process is mandated to provide the COP with the necessary recommendation to ensure the Fund is functional as early as possible while maintaining the flexibility required to refine institutional arrangements as the Agreement matures. Furthermore, Indonesia suggests that this process should strive for maximum administrative efficiency. We should explore how the gef, in consultation with all parties and stakeholders, could be leveraged to assist in outlining this operational guideline. Such an approach will reduce the administrative burden on the Secretariat and the UN dwellers and avoid the potential for redundant bureaucratic layers. Thank you, Madam Co Chair. PrepCom · Co-Chair [40:02]: I wish to thank Indonesia and now give the floor to Turkey, followed by Philippines and then Thailand. Türkiye [40:11]: Thank you, Chair. We have very brief comments on the options with regard to paragraph three. We basically support Option two as it provides a more flexible recommendation based approach and preserves the decision making space of the COP while allowing for a more gradual and inclusive process. PrepCom · Co-Chair [40:31]: Thank you very much. And now I give the floor to Philippines. Philippines [40:39]: Co Chair, if you would allow me to say something a bit about OP2 before I go to OP3 on the special Fund. The Philippines attaches particular importance to its early and effective operationalization. For our delegation, the Special Fund represents the most concrete opportunity to give practical effect to the principle of equity under the PP PNJ Agreement. In this regard, we stress the need for its early establishment and operationalization, noting that annual contributions by Developed States parties under Article 14 are to be channeled through this Fund. In line with this, we support OP2 on OP3. With respect to institutional design, the Philippines is leaning towards a model in which a Special Fund is administered under the authority of the Conference of the Part Parties. Such an approach would ensure that decisions are taken within the PPJ framework itself, allowing for greater participation of developing States which are the primary beneficiaries of the Fund. At the same time, we are open to considering a bespoke funding structure drawing from relevant experiences such as the Green Climate Fund, where this can enhance effectiveness and responsiveness. In line with this, our Preference is for optional one in OP3. Thank you,. PrepCom · Co-Chair [42:01]: Thank you Philippines. Let me now give the floor to Thailand, followed then by Norway and the UK. Thailand [42:10]: Co Chair. As Thailand takes the floor for the first time, I would like to start by commending the Co Chairs and Dallas for preparing the draft document. Thailand recognizes that the establishment of the Special Fund as an indispensable component of the financial mechanism as such Fund would contribute to an adequate and predictable resources of the BB&J Agreement. Concerning paragraph 3, Thailand supports option 1 mandating the development of operational documents including a governing instrument. A formal governing instrument rather than general recommendations, would provide a structured rules construction concerning the criteria for equitable sharing of funds which would support a predictable access to funding talent, recognizes that Option one reduces the risk of inconsistent interpretation and would like to emphasize the importance of ensuring that funds remain responsive to the needs of developing and middle income states. PrepCom · Co-Chair [43:08]: Thank you,. Thank you Norway. Beg your indulgence. I will give the floor to Brazil and Income back to you. Brazil is speaking on behalf of clam. Brazil · CLAM [43:22]: Thank you very much Madam Coordinator. As caricom, besides the African group, Thailand and the Philippines, CLEM would like to throw a support behind option one, namely the establishment of an Ad hoc Committee. We would also positively entertain the proposal just made by EOSAS in terms of bringing more clarity to the mandate of that process to operationalize the Special Fund. And thirdly, as the Group is ready to engage even in a line by line negotiation, and we do see merit in making this not only a reading of statements but also an interactive process, we'd like to present some preliminary reactions to the comments made by some colleagues here, especially in regards to the experience from the gbff. As you all know, the GBFF was operationalized in the JF Council session that happened in Brasilia. So I had personally had the honor to be in that session and see firsthand what happened in those negotiations, but without referring to that session specifically, the Group has not considered the GBFF as a benchmark, as you Co Chairs haven't either, because we see a different experience or a different perspective from the BB&J. Article 21 of the Convention of the Biological Diversity explicitly references the need for the establishment of a funding arrangement for supporting developing countries in implementing the Convention and subsequently it establishes the JAF as an interim arrangement for doing so. The fact is that for more than two decades, developing countries have been expecting for a final and dedicated arrangement for the cbd, and this has never come so far. And the only option we got was indeed to establish the gbff, which is, by the way, a commendable outcome of the recent COPS cbd. But it has nothing to do with the scale and the potential of the BB&J Agreement. Indeed, under Article 52 of the BB&J Agreement, we have collectively agreed to establish at least two operating entities of the financial mechanism, namely the JAFF and the Special Fund. We did not mention the JAF housing, the Special Fund, nor the Special Fund under the jaf. So it really takes us back to listen that we are trying to somehow reopen that understanding in this negotiation. Also, when it comes to the experience from the gbff, we heard comments saying that the Fund has been operationalized very quickly within six months. But once again, this was done in a scale that is very different from what we envisage for the BB and J agreement. And this was also done with the important caveat that CLAM has also been very vocal about, which is the private sector engagement. If we see all relevant reports coming from the GBFF analysis, there has been little, not to say no, engagement with the private sector. So if it is of the opinion of those who are supporting the GBFF benchmark here, that the Special Fund should have no engagement with the private sector, we might engage with that avenue. But if we are to follow the text of the agreement which clearly states that the Special Fund has the potential of scaling up those resources, unfortunately the GBFF benchmark will not bring much value added to this discussion. And finally, sorry to take the floor for such a long time, we would like to directly ask the colleagues from Switzerland and the European Union, as they refer to the Ad Hoc Committee, precluding the very outcome of the operationalization of the Special Fund. Could you be more clear when it comes to what specific elements you're referring to? When it comes to the governing instrument, for example, and the TORs that were presented by the co Chairs. Thank you. Thank you. Matthias, you can take the floor as long as you want once it's come into a solution. PrepCom · Co-Chair [48:36]: But thank you very much and thanks for sharing your experience. I'd like to now give the floor to Norway, followed by United Kingdom. Norway, you have the floor. Thank you. Madam Facilitator. Norway [48:48]: Regarding the process for maturing the Special Fund, Norway prefers option Two. Thank you. Thank you, Norway. United Kingdom. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [49:01]: Thank you very much, Madam Co Chair and along with several other delegations just like to agree that United Kingdom supports Option two, making recommendations in accordance with the terms of reference. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [49:19]: I thank the United Kingdom. I now give the floor to Japan, followed by Australia. Japan [49:30]: Thank you, Chair. Excuse me. Well, thank you for giving me the floor. Japan is still considering the choice between these two options while we are open to the idea of option one given its clarity on the mandate. However, while this is subject to the discussion on the cop, our rules of procedure discussion. But given the likelihood that There is only one year between COP1 and COP2, it is a bit doubtful whether the process can finalize the draft operational documents in time, including a governing instrument for the Special Fund incorporating all elements specified in the draft tor in the current Appendix, we would like to clarify the realistic time frame required for developing such documents. If necessary, the phrase at the end of option one at its second Ordinary meeting should be changed to at no later than its third Ordinary meeting. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [50:52]: Thank you, Japan. Australia, you have the floor. Australia [50:58]: Thank you, Co Chair. Noting this is Australia's first intervention during this session. I just want to make a brief comment to thank the Co Chairs and Secretariat for the note and draft decision with the terms of reference. And I just also want to record Australia appreciates the constructive engagement of delegations on the operationalization of the Special Special Fund and just want to particularly acknowledge the leadership of AOSIS on this issue. At PrepCom 2 for paragraph 3, we see merit in option 1, which would require the Group to develop operational documents and a governing instrument for COP consideration. We think charging the Group with a specific output as per option one will assist it to focus on its task and complete it within the short time frame envisioned. And having heard the comments from AOSIS and psids to today that they suggest deletion of the words operational documents including Australia could support that deletion. And we echo their comments that they've made that this really should be a time bound and cost effective process. Thank you. Thank you, Australia. PrepCom · Co-Chair [51:59]: I don't see any other requests for the floor. The European Union. You have the floor. EU · EU [52:09]: Very much, Chair. Actually my delegations, before entering in the paragraph four wanted to give maybe some explanation because I'm not sure that we are that far away of the position that has been expressed by certain delegations around the table. First of all, we do not want to delay the process. This is totally wrong. We are in favor of the operationalization of the Special Fund as quickly, as swiftly as Possible. Secondly, we are very keen to have the private sector on board. This is also in our interests quite frankly and indeed for really achieving the goal that are those of the BBNG agreement. We need them on board. I thank very much Brazil for the explanation you gave on the GBFF process. But I think we would gain in having the process we try to put in place having this discussion and concluding why it should not be the GBFF or why it should be a governing instrument or another form and providing different options to the COP with some cost estimates. Here we have first paragraph which says we need a governing instrument, we do not know what format of training should have, what cost it will have, where does it come from and so on. What we want is the process to look at that and to put options on the table of the COP and then the COP from the first day could decide on which way to follow. So that's what I wanted to say at this stage. Thank you. I wish to thank the European Union for their explanation. Now colleagues, we can move on to the next paragraph which is option four which starts with paragraph four but it has two options, option one and option two. Not. PrepCom · Co-Chair [54:18]: Not the paragraph itself but the. The process. I haven't yet heard anyone speak into their desire for an open ended ad hoc working group. If I'm mistaken, correct me. Turkey. Türkiye [54:41]: Previously commented on paragraph three specifically so I was kept my comment for this paragraphs on the operational modalities and composition of the process. For now we strongly support option one as an open ended approach which ensures inclusiveness, transparency and broader ownership in the development of the Fund. Thank you Chair. PrepCom · Co-Chair [55:10]: I open the floor for any other comments. On. Yeah, on my question I see Nigeria for Africa Group and then Japan followed by Indonesia. Nigeria · Africa Group [55:36]: Thank you very much Chair. The Africa Group has carefully considered the two alternative organizational models. Option one, the open ended working Group. We note that it offers inclusivity but may prove slow and unwieldy particularly given the technical complexity of designing a fit for proposed financial instrument. Option two, the Ad hoc committee with limited membership and specific seats for regional groups and categories of developing states offers a more focused and efficient pathway. We know that the Green Climate Fund and the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage under the UNFCCC had this model but that does not preclude allowing other persons to participate in the process. So the Africa Group would like to support option two provided it guarantees adequate, equitable and meaningful representation for the African States least developed countries seats and ensuring that those with the greatest stake in the Fund's design have a direct role in the planning process. In this regard, Chair, the Group would like to request the replacement of process with ad hoc committee in paragraph two, paragraph three and elsewhere. It appeared in the text. Thank you very much. PrepCom · Co-Chair [56:52]: Thank you for that clarification, Nigeria. On behalf of the Africa Group, I now give the floor to Japan. Japan [57:04]: Thank you, Chair. Japan supports option one because it is more reasonable to have all parties discuss the matter from the outset rather than discussing it among a small group first and bring the result to the COP where various opinions may resurface, potentially resulting in no conclusion. We believe Option one is expected to contribute to the smoother progress of discussions at COP2 as well. In the case of option two, there's also the issue that observers can join the process without any specific conditions while participation by State parties is limited, which results in a lack of balance. Given that holding frequent in person meetings between COP 1 and 2 appears impractical from the perspectives of of budget scheduling and venue availability, it is deemed sufficient to hold one in person meeting at the outset and conduct subsequent discussions online as needed. We propose that the first meeting be held within six months of the conclusion of COP1 with a view to submitting deliverables at COP2. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [58:23]: I wish to thank Japan. I now give the floor to Indonesia. Thank you, Madam Chair. Indonesia wishes to thank the Secretariat for providing the alternative option for the operational modalities of the process to establish the Special Fund. Regarding those options and the operational modalities, Indonesia expresses its clear preference for option one. Indonesia [58:45]: We believe that establishing an open ended ad hoc working group is is the most appropriate path to ensure the legitimacy and inclusivity of the Special Funds design. By choosing an open ended format, we ensure that all parties, regardless their size or technical capacity, have the opportunity to participate directly in the development of the Fund's guideline. This transparency is vital for building trust in the financial mechanism. Furthermore, Indonesia support the proposed composition of the leadership while maintaining the principle of gender balance and or equitable geographical distribution. Thank you, Madam Co Chair. PrepCom · Co-Chair [59:24]: I wish to thank Indonesia and I see the European Union you have requested the floor. Please. EU · EU [59:34]: Thank you very much, Chair. Actually, with respect to the form of the process, the EU and its member States prepared prefer the establishment of a limited membership ad hoc committee should we succeed in swiftly agreeing on its composition and terms of reference. Such a Committee, we believe would prove more cost effective flexible than an open ended ad hoc working group. Moreover, it would be better suited to fostering expert level discussion, thereby enhancing the likelihood of a substantive and balanced outcome that reflects the views of all Parties. Accordingly, in paragraph 4, we support option 2 and stand ready to engage constructively in discussion on the structure and mandate of the ad hoc committee. This being said, if it proves too difficult to agree on terms of reference, we can also look at the other option. Thank you very much. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:00:33]: Thank you very much. EU I have Palau on behalf of eosis, Papua New guinea on behalf of psis United Kingdom and then Saudi Arabia. Palau, you have the floor. Palau · AOSIS [1:00:46]: Thank you Madam Co Chair. I hope I'm not because you asked the original question and I think so. I'll just have general comments seeing that we got some responses already from colleagues on their support for our open ended working group. So AELSIS would like to reiterate our position on the Nahada committee. Furthermore, on the composition, while we're agnostic to the other members, we appreciate that there is clearly outlined that there's a space for sids dedicated to space for sids. We'd like to include the option of three seats for sids and we look forward to engaging with colleagues on what level of representation that they would potentially want in that composition. And on the Just I guess a quick note on the ad hoc and a question to other colleagues on the ad hoc open ended working group and those who favor it is maybe a simple question of how are we going to pay for it, especially noting that we are going to set up this committee at COP1. We have a voluntary trust fund that is going to be focusing on the COP and hopefully it's other subsidiary bodies. And so given again back to our original comments on a cost effective model, we'd want to kind of ask for an understanding from the other members on how would we be able to pay for this ad hoc working group as well, in addition to supplying for the COP and all these other sps. This is why we ended up with the decision of having a closing the committee and then just a point on the observers and representation of states who may not be a part of the committee. There's already been practice in other committees of this nature where if you are a state party to the agreement, you are able to attend the meeting as an observer of that meeting. And so I think that this can happen also in relation to this process once we finish finish up those rules elsewhere. Thanks a lot. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:02:44]: Thank you Palau, speaking on behalf of aosis and I can assure you now that I have a sense that there are still, there are still views to be ventilated on the open ended ad hoc working group. We'll go through those paragraphs and Then we'll, we'll get to the ad hoc committee with limited membership. But let me give the floor to Papua New guinea on behalf of PSITs chair. On behalf of the PSIDs we align with AOC. We thank the EU for the support of option two. We, we also support option two and perhaps we should try to have confidence in our ability to implement option two. We'll work together on that. Papua New Guinea · PSIDS [1:03:28]: So key priorities, two key priorities for us are the dedicated representative representation of SIDS and indigenous peoples. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:03:39]: Thank you Palau. Let me give the floor now to Antigua and Barbuda on behalf of caricom. Antigua and Barbuda · CARICOM [1:03:50]: Madam Co Chair and very quickly we align with the statement made by Palau on behalf of aoc. We do do support the ad hoc committee with limited membership. Reflecting on the discussion, we do also reiterate that we do see this as a time bound and cost effective process. So we believe that option two, the ad hoc committee is more aligned with that and yes. So thanks. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:04:21]: Thank you. Antika Mbarbuda on behalf of United Kingdom, you have the floor. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1:04:32]: Thank you Madam Co Chair and thanks to all the other delegations who have had very useful input on this particular issue. The United Kingdom would agree with views expressed by a number of other delegations including the EU, the Africa Group, AOCs and PSIDs in relation to supporting option two. So the ad hoc working group as being an opportunity for focused and efficient cost effective flexible discussions and the facilitation of expert discussion. We're happy to engage when we get to that paragraph on views of others in relation to specific numbers. May I just take this opportunity to pose a question which may be for the co Chair and colleagues to consider and that is in relation to either of these options, what would be considered quorum and what would happen if either of them are not either option if it were to be used was not quarat. Antigua and Barbuda · CARICOM [1:05:45]: I will leave that as a question. Thank you very much Madam Co Chair. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:05:50]: Thank you and thank you for the question. Let me give the floor then to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia [1:06:01]: Thank you Madam Co Chair and we would like to come in on paragraph four and we thank you the Co Chairs for the proposed options and we expect express our support and preference for option one as we consider that an open ended ad hoc working group provide a more inclusive, transparent and party driven approach. Also it will be a good way to ensure that all parties have the opportunity to contribute to the development of the Special fund from the outset. We believe this is particularly important at this early stage. We are hearing that there are key elements of the Fund that are still under discussion, such as the structure, governance and operational modalities. So we believe this would be a better modality of work under the circumstances. Also, in our view, limiting participation at this stage may risk narrowing perspectives and could affect ownership of the outcome when it comes out. We also believe an open ended work format would help build broad confidence in the process and facilitate more balanced and informed outcomes. We will also note that this approach allow for flexibility as discussions evolve while preserving the authority of the Conference of the Party over the final decisions. Thank you Madam Co Chair. Thank you very much Saudi Arabia. I will give the floor to Brazil on behalf of clam. Brazil · CLAM [1:07:28]: Thank you very much Madam Co Chair. So first of all, CLAM supports option two on the ad hoc committee with limited membership and in doing that I would just like to highlight some elements. It seems like deja vu because all cops have had this discussion on how to operationalize an operating entity and we usually come to those two scenarios of an open ended working group or in a specific limited setting and the two main elements that we consider usually are those of speed and inclusivity. So I've been listening to colleagues refer to the need to rapidly operationalize the Special Fund as a key component of the financial mechanism of the BB&J agreement, but also bringing at this first stage all parties to the table to discuss this issue. Important element. The fact that we One of the reasons why we haven't supported the open ended working group is indeed because of the perceived and the actual risk of going towards that scenario, which seems an interesting idea to include everyone. But we all know that when we have an all party scenario discussion, the discussions are indeed they indeed take more time and sometimes we don't even reach the expected or the most effective outcome. On the other hand, the previous and recent experiences in for example the UNAVCCC and the Paris Agreement clearly show that it is possible to have a limited group of experts discussing elements of finance and elements of a governing instrument of a fund, while being very inclusive not only to the parties to the agreement or the Convention, but also to relevant observers. The experience for example of the GCF and the TC for the Loss and Damage Fund we had for example a mechanism for rotating the membership of the seats of regional groupings. For example, Brazil served in two meetings of the TC for loss and damage as an advisor and then we stepped in for becoming a member in the final stages of that meeting and we did circulate it and gained a lot from that experience in the regional grouping and this has happened as well. To other regional cities seats, including the Asian group. We saw that in Ioses, even in developed countries. We saw some changes throughout the process as well. And going again back to the element of observers, we also had valuable contributions From Observer From NGOs from the private sector in those discussions. And this is why when discussing the option 2 on the ad hoc committee with limited membership, this group CLAM is also open to discussing arrangements for known voting members, including IPLCs, the private sector and other relevant stakeholders to the agreement. So once again we can innovate and we can build up on benchmarks that prove to be cost efficient and time effective. In other forum. Thank you. I wish to thank Brazil speaking on behalf of clam and I now give the floor to Norway. Norway [1:11:20]: Thank you Madam Facilitator. Norway favors option two as we think it's more will be more focused and cost effective. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Norway. I now give the floor to Switzerland. Switzerland [1:11:36]: Much as others, we would also like to raise our support to a limited ad hoc committee. We think it offers a more flexible, efficient, cost effective approach. And we thank Brazil for their explanation of the experience under UNFCCC and how this can hopefully accommodate the concern with respect to inclusivity which we share. Thank you. Thank you Switzerland. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:12:03]: Australia, you have the floor. Australia [1:12:07]: Thank you Madam Co Chair. At paragraph four of the draft COP decision, Australia sees clear advantages in option two, the ad hoc committee with limited membership rather than the open ended working group. This is to ensure the group can work efficiently under time constraints. Australia considers a large group which simply be too unwieldy. We support the meaningful inclusion of small island developing States, least developed countries and indigenous peoples and local communities consistent with the principles of the agreement. And this could include through the avenue of formal membership of the committee, through consultations that will be held by the committee and or as observers to the meetings of the Committee. Importantly for Australia, we think there should be strong financial expenses amongst the membership of the committee. This is going to be critical in ensuring that the policy ambitions for the Special Fund will be achievable within technical financial realities. Thank you. Thank you Australia. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:13:08]: I now give the floor to Canada. Canada [1:13:18]: Thank you co facilitator. It seems very odd with my back to you to intervene this way. Apologies, just Canada would like to align ourselves with those that are supportive of option two. I do think we need to pursue something that is cost effective as efficient as possible. And as our colleague from Brazil on behalf of CLAM said, you know I hear myself talking to, using a phrase I use with my children, which is make good decisions or better decisions and I think we have an opportunity to actually make better decisions based on things experiences we've learned in other organizations and build a stronger framework to the point that Australia made all the experience expertise that comes particularly from a Canadian perspective. We support the inclusion of the expertise of indigenous peoples. We're not going to prescribe how that expertise contributes to the process but we do feel that that is really important to include so thanks Co facilitator Thank you. You shouldn't be apologize. I'm the one talking behind your back. So. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:14:37]: I wish to now give the floor to the Philippines. Philippines [1:14:44]: Facilitator on OP4. We support option 2. The body should reflect equitable geographic representation and take into account the specific circumstances and requirements of developing states in particular SIDS and LDCs. We echo other colleagues who have cited reasons of urgency, efficiency and cost effectiveness. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:15:08]: Thank you very much Philippines. I wish to give the floor to Thailand. Thailand [1:15:17]: Thailand would like to voice support for the establishment of an open ended ad hoc working group. It remains crucial that it is an inclusive process that takes into consideration the specific perspective of developing states. An open ended format would serve to ensure that every state party has a direct voice in influencing and shaping the mechanism that will have an impact on our conservative efforts. Thank you. Thank you Thailand. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:15:43]: And now I give the floor to Egypt. Thank you Madam Chair for good Chair for giving me the floor. Egypt alliance was a statement by the Africa by Nigeria on behalf of the African group and the choice of option two taken into consideration the fair and equitable geographical representation and gender balance. Thank you. Thank you very much. I will go through the paragraphs under option one for those who wish to weigh in. Operative paragraph five which speaks to the number of meetings. Nigeria · Africa Group [1:16:30]: Nigeria, you have the floor. On behalf of the Africa Group. Sorry Madam Chair, I would just like to ask for clarity. Those who support option two, are they also allowed to weigh in on this? Since it is the paragraphs that are listed under option one,. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:16:50]: You're welcome to weigh in. I'm not going to restrain any delegation that wishes to take the floor but I have heard the room of those who support option two. But there are those who do support option one. So I'd like to provide the benefit of any reflections on option one. United Kingdom, you have the floor. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1:17:16]: Thank you Madam Co Chair. And in terms of the number of meetings which I think we'll need to think about whichever option we're in,. We. Are very happy to hear kind of views from other delegations. But as an initial Suggestion I think we are happy with the idea that there could be virtual meetings although there is obviously a benefit for the in person meetings and our initial suggestion would be maybe two in person, one at the beginning and one at the end as a minimum. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:17:49]: Thank you, thank you very much. United Kingdom. Palau, on behalf of aosis, you have the floor. Palau · AOSIS [1:17:59]: Madam Cochra so on the options for option one so if we go to an open ended working group and we're asking for your question on the number of in person meetings we would need at least four. So and I want to bring us back to the cost associated with that, mind you and I open ended working group where all 39 of our states could be represented is would be amazing, right? And would be funded at least one participant to get to that meeting. But we understand the real, the realistic implications of that, especially when we're in a liquidity crisis where we can't even work late at night in the un. So that's why we went with the committee. So we. But if it's for the committee, it's for the open ended working group. We want at least four and the formulation that you have where the co chairs of that committee working group can have informal restorative consultations that is also helpful but however I speak from a constituency that has that spanned across all of the time zones. We have also data connectivity issues and so while we appreciate the ability to consult amongst members whenever we can, it is always and I speak for, especially for a lot of the Pacific colleagues there's a lot of issues when meetings are set at certain times when it's at God forsaken hours for them, 2am, 3am in the morning. So we'd rather as much as possible focus on in person meetings at least four and then informal consultations to be virtual but taking into consideration time zones. So maybe multiple meetings at different time zones. Thanks a lot. Thank you very much. Palau on behalf of aussis, I don't see any other requests for the floor. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:19:55]: Operative paragraph 6, No request for the floor. Operative paragraph 7. On the convening of the initial in person meeting, No request for the floor. Occupative paragraph eight. Japan, you have the floor. Japan [1:20:35]: Thank you. Chair. On operative paragraph 8 we support lifting the bracket at the end and applicable terms of reference for the voluntary trust fund. But at the same time as the fund should be allocated in the following order of priority the COP then subsidiary bodies and other meetings and subject to the availability of fund we suggest to add some words at the end of this paragraph so that it would read and subject to the availability of the fund. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:21:19]: Thank you. Japan, European Union, you have the floor. EU · EU [1:21:27]: Should the option of an open ended working group or committee be set up, then we would have the same concern as the one which has been expressed regarding the participation of developing countries. I mean it would be pending to the availability of the financial resources. We believe also, but this may be for paragraph nine that this option should be subject before being concretized of an assessment of its cost. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:22:05]: Thank you. Can I give the floor to Indonesia? Yes, Indonesia, you have the floor. Yeah, thank you. Madam. Indonesia [1:22:15]: On the explanatory notes for paragraph 8 and 9, Indonesia underscores the fundamental importance of providing financial assistance to ensure the effective participation of representative from developing State parties in this process. As stated in Article 52, paragraph 4 of the Agreement, the participation of developing States, particularly seats, disease and eligibility state is not merely a courtesy but a procedural necessity. Without the provision of travel and subsistence, subsistence support through the voluntary trust fund, the open nature of the working group will remain poly theoretical for many delegation. And for as for paragraph 8, we can support the last bracket. Thank you Madam. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:23:01]: Thank you very much. Indonesia. I'll give the floor to Palau speaking on behalf of eoc. Palau · AOSIS [1:23:09]: Thanks again, Madam Co Chair. So on this we just want to remind colleagues that this is a live discussion as well in the context of financial rules and the voluntary trust fund terms of reference. And so and also it's voluntary, so it will be subject to the availability of funds in that trust fund anyways. So we'd ask for indulgence on that on program budgetary implications. The suggestion that's also another discussion that's happening in the financial rules. So we just want to make note of obviously that cross cutting nature. But as well as the importance of this specific paragraph. If we do not have funding to participate and if only those who are able to get their people to, whether it's a open ended working group or closed ended committee, then this special fund will be a special fund of those who have as opposed to those that do not have. And that is not the intent of the BB&J agreement. And I hope that we're able to muster up and fundraise to get funding for all of those who are participating to be able to be there. Thanks a lot. I wish to thank Palau speaking on behalf of eocis and I now give the floor to Norway. Norway [1:24:24]: Thank you Madam Facilitator. Yeah, as suggested by Japan in par nine, we also want to insert subject to the availability of Funding as this depends on also the number of meetings on the deliberations of the Budget Committee. Thank you. Thank you. Norway, operative paragraph nine. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:24:47]: Switzerland, you have the floor. Switzerland [1:24:54]: Simply also support the insertion of subject to availability of funding in para 8. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:25:07]: Thank you very much. Switzerland, I wish now to move on to other operative paragraph nine of option one. Floor is open for any comments. I see none. Let's move on to option two then. And operative paragraph four, size of the ad hoc committee. The floor is open. European Union. EU · EU [1:25:55]: Thank you very much, Chair. Actually my delegation certainly believe that it's a bit delicate to enter the discussion on the figures for the moment. This being said, I wanted to say that first of all, there are examples that exist for the composition of limited committee in the Green Climate Fund and the Loss and Damage Fund. Secondly, we tend to agree with the colleagues that have referred to the possibility to discuss the arrangement for observation and also for the seats participation. So we are open to that too, of course. And finally, Chair, I heard some concern, legitimate concern of certain delegations which prefer an open ended group. Indeed, there is need to trigger a feeling of ownership on what is going the outcome of this work. And that's why my delegation said initially that we would prefer an ad hoc committee that would work on different options, very elaborated and also with cost estimates. But then it would be up to the COP to choose which one. We believe that this would give indeed a more feeling of ownership to those delegations that have the possibility to directly participate in the other committee. Thank you very much. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:27:30]: I wish to thank the European Union. Any views on operative paragraph four. Japan. Japan [1:27:51]: Thank you, Chair. On this composition of the Committee, Japan thinks that the views of States parties that make annual contributions to the Special Fund in the early years should be also fully reflected in the process. So we suggest to add another subparagraph indicating certain numbers for members from the States which make annual contributions to the Special Fund in accordance with Article 14, paragraph 6 of the agreement. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:28:40]: I wish to thank Japan for their proposal. I don't see any other requests for the phone. Of course, when I say operative paragraph four, I'm referring to the whole thing. Okay, good. I see. Antigua and Barbuda the On behalf of Caricom. Antigua and Barbuda · CARICOM [1:29:15]: Speak after Palau. Palau · AOSIS [1:29:24]: Yeah, so yeah, just aligned with what we are planning on before at least three situations seats. Thanks. Antigua and Barbuda · CARICOM [1:29:33]: Thank you, Madam Co Chair. So on this area we would like to specifically propose the inclusion of three seats for small island developing States. We're still consulting on the overall number and overall composition. We also propose approximately five seats for each regional group and potentially three seats for sids, three seats for ldcs. And we're still considering how we will involve the valuable participation of non voting participants and observers. Thanks. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:30:20]: I wish to thank Antigua Barbuda on behalf of the Caribbean Community. And I now give the floor to Papua New guinea on behalf of psids, followed by Brazil on behalf of clam. Thank you, Cochin. Papua New Guinea · PSIDS [1:30:37]: We aligned with aoc. We're still considering the numbers for the other categories, our key priorities. As I stated, SIDS and indigenous peoples. We do have a preference for the number of indigenous peoples representatives to be slightly more than the number for local communities. So that's our preference. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:31:01]: I wish to thank Papua New guinea on behalf of psids. And now I give the floor to Brazil on behalf of clam. Brazil · CLAM [1:31:10]: Thank you Madam Co Chair. So, on the composition of the ad hoc committee, CLEMS is still considering the overall number for membership. But we are also willing to work on established precedents, including those who serve as benchmarks for the very formulation of the document that we are now analyzing. And having said that, it also means that the Group will express flexibility to entertain discussions ongoing beyond the regional group setting and to include other seats as well. And we will follow up that discussion very closely to end up with the optimal outcome on that. This would be on the members, the voting members of the Committee. Additionally, the Group would also be flexible to entertaining a discussion on no voting members. As I alluded previously, this would entail references to representatives of indigenous peoples, local communities and from clam. We would also see value added of having representation from the private sector in this committee. And this would come again to the innovative approach we are willing to take in this discussion. Nigeria · Africa Group [1:32:42]: Thank you. I wish to thank Brazil speaking on behalf of clam. And I now give the floor to Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Like Brazil, the Africa Group is still consulting on the overall composition. But we would like to stress that the Africa Group views the importance of equitable geographical representation in the composition. And we are glad that in your documents we already have to include the least developed countries and small island developing states. And we would like to see that they are represented in the composition. That is agreed at the end of our discussion. Thank you very much. I wish to thank Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group. And I now give the floor to the United Kingdom, followed by Egypt. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1:33:41]: Thank you Madam Co Chair. And like many other delegations, the UK is still reflecting on the exact numbers, but it's useful opportunity to give some Initial thoughts about the membership in terms of equitable geographical representation. In particular we welcome the comments from Palau speaking on behalf of EOSIS and others on cost and also the note that the membership of the ad hoc group should be reserved for state parties. We also welcome the suggestion of Japan about countries contributing to the Special Fund. Thank you. Egypt [1:34:31]: I wish to thank the United Kingdom I give the floor to Egypt. Thank you Madam Co Chair for giving me the floor and Egypt alliance itself with the intervention made by Nigeria on behalf of the African group calling for equitable geographical representation. But here actually I have. I'm seeking clarification because of this innovative composition of this ad hoc committee of the how we are going to count this like by having the five regions and then we having LECs and SIDS and others so I'm concerned a bit of double counting and so if I'm an LDC country but then I'm coming from Africa so how this could be counted in this regard? This is just a clarification. The other issue I'm calling here experiences of other process, for example equitable here it doesn't have to be an exact number of countries or members. So for the Bob Rock for example for Stockholm Convention we don't have the exact number of members per region. So like it was eight for Africa, six for Eastern Europe for example. It's just like I'm recalling the example to be like a food for thought for. For the composition and how it should be because for example for Africa we are 54 countries so it might not doesn't have to be the exact number for Africa, Asia Pacific, Eastern Europe and Latin America and others. So I'm just recalling this that our understanding or our preference not to have the exact numbers to reflect the number of countries in this concern and my clarification is how this, the reference to LDCs and SIDS and indigenous people and local communities would be counted with the geographical representation. So. So I'm not against the difference, I'm just seeking clarification. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:36:45]: Thank you Egypt. I think this is a matter that the membership, the delegates will have to speak to. We utilize the examples from other types of ad hoc committees and we've heard references to to two already the Transitional Committee for Green Climate Fund, Transitional Committee for the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage that have some similar types of representation including in relation to SIDS and LDCs. I think another point that has been raised in the room is that this membership is membership of state parties. So the breakdown in terms of. Of numbers looks A little bit different. But again, this is something that needs. It's a concern that's well appreciated and I'm sure, I hope the other delegations will be able to respond in due course. But thank you, thank you for raising it. Thank you for sharing the other example. I wish now to give the floor to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia [1:37:58]: Thank you, Madam Co Chair. So for us, in the event that option two is retained, we would like to stress the importance of ensuring openness and transparency of the process. And so therefore in this regard we propose that language is added that non party speak, that non party states be allowed to participate as observers in the work of the Committee. I would also like to, like other before me, underline the importance of ensuring equitable and balanced geographical representation across regions, reflecting diverse national circumstances and supporting broad ownership of the outcome. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:38:37]: Thank you. Saudi Arabia, Norway, you have the floor. Norway [1:38:45]: Thank you, Madam Facilitator. So we're not ready to suggest a number of members as of yet, but just want. To say that I agree with Brazil that we would need to see a space for private entities in para 4, as this is mentioned in para 52, number 4 as well. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:39:16]: I wish to thank Norway. I don't see any other requests for the floor on this item. If you have any further reflections, you are. You may make those reflections when we take up the other paragraphs. But for now let's go to operative paragraph 5 and I open the floor for any comments on this paragraph. Palau, you have the floor. Palau · AOSIS [1:39:44]: Thanks a lot, Madam Co Chair. For operative paragraph five, we'd ask the inclusion in front of regional groups. United nations regional groups. So it'd be in, if I have the correct paragraph, nomination process. Paragraph invites the United nations regional groups. And then it would be an insertion after groups, comma and the relevant category of state, states, comma or constituencies, etc. So that would be our addition. Thanks a lot. And just to say that this aligns with all the other discussions. So we just wanted to make sure we're aligned with what's going on in the copra. So the rules of procedure as well as the SPTOs, ETC. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:40:29]: Thanks over to you. Thank you for that observation. Any other delegation wishing to take the floor? Floor on operative paragraph five. I see none. Let's move to operative paragraph six. We've heard some reflections already on in person meetings. Any further reflections? EU · EU [1:40:53]: European Union. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:40:57]: Thank you very much. Chair. The un, its member states are of the view that another committee of this nature could achieve its objective within a maximum of three in person meetings, supplemented as necessary by informal virtual consultation. This we agree with the paragraph as it is, but mentioning that the ADO Committee should have a maximum of three in person meetings. Thank you. Palau · AOSIS [1:41:24]: Thank you. Palau, on behalf of. EU · EU [1:41:28]: Just a question to the eu. So is it a maximum of three and then there could be potentially others, or is it at least three? Because that's what I heard. I just want to double check that I recorded that correctly. Thanks. Brazil · CLAM [1:41:42]: Thank you very much. We just said a maximum of trip. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Brazil, on behalf of clam, you have the floor. Thank you very much for giving mid the floor. So, on paragraph six, CLAM supports the ad hoc committee meeting for at least five, four in person meetings. And of course having the possibility, as articulated in the paragraph, of convening formal virtual consultations. Once again, this would be consultations and not actual deliberations of the Committee. We heard in other discussions, including this morning, the very challenges that many developing countries face in terms of virtual participation. So we would not support virtual deliberations or formal meetings of the ad hoc committee. We prefer the sessions advancing work on an in person format. And if I may, Madam Co Chair, just on paragraph five, on the bracketed part, we are envisaging a process that starts in early 2027, if the cop so decides, so mindful that the. We heard today in the morning that the co chairs in consultation with the Bureau will suggest that COP1 take place in January next year. We would like to have the composition of the ad hoc committee no later than February 2027 and then we envisage the first meeting to happen no later than March of that year. And this is already going to paragraph eight. Thank. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:43:41]: You. I wish to thank Brazil speaking on behalf of clam and I now give the floor to Nigeria speaking on behalf of the Africa Group. Nigeria · Africa Group [1:43:53]: Yes, thank you, Chair. On paragraph 6, regarding number of in person meetings, the Africa Group is still consulting and will come with its position on this paragraph. However, I would like to see if the Group could rely on previous precedents, bearing in mind the adequate number that is required to accomplish the objective of this process. And also to support the comments made by Brazil on behalf of CLAM, Elia, regarding paragraph 5, that is our expectation that we could have the first meeting as early as February if we are able to have the COP in January. That also aligns with the objective of many delegations for quick and early operationalization of the Special Fund. Thank you very much. Thank you. Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the Africa Group. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:44:54]: I do not see any other requests for the floor. Switzerland, you have the floor. Switzerland [1:45:04]: Coming late. With respect to OP6, we are of the view that the committee could meet at least twice in person. We also think that a large part of the work could be conducted virtually. Regarding the wording, we note that developing countries is not a defined group of country. Only LDC and SIDS are defined country groups in the un. So we would suggest to perhaps add a qualifier maybe with respect to income level or create a list of country which would qualify. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:45:56]: I wish, thanks Switzerland for your comments. I wish to give the floor to Norway. Norway [1:46:08]: Thank you, Madam Chair. So we would agree with the European Union that they could meet, they should meet in person. We think a maximum of three would be fine. We just wanted to say that along with Switzerland, we also think that they should meet virtually, which is common in other processes as well, because it's an effective way of talking, at least informally. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:46:41]: I wish you thank Norway. Oh, you ran, you have the floor. Iran (Islamic Republic of) [1:47:08]: Couple of points I would like to mention, but I think I first start with the paragraph six and then the remainder at a later stage. Well, obviously we opt for open ended group working group for the for this purpose. We believe it would be more inclusive. We will hear from different people from different regions of the world. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:49:18]: I thank our colleague from Iran for your comments and I now give the floor to Egypt. Egypt [1:49:27]: Thank you Madam Chair for giving me the floor and sorry that I'm in this position but I have a low voice so I cannot speak. So taking into consideration the cross cutting nature of this operating paragraph, especially that in the morning session we tackled this freebies and the rules of procedure. So I think it's going to be hard to to make a decision on this one unless we decide on the the rules of procedure. But putting this in mind, I'm just trying to highlight the the constraints that we are some developing countries face when we have this virtual meetings and the technical challenges that we might face that could hinder the inclusivity of the process. So again we are in favor of in person meetings. But taking also into consideration the financial situation that the UN is facing, we can go for virtual consultations in special circumstances or an extraordinary position. Maybe if we finalize this in the rules procedure it will be much easier to decide on this paragraph. And for the reference of the developing state parties here and as a grouping, I would like to explain that this reference has been made within the text of the agreement in Article 52 4. So it's not a new language or a new grouping that we are Inserting here, it's just referring to what has been agreed upon before within the agreement. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:51:11]: I wish to thank Egypt. I do not see any further requests for the floor and thanks to colleagues who have flagged on various paragraphs across the interrelation with other discussions in other rooms and that's appreciated and I think something we, we definitely need to always bear in mind. Let's move on to operative paragraph 7 and I open the floor for comments. EU · EU [1:51:45]: European Union, you have the floor. Thank you very much, Chair. Actually this is more a question I'm astonished to read. And designated advisors of the members. Is it something which has a specific status because you are part of a delegation? I mean do they need a specific status here? Palau · AOSIS [1:52:13]: I will come back to you Palau from AUSS on behalf of auss, thanks Madam Couture. And just to note that we would like to retain the inclusion of designated advisors of the members. However, we would just like to reverse the order. So we'd like to refer to the designated advisors of the members, first comma and then observers. This is a submission from our group and on the designated observers. And the importance of it is that and many have highlighted it. I think Australia alluded to it, Canada also alluded to it. And having the right persons who understand building financial instruments and financial mechanisms and funds and advisors are extremely important to supplement and provide the type of expertise that is needed. And so allowing for there to be obviously participation of both the member proper and then a designation advisor is something that has been extremely helpful in the past practice. And Brazil on behalf of CLAM has alluded to this in the past. And they also act as potentially a rotational kind of system where they come in as an advisor and then they're a member. And it creates a team of wealth of knowledge that is needed for an efficient and effective process. So we'd like to retain that and just reverse the order. Thanks a lot Koutia. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:53:42]: Let me give the floor to Brazil on behalf of clam. Brazil · CLAM [1:53:50]: Thank you very much Madam co Chair. So Micaiah, on behalf of Viozas has made my life easier. Now we would like to support the retention of the reference to designated advisors. We saw in other fora the added value of having such a setting not only in terms of expertise but also as we have explained it allow us to rotate on the regional grouping. So as I said, Brazil served as advisor for two meetings of the transitional committee and then we stepped in as members. And this allowed for a capacity building, an internal capacity building within the seat. But Also nationally. And to add to that, we're going to come to that in the following paragraph. But we also see value of those advisors being funded to allow for their effective participation in the meetings. We will take a look on eosas proposal to invert the order of observers and designated advisors in the articulation of OP7. And of course we would take a look to try to accommodate the concerns expressed by other colleagues in terms of how to guarantee that non party states could also attend the meetings as observers to allow for more inclusivity when it comes to the actual process to designing the special fund. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:55:35]: Thank you very much. Brazil, speaking on behalf of clam and I think both AOSIS and CLAM have indirectly provided some context to that language. I don't know if you were you wishing to come back or you'll wait. EU · EU [1:56:05]: It's a committee of the whole. At the end we wanted a limited committee, but it seems to me that with persons adding to others and others at the end we will end with a committee which has an important subject. And actually we are very much in favor of the Adobe committee. And we have heard also what our colleagues from Brazil has said. We understand that indeed it's important also that private sector be there, for instance. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:56:41]: But it's important also at a certain stage to understand how many people will be in this at the committee. Thank you. Thank you very much. European Union. Let me give the floor to Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the Africa Group. Nigeria · Africa Group [1:56:56]: Thank you very much. Madam Chair. The Africa Group is not opposed to participation of observers. And regarding the designated advisors of the members, we still have similar questions like the eu. But having listened to EOC San Clam, who would also seek further clarity, what specific role will they play if they are going to be advisers to the representative from the regions? Wouldn't regions be sending people who have a spot on the subject to represent them? And also if that is the case, will they have any voting rights? And also the reference to providing funding for. For. For them, wouldn't that also impact on the actual members that are going to form this adult committee? So the Africa Group would love to seek for that clarity so that we will appreciate what we really mean by designated advisors before we'll make our position. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the Africa Group. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:58:04]: I'll give the floor to Indonesia and then the United Kingdom. Indonesia, you have the floor. Yep. Thank you. Madam Chair, my delegation wishes to express its support for the brigade text in the paragraph 7, specifically in the inclusion of designated Advisor of new members by allowing members of the ad hoc committee to be accompanied by designated advisors is essential for the effectiveness of the process as outlined in the mandate of this committee. Indonesia [1:58:31]: The work requires high level experience and and expertise in complex areas. For many developing states, including Arcipolik States. The presence of this advisor ensures that delegation have the necessary technical support to engage meaningfully in detailed institutional and financial design. This approach is consistent with Indonesia's broader commitment to a process that is transparent, inclusive and grounded in technical legitimacy. On the proposal of Palau to revert new bracketed tech we can support. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1:59:00]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to thank Indonesia and now give the floor to the United Kingdom. Thank you, Madam Co Chair. On operative paragraph 7 we acknowledge the point made by other delegations about the importance of suitable expertise and we're also aware that operative paragraph 4 already refers to the need for necessary experience, expertise and seniority and mindful of the importance of cost effectiveness and efficiency, we will recommend the deletion of the square brackets in relation to advisors as this is already a group that is designed to be made up of experts. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [1:59:51]: I wish to thank the United Kingdom. Japan [1:59:56]: Japan, you have the floor. Thank you, Chair. Well, Japan has already expressed its preference for the open ended group but still if we are to consider this limited participation formula would like to come back to one of the reasons that we of our preference and share that we are hesitant to include this paragraph 7. To strike a balance with the limited participation of state parties it's appropriate not to permit a very wide observer participation. While we do understand the importance and virtue of the inclusiveness but there also needs to be some balance and in this and also regarding this advisor status we'd also appreciate some more clarification for consideration. And also coming back to the question of of securing fair representation of those parties which have already made efforts to become a party. We'd like to come back to the question of the exact numbers which I didn't touch upon in the our intervention on paragraph 5 no. 4. So as while I understand still many countries delegations are considering and we are open to further thoughts but in light of the different number of state parties for each regional group, given that the number of the state state parties are still growing and it will grow further toward COP1 we suggest that allocation of the seats to regional groups should duly reflect the number of actual state parties at the time of the COP one. So that's some thought. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:02:23]: Thank you. Thank you. Japan. I see Brazil for Clem and I think I saw Saudi Arabia Brazil for clam. Brazil · CLAM [2:02:35]: Thank you very much for giving me the floor. Again, just to flag that, we considered the questions made by Nigeria on behalf of the African Group and the European Union very available because it seems that we have identified a gap in terms of understanding the benchmarks. We as CLAM, agree with EOSIS on the value added of the advisors because we were directly involved in previous committees that established funds under DNF Triple C. And we saw that if we don't even mention the advisors in the decision of the cop, we will have trouble in including those sort of expertise in the actual process. And this is why we are supporting the current articulation of OP7. But if the Co Chair could also bring us an informal document or any sort of clarification of what happened in those processes and why we do need this sort of reference, it would be for the advantage of the group. Our understanding is that in addressing the concerns of the European Union, we, we would not be expanding the actual membership of the Committee including a reference to advisors. They would serve as resource persons to the actual members, but not alternate members. So whenever we have the absence of the member of the European Union, for example, this would not automatically lead to any of its advisors tapping in to the process. What happened in relevant committees were that if any country or any party would like to change their member to the Committee, they would have to do so formally through a letter of the government to the Secretariat. And this would be something we would support doing. However, we support the advisors in this process because we indeed need the expertise that a single person does usually not have. So sometimes we have members of those committees who indeed have some sort of expertise in a part of the process of establishing a fund, but not necessarily on the overarching elements. There is for example, a very specific discussion on if we engage in the World Bank Fund family of funds of FIFs, what are the legal elements that we need to consider? So there are not many people who are familiarized with that. Also the inclusion of IPLCs in the actual operationalization of the Fund, I would doubt that we would have a full membership that would be expert on those elements. So once again we could have members who would designate a specific expert with specific skills to build upon in the process without enlarging the actual composition of the Committee, but actually bringing new avenues and new ideas to the group process. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:05:50]: Thank you. Thank you, Brazil. I will give the floor to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia [2:06:00]: Thank you, Madam Co Chair. And on paragraph 7 again we reiterate our support for ensuring openness of the meeting and in. In this regard we propose to clarify that observer participation includes non party states. So we propose the text to read including non state, non party state in accordance with. In accordance with established United nations practice. And as for the bracketed text following that, we are ambivalent regarding it. I think member states. Sorry. Several parties today made strong arguments for its inclusion and we would be okay with seeing it. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:06:47]: Thank you Saudi Arabia. And on your reflection, I. I do know that we are discuss discussing rules of procedures for the cop. So we might want to bear those rules of procedures in mind. European Union, you have the floor. EU · EU [2:07:11]: Very much. Chair. I wanted to thank the delegate of Brazil for. For his explanation which are extremely useful. We were rather under the impression that actually when there is a problem of expertise that is raised in the Committee, maybe the co chairs of the Committee could invite an external aspir on an adult basis to participate in the committee for sharing his expertise and then the committee would continue to discuss. Or maybe if these are experts attached to certain delegations, they can provide the expertise to the delegation before the delegation come in the meeting. Or maybe they could participate virtually because as far as I understand also Brazil says also that they should be financed also by the process. Basically. So this is also. This has a cost and my delegation understands very well when there is a cost. So this is quite important to know. But we are ready to engage and to look at this closer. Indeed on the basis of the very useful information by our colleague. Thank you. Thank you colleagues and thanks for sharing your different experiences and understandings. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:08:27]: And of course, as we mentioned, as the co chairs mentioned in our opening, we really wish to encourage delegations to speak with each other so that they can develop better understanding and help us to move towards areas of commonalities. I wish to give the floor to the Philippines. Philippines [2:08:55]: Apologies for coming in late on opa. The Philippines. Philippines supports the participation of observers for transparency. We would also support the participation of designated advisors who we expect to contribute to the expertise of members on the highly technical and multifaceted factors relevant to funding mechanisms. Noting the multitude of disciplines necessary for developing states parties to implement the agreement holistically. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:09:28]: Thank you very much. Philippines. May I now move to OP8? It's in respect to the convening of the first in person meeting. We've heard from CLAM and and the Africa Group on the preference for the first meeting. No later than I think you Talk March of 2027. Are there any delegations wishing to take the floor on OP8? Okay, let's move to op. European Union, you have the floor. EU · EU [2:10:22]: Much Chair. Actually, generally speaking, and we will say it in the context of the discussion on the Voluntary Trust Fund. The un, its member states are not really keen to support the participation in meetings other than those of the bodies established under the agreement. These are the two terms of the agreement. Considering the importance of the work of the future Committee, we could consider using the BB&J voluntary Trust Fund for the participation of developing countries, developing parties in the meetings of the agreement. However, this should of course be subject to the availability of financial resources and we insist this should not set a precedent for the participation in meetings other than those of the bodies formally established under the agreement. So we would have textual proposals for reflecting this in your text. Thank you very much, Chair. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:11:26]: I wish to thank the European Union. Are there any other comments? Nigeria · Africa Group [2:11:32]: I recommend recognize that some colleagues have commented in indirectly online. But let me give the floor to Nigeria on behalf of the Africa Group. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The Africa Group supports funding for members of the adult committee from developing state parties, particularly LDCs and seats to participate in the meetings of the Ad hoc group. For the reference to designated advisor, we have listened to the room and the group will reflect on information that has been shared and take a position on whether or not to support the inclusion, including in this paragraph. And we would also like to respond to what has just been heard. In our understanding, the this draft decision is expected to be adopted at COP1 and that means if the proposals from the Vice Chair in the terms of reference for the Voluntary Trust Fund is agreed, this would definitely be an adult committee on working Adult Committee of the COP that is working in effort to implement the agreement. Switzerland [2:12:51]: And that could also mean that funding from the Valeto Trust Fund could be extended to this group to ensure that many delegations and inclusivity is achieved. There was a point that was made earlier by OSIS where he pointed out that if it is about those who have money will participate, then would have lost the essence of ensuring that everybody takes part in elaborating an organizational structure that will assist implementing the agreement. So would strongly support funding for members of the Committee from these particular regions. Thank you very much. I wish to thank Nigeria speaking on behalf of the Africa Group and I see Switzerland followed by the United Kingdom. I think we also share the concerns with respect to supporting members that are not member of the Committee and look to the proposal from the EU on this matter. Thank you. Thank you. Switzerland. United Kingdom, you have the floor. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [2:14:04]: Thank you, Madam Co Chair. And the UK would Like to echo the sentiment expressed by the eu EU in their intervention. We look forward to considering the text that they are proposing to provide. Thank you. I thank the United Kingdom. Norway [2:14:21]: And I now give the floor to Norway. Madam Chair, I want to to support the intervention made by the UK we general okay with with financing through the voluntary trust fund. But would make the same comment as I did on the other option which is that it should be subject to the availability of funding. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:14:51]: Thank you, Norway. Japan [2:14:55]: See Japan. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:14:59]: Well, I think UK has summarized perfectly well what I had in mind. So thank you. Thank you, Japan. Papua New Guinea · PSIDS [2:15:13]: Papa New guinea, on behalf of pids. Thank you. Koch. The P SIT support paragraph nine. We think it is appropriate and we believe that this is a body established under the agreement under which is a broad term. The COP has the power to establish bodies and the decision this decision. The COP is taking the action to establish this body. So we strongly support OP9. Thank you. I thank Papua New Guinea. Speaking on behalf of P. Sids, did the United Kingdom wish to come back in? PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:15:58]: No. Okay. I now give the floor to Antigam Barbuda on behalf of caricom. Madam Cochin. Very quickly, we do support paragraph nine. We do believe that the participation of in this adult committee should be through the the trust fund. The VTF. Thank you. Thank you, MTV. I will now turn to OP10 and I open the floor for comments on this paragraph. I give the floor to Papua New guinea on behalf of the Pacific small island developing state states. Papua New Guinea · PSIDS [2:16:51]: Thank you, Co chair. The P sits very much appreciate your inclusion of OP10 as well as the explanatory note which explains quite a lot. Indeed. It was the PSIS that proposed in PrepCom 2 a separate voluntary trust fund for indigenous peoples as well as local communities. And we have submitted to Duallos. It is posted on the website. Our one very concise one paragraph decision establishing this voluntary trust fund is marked to show changes from the CBD precedent. And it's one paragraph. So we've submitted that. It's posted on our website. We encourage delegations to take a look at it. It is a COP decision to establish the separate voluntary trust fund. We're happy to engage with delegations and of course we strongly support OP10. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:17:48]: Thank you, Papua New Guinea. Speaking on behalf of the PSIDs and I think I see Indonesia. Indonesia [2:17:56]: I'd like to address the paragraph 9 first and then to paragraph 10 afterwards. I. From the paragraph 9 we can fully support wherever my delegation acknowledges that the voluntary trust fund established by the COP will only become fully operational once the COP has confirmed and adopted the necessary financial rules. This creates a critical procedural gap for the meeting of the ad hoc committee that must take place prior to the first cop. In this regard, I'd like to draw attention to possibility utilizing the existing voluntary trust fund of the proprietary Commission established by the General assembly resolution. We believe that utilizing the existing PREPCOM trust fund to support participation in the ad hoc committee meeting would ensure the continuity and momentum this pragmatic approach avoid the risk of including developing state during this foundational state will be wait for the Permanent Foundry Trust fund under the agreement to be refineralized on the part 10 we'd like to insert after the fresh Global Environment facility and when appropriate other instrument framework and bodies for the rest of the bracket we can support. Thank you, Madam. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:19:25]: Thank you. Indonesia Are there any other requests for the floor? I don't see any. Paragraph 11 is similar, I believe, to the paragraph 9. Of course. Respect. Speaking about the committee here and not ad hoc working group, we didn't have comments there. EU · EU [2:19:59]: European Union. I see that my instruction asked for deleting paragraph 11 and replacing it with a paragraph that would say request the Secretariat to evaluate the estimated cost cost associated with the meetings of the ad hoc committee and to identify the funding required. This being said, I realize now that if we insert this in the decision of the cop, we will take one more year. So that's not what we want. But in any case, we would like indeed to have the cost estimated and the fund identified before we agree on this sentence which says decides that the adequate financial resources will be dedicated. So there should be a process before for evaluating the cost. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:20:50]: Thank you. And of course that will depend on a lot of other issues, including the composition, the number of meetings, etc. Etc. Switzerland [2:21:07]: Okay. Any other reflections on OP11? IC Switzerland. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:21:18]: We simply will have a textual proposal on this as well as OP10 if it's possible to to send it afterwards. Thank you. Thank you for flagging that for us. And now we go to what we have as 1012 floor is open. The next operative paragraph. It's the numbering, of course. Depends on what options we're choosing. European Union, you have the floor,. EU · EU [2:22:05]: Mr. Chair. The UN esports UN agencies, international financial institution, including the GEF to support the ADOC committee by seconding qualified staff with pertinent expertise for us. Actually, when we. When we doubt about having the ad hoc committee benefiting from expertise. I mean, this is to this paragraph that we were thinking. That said, we do not consider it necessary to specify the nature of the expertise that the people should have, because indeed there might be very different expertise. We can spend a lot of time. On this. And we do not think that it would add value at the end. We would consequently delete the parts between brackets at the end of the paragraph. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:23:04]: I wish to thank the European Union and I now give the floor to Palau, speaking on behalf of the alliance of Small Island States. Thanks. Thanks, Madam Co Chair. Just to say our group thinks that the latter phrase about understanding at least some general areas of where we would want the expertise, similarly to what we did with the members at the beginning of this decision text where we asked for those with seniority. And I think the UK alluded to that specific paragraph early, you know, but it has seniority, expertise in finance, et cetera, that sort of stops. Palau · AOSIS [2:23:43]: Steering is potentially helpful, you know, and we'd want to, for example, see that the JEFF is there. We'd want the Jeff to bring their biodiversity people, not their chemicals people. Right. You know, so I think that steering is very helpful and it's also the precedent that was there from the benchmark that you used. And also we'd want to register on the record that our understanding of the head of the Secretariat, given that we are still doing the Secretariat arrangements, is the interim head of the Secretary, because more than likely wouldn't have a head probably selected at COP1, and so we wouldn't want the delay in the process to wait for a head of the Secretariat. So we read that to be the head of the Interim Secretariat. Thank you. I wish to thank Palau on behalf of aosis and speaking on behalf of aoc, sorry. And now I give the floor to Nigeria, speaking on behalf of Afghanistan, Africa Group. Nigeria · Africa Group [2:24:38]: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The Africa group supports paragraph 12. The adult committee will benefit from the experience and institutional memory of suitable qualified experts from the UN International funds and other relevant groups, as indicated in paragraph 12. And the Africa Group supports the removal of the brackets in this paragraph, especially on request for. For relevant qualifications. We think like the last speaker. We don't just invite anybody. We'll invite people with the experience that is required that they should provide to guide members of the Committee in arriving at important decision. Thank you very much. I wish to thank Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the Africa Group, and I now give the floor to Turkey. Türkiye [2:25:33]: Thank you. With regard to paragraph 10 and 12, we see value in enabling technical support, including two second months. But at the same time, we underline that such arrangements should remain demand driven and under the guidance of the cop and should not affect the party drop on the nature of the process. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:25:58]: I wish to thank Tuki. I now give the floor to Brazil speaking on behalf of clam. Brazil · CLAM [2:26:06]: Thank you very much. Very quickly, like AOSIS and the African group Brazil on behalf of clam with support paragraph 1012 as is drafted including lifting the brackets on the need for expertise on areas of finance, conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity. Thank you. Thank you very much. Brazil, I now have Australia followed by the United Kingdom and then Japan. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:26:36]: Australia you have. Australia [2:26:39]: Thank you Chair. Australia agrees with the intervention just made by the eu. We support the making of arrangements for staff from financial institutions, multilateral development banks and the GEF to be seconded to this committee to assist its work. And in Australia's view the the word pertinent is useful here. The expertise we propose the secondes would bring to the process would be the expertise in finance and we don't think that the bracketed text identifying other types of expertise expertise to be necessary. I do note the comment from my colleague from Meiosis just now that say if someone from the GEF might be seconded with biodiversity background, you know that wouldn't be precluded if as the process continued that was required. But you don't need the bracketed text to allow that to happen. Thank you Chair,. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:27:34]: I thank Australia and I now give the floor to the the United Kingdom. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [2:27:43]: Thank you Madam Co Chair and I think my colleague from Australia has fairly much covered what I was hoping to say. We agree with the eu, Australia and others that the opportunity to benefit from such secondes is a valuable one. So we support the inclusion of the this paragraph in terms of the square brackets. Our instinct is to agree with the proposed deleting of this text as we feel that the word pertinent sufficiently covers the point needing to be made here. Thank you. Thank you very much. United Kingdom, Japan, you have the floor. Japan [2:28:25]: Thank you Co Chair. On this paragraph 1012. Well, we have slightly different views from those which we often align ourselves with in terms of this term. Second, we are still not confident whether it's necessary to have them always seconded as it could imply that they will be involved on a full time basis and perhaps it should be enough to request support from experts from those relevant organizations when necessary. But in terms of the bracketed phrase on the particular expertise, I think Japan thinks there's no need to mention these specific fields at this stage. So on this we share the same view. So what we suggest is to replace the word second to assign so that it would read to assign suitably qualified Staff with pertinent expression expertise to support the work of the process when necessary. Thank you. I wish to thank Japan. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:29:57]: I don't see any other requests for the floor. I'm looking at the time and maybe let's try to see if there's. The co Chairs have been very generous. We're given one extra paragraph if anybody wants to use it as a placeholder for other possible issues related to institutional arrangements. There was any interest in flagging that you're submitting something I'd appreciate to know. I don't see any. Great. So then let's move on then. We have two options regarding the matter relating to annual contributions in accordance with Article 14, paragraph 6. And I would like to hear your views on your leanings regarding these options. Floor is open. European Union. EU · EU [2:31:02]: Much Chairman Regarding the transitional arrangements for this 50% top up contribution referred to in Article 14, paragraph 6 of the Agreement, we continue to reflect and we are also consulting with other parties. The EU and its member States recognize that developed parties are obligated to pay this top up to the Special Fund calculated on the basis of their respective assets contribution. At the same time, the mandatory nature of this contribution is contingent upon the fulfillment of certain institutional and operational preconditions, namely, the determination of the precise amount of the 50% top up contribution, which of course presupposes that both the distribution key and the quantum of the assessed contribution have been formally determined. And secondly, the establishment of the Special Fund in a functional state such that it is legally and operationally capable of receiving the contributions and allocating them in accordance with the objectives of the agreement. At present, the spring conditions are not met yet, which creates of course, internal impediments to unlocking that budget. Nevertheless, the EU and its member states remain fully committed to collaborating constructively with all delegations to ensure the expedieux fulfillment of this condition. Thank you. Thank you, European Union. Does any other delegation wish to take the floor on these options? Türkiye [2:33:02]: We simply support option one if it provides a simple, practical and immediate operational solution. Thank you. Thank you. To k you, I have the United Kingdom and then Switzerland. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [2:33:25]: Hello. Thank you, Madam Co Chair. And I'm intervening to thank our colleagues from the European Union for their helpful intervention. We are happy to consider the point that they have specifically raised there and will provide further details once we've had an opportunity to consider. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:33:54]: Thank you very much, Switzerland. And then. Switzerland [2:34:00]: We would also like to echo the points raised by the European Union. We certainly recognize the obligation under Article 14, paragraph 6 that annual contribution should be made. But this can only be made once the Special Fund has been indeed established, including the trustee, the budget approved, the assessed contribution determined. So in other words, for these options we are not, we have concerns with respect to any interim arrangement that is not consistent with these conditions that need to be fulfilled. But we remain committed to find a path forward and find a constructive answer to that. Palau · AOSIS [2:34:57]: Thank you. Thank you very much. Palau, on behalf of aoc, you have the floor. Thanks a lot, Madam Co Chair. So on this eosis would like to go with option one. We think that it is important that we receive the annual contributions given that we have had the entry of force into the agreement and this is a clear obligation for developed countries to provide those into the Special Fund. We're hearing a lot of different other further conditionalities that we really did not necessarily see in the agreement. I think that there's great importance placed on understanding that the Special Fund has been established by virtue of the treaty. It is more about the operationalization or else we would have been talking about the establishment of the Special Fund, which is not the case. And so we want to urge colleagues to engage in a bit of good faith here. Noting as well that we're talking about 50% of yes has contribution to the budget and amassing as much resources as possible in the interim is extremely important for building the capacity capacity that is needed to address this regime that we have here. And so if we, if we're splitting here and having these different interpretations where we need the type of funding, at least the seed funding for this Special Fund, this won't be helpful in the end for us to get a well capacitated regime to address the issues at hand. And so we urge colleagues to please reconsider and engage on this important matter because we do want to amass as much funding as possible as we operationalize the fund. Thank you. Thank you very much. Palau, on behalf of a. I wish now to give the floor to Brazil speaking on behalf of clam. Brazil · CLAM [2:37:05]: Thank you very much Madam Co Chair. As we have highlighted in our initial intervention, CLAM supports Option one is a preferred way forward when it comes to the assessed contributions from developed country bodies to the Special Fund. And we have a very similar understanding from what just mentioned when it comes to the reading of the obligation of developed country parties to the agreement in contributing from their assessed contributions under Article 1614 6. Sorry, we heard from the you that there is a conditionality when it comes to the establishment of the fund, the Special Fund in the agreement. And I would like to read the first sentence of Article 14 6, it goes with, and I quote, after the entry into force of this Agreement, developed parties shall make annual contributions to the Special Fund referred to in Article 52. If there is any temporal trigger to developed countries fulfilling their obligations on the SAS contributions, it is the entry into force of the Agreement and this trigger has been accomplished this year. We do not see any other element of conditionality when it comes to the operationalization and implementation of that provision. So we once again agree with EOSIS that we need to have a, frankly speaking, an account to put that money until the Fund is operationalized, mindful that it was already established by the Agreement and by the membership of the United Nations. So, going back to the options provided by the Co Chairs, CLEM sees option one as the most time sensitive and effective. If we couple that option with the one that the Group supports, which is the Ad hoc Committee, we we will have basically a one year gap in terms of the use of those assessed contributions. So we would have the assessed contributions from 2027 flowing to this Interim Arrangement and by and or from COP2. So most probably in 2028 we would also have those funds going to the actual account of the Special Fund when it is hopefully operationalized and this is the timeframe we are envisaging to the process. Once again, we do not see any conditionalities when it comes to the obligation of the fulfillment of developed countries in this regard. We just want to, as the CO Chair proposed, make sure that every dot of this architecture in this process is connected. And once again we support option one. Thank you. Nigeria · Africa Group [2:40:14]: I wish to thank Brazil who spoke on behalf of clam. I will now give the floor to Japan followed by no, sorry to Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, followed by Japan and then Saudi Arabia. Thank you very much, Chair. The Africa Group attaches great importance to to the interim financial arrangements for mandatory contributions related to marine genetic resources under Article 14, paragraph 6. This obligation, we believe, is settled under the Agreement and require no further debate. We have also taken note of the eloquent explanation provided by Brazil on behalf of CLAM regarding the Group's preferred option. The Africa Group is still weighing both options, but we would like to flag that any option that is chosen should not hamper the earlier personalization of the Special Fund. Thank you very much. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:41:20]: I wish to thank Nigeria on behalf of the speaking on behalf of the Africa Group and I will give the floor to Japan. Saudi Arabia [2:41:31]: No. Yes. No. No. Saudi Arabia. Thank you, Madame Co Chair. I would like also to echo some of my colleagues who expressed Support for option one, we believe it ensure clarity and transparency as as well as continuity in the management and transfer of financial resources during the interim period. Thank you. Thank you. Saudi Arabia, Switzerland. Norway [2:42:01]: Did you want the floor again? No. Norway followed then by Iran. Thank you. Madam Facilitator, just a small comment on the possible institutional arrangements for the Fund and making the connection with Article 14, para 9. Article 14, para 9 refers to. The. Modalities for sharing monetary benefits from the use of DSI. And the argument is that when deciding on the institutional arrangements for the Fund, we should not organize us away from the possible mutual supportiveness and adaptability to other access and benefit sharing instruments which all is then a reference to the setup and the organizational structure of the KALI Fund under the cbd. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:43:00]: Thank you, Norway. Yvonne, you have the floor. Iran (Islamic Republic of) [2:43:07]: Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Well, I believe we need to be consistent in interpreting or constructing the provisions of the agreement. If we follow this logic that this Special Fund has not been yet established and I think it would be the same case for nearly every other mechanism throughout the agreement, and then it would question the whole work that the PREPCOM is doing right now. Because with that sort of logic then we would not be able to operationalize the provisions of the agreement and to prepare for the conference first COP one and maybe on a similar note, we need to read all these in tandem with Article 52. Article 52, paragraph 3 states that a mechanism for the provision of adequate, accessible, new and additional predictable financial resources under this agreement is hereby established. And looking into paragraph four, it states that the mechanism shall include, among others, the Special Fund that we're touching upon and the Trust Fund actually. So the reading of the agreement which is now entered in the as the threshold for entering to due force is actually suggesting that this has already been established in any way. I don't also see any provision in the agreement that would require a particular condition for this. And I believe the as my distinguished colleague from the EU mentioned, this is an obligatory clause and I'm sure that the European Union is very eager to fully implement this obligation. As for the option one or two, we have not yet decided on which one. But when it comes to option one, we see that there is a reference until a trustee is appointed for the Special Fund. I also do not find this in the agreement and I think we should be consistent with the agreement and I think we have good momentum for the BB&J process. And one of the important factors is actually the fundamental funds that are being contributed that need to be contributed to the work of the PREPCOM and in the interest of developing countries. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:45:32]: Thank you very much. Iran. I wish to give the floor to Antigua and Barbuda on behalf of caricom. Antigua and Barbuda · CARICOM [2:45:42]: Thank you, Madam Cochin. Very briefly, CARICOM joins the voices of Palau on behalf of EOSAS and Brazil on behalf of come clam and strongly supporting option one. We see that the interim arrangements from our understanding the proposal here is true to the agreement as articulated by our colleagues. So we are concerned to hear that there may be some conditionalities on this. We support option one. Thank you. Wish to thank Antigua and Barbuda speaking on behalf of caricom. And then I have Indonesia. And just to let you know, in terms of a time check, we have 10 minutes to go until we lose our mics. So if you wish to take the floor briefly, please put your flag up now. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:46:40]: But at least by 5 to I will be wrapping up Indonesia. Indonesia [2:46:46]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll try to as brief as possible. Indonesia wish to address the important matter of the interim arrangement for annual contribution from the flow parties as required on the Article 14, paragraph 6 of the agreement. We recognize the necessity of establishing a rebel mechanism to manage this fund during the parade between the agreement agreement enter into force and full operationalization of the special fund. Regarding the option presented in the Explanatory Note Article 14, Indonesia express its preference for option 2. We believe that inviting existing entity to serve as Interim Trustee is the most effective way to ensure professional financial management and institutional continuity. This preference is firmly rooted in the best practices observed in other multilateral environmental framework, particularly in the unfc. By appointing a dedicated Interim Trustee rather than utilizing the General Trust Fund, we ensure that the special contribution are managed with necessary expertise in the investment and financial reporting from the outset. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much. Indonesia. I have Papua New guinea on behalf of of the pieces. Papua New Guinea · PSIDS [2:48:03]: Thank you Co Chair. I'll be very brief. We align with AOSIS and I want to thank the distinguished representative of Iran. He we believe he's correct and that is our reading as well. Article 52, paragraph 3, the mechanism is hereby established established and paragraph 4 says the mechanism shall include including the special fund. So I'd like to thank very distinguished representative of Iran. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:48:36]: Thank you very much, Papua New Guinea. About the pieces European Union. EU · EU [2:48:45]: Very much Chair. Of course the reading of the agreement by my colleagues is of course totally correct. Indeed it said after the entry into force of the agreement, money shall be transferred to the special funds. And indeed Article 52, the mechanism is established but the Special Fund is part of the mechanism but it does not exist. And there is a problem for us to transfer money in a destination which is not its final destination, or to transfer money for sleeping on an account where it will not be used for the purpose it should be used. So this has also to be taken into account. Thank you. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:49:37]: I wish to thank the European Union and I now give the floor to Palau, speaking on behalf of aosis. Palau · AOSIS [2:49:45]: I'm just accepting your challenge man Co Chair for Solutions. Maybe in that specific paragraph to. To help the lawyers in the European Unit a bit is to maybe add in when we mentioned to to the General. So it will be money going to the General Trust Fund in an account entitled SP Special Fund in brackets so that they have an understanding that it is for the Special Fund even though that we have stated that the purpose is to hold it for the Special Fund. So maybe that might be the balancing act so that we can get it passed. Many of the different other lawyers thank you. I wish to thank Palau, speaking on behalf of Eosis, for suggest for his suggestion. PrepCom · Co-Chair [2:50:33]: I don't see any other requests for the floor. I don't plan to initiate any discussions on the appendix simply because we're out of. We're very rapidly running out of time. But I do want to thank everyone for efficiently speaking to the various provisions of the draft decision relating to the Special Fund. When we return to this topic tomorrow afternoon, we will be going through the appendix for further reflections from the room. And of course, if you have any additional remarks that you weren't able to comment on, we will allow those remarks. Let's see. We shall reconvene at 10am sharp tomorrow morning in Conference Room 4 to continue with Item 5 of our agenda. And we will begin in a plenary setting with reporting back on the parallel meetings. Afterwards we will resume our consideration of item 5 of our agenda in the format of informal working groups as we've been doing today. Delegations meeting in Conference Room 4 will be considering the rules of procedure for the COP for the conference of the Parties and in parallel. And this time we're going to be upstairs in the Trusteeship Council Chamber. Delegations will consider the arrangements with the Global Environment Facility to give effect to the relevant provisions on funding. The attention of delegations is drawn to the change of room for the parallel meeting for tomorrow only the Trusteeship Council Chamber which offers greater seating capacity, will be used instead of this room, Conference Room 11. With that, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much Have a good evening.