(7th meeting) - Fifth Session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (INC Tax) - 3 to 13 August 2026

Good morning everyone. Please have a seat. Good morning, Excellencies and distinguished delegates. So we are still in work stream one, the framework convention, the co-leads draft articles. Yesterday, we finished with article 13. We didn't complete all the interventions. There was just two remaining interventions from member states already. We took all the multi-stakeholders also interventions, but at the last minute we received two requests for interventions from member states regarding capacity building. So we are willing to take these remaining two interventions. I'm not sure if the delegates are here and they're going to request the floor or not yet. As far as I remember, it was two requests, one from Kenya and another one from Algeria, I think. Yes, it was Algeria and Morocco. So if delegates are still wishing to take the floor for Article 13, please press the button. Yes, now we have Algeria. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. We welcome the integration of an article on capacity building into the framework convention. Capacity building is absolutely crucial in a framework convention. It is also a guarantor of its implementation and its protocols and all of its dimensions, whether it is capacity building, the fight against tax evasion and tax fraud, settlement disputes and so on. It is extremely important. Having reviewed this article, it seems to us that there is an aspect that is more focused on bilateral cooperation, and indeed that was pointed out by a number of delegations. The question that arises is that if we reduce this article here, to a process of requesting capacity building by Member States, there is the issue of follow up and implementation where we see gaps or difficulties or gaps in terms of legislature procedures or standards. What should we do? about that? What should we do with that? Should we expect the bilateral process to continue or are we going to turn to a mechanism that should also be provided for within this framework to ensure the effectiveness of the capacity building? And in the same vein, I think reviewing this article, our recommendation would be to refer also to the follow-up and support from the Secretariat for cooperation under capacity building. Also, re-reading this regards the Secretariat's role, we haven't seen any wording that would be clear in that idea. So that would be our recommendation to include some kind of reference to support from the secretariat and of course they have a central role to play in capacity building thank you very much chair thank you.

I I see the list start to build up here I just would like to remind everyone that we finished yesterday's discussion of capacity building we are just taking the remaining interventions that came in the last minute so no need to request for the floor to repeat your yesterday interventions because we took a clear notes about all the interventions yesterday so no need to repeat any interventions related to capacity building unless you necessarily have something that you need to add to what you said yesterday so because already we we took enough time yesterday in capacity building so no need to repeat your interventions again for capacity building just we are taking the last remaining two interventions. So please just remind that already we listened to you yesterday and took notes of your interventions. Thank you. Now the floor to the distinguished delegate of Jamaica, followed by Japan. Then we will move to the next article. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chair. Just a quick intervention. We have a concern about paragraph three. on capacity building, we are not clear on what the words "to the extent possible" really means in this context. We don't even know that it is necessary because our interpretation is that the adding of those words would seem to result in a kind of hierarchy in terms of seeking capacity building, first being the state to state capacity building and then to the extent possible you know, the other existing capacity building work would kind of chip in, although it says shall be without prejudice. So our proposal, Chair, is to delete the words to the extent possible and just simply start with these measures shall be without prejudice to existing, we don't think you, because foreign assistance in our interpretation would also include assistance from another state. Anything outside of your jurisdiction is foreign. I think that the sentence should just read: these measures shall be without prejudice to existing forms of capacity or multilateral assistance and commitments and other financial cooperation at the regional level. Those are our comments, Chair.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Japan.

Thank you, Chair, for allowing me to comment on this article. And good morning, everyone. I'll be quick. Capacity building is fundamental to the objectives of the Framework Convention. And since various international and regional organizations also engaged in capacity building, I would like to know that it is necessary to avoid duplication and and capacity building efficiently, thus collaboration and coordination with other providers of support are particularly important. As an example of technical assistance, the establishment of institutional mechanisms is listed first in the current draft. However, regarding data, for example, regarding data analytics, There are already international organizations working on and providing technical assistance with specific specialized expertise. Therefore, I believe it would be more beneficial to place emphasis on promoting collaboration with activities already being in place. I also wanted to -- we also think that we should avoid listing specific assistance so as not to limit the scope. Thank you.

Thank you. So by this we are done for Article 12, capacity building. Thank you all for your interventions. Now we are moving to part four, which is institutional arrangements, which start with Article 13, Conference of Parties to the Convention. And here I'm handing over to the co-leads to lead the discussions in Article 13. The floor is yours, Mr. Dank.

Thank you, Chair. And good morning to everybody. Thank you for your contribution so far. Now we are moving basically to the governance structures. And as of now, we do, we've looked at them in the intercessional session, we haven't looked at them in the plenary. So we want to now afford everybody the opportunity to comment on them and look at how we can put in some governance structure that will be appropriate for us and we'll be able to use in the future to determine international tax cooperation. So, we want to open the floor to member states who want to comment. Okay, Germany, please.

Thank you, Mr. Kaulitz. Good morning everyone. I'm happy that I managed to break the ice before the Czech Republic this time. But that here is not a contest. On Article 13, first of all, we would like to thank you, Mr. Kohli, for preparing the draft and for giving us the opportunity to discuss it. Governance is of fundamental importance for the Framework Convention, with the COP at its heart and perhaps even its soul. Sound governance arrangements build confidence in the future institutional framework. This in turn encourages broad participation by states and meaningful engagement by other stakeholders. Governance will be essential for the effective implementation and the application of the Framework Convention. At the same time, the governance arrangements must allow the Convention to develop over time and remain effective as circumstances change. In short, proper governance structures will help ensure that the Framework Convention stands the test of time. It is therefore important that we get this right from the outset. In our view, this requires a clear definition of the functions and powers of the Conference of the Parties. It also requires appropriate limits on those powers. The COP should facilitate implementation and cooperation. However, it should not become a mechanism for expanding substantive obligations beyond those agreed by the state parties. The powers of any subsidiary body should likewise remain clearly defined and carefully circumscribed and we might come back on this point in later articles. Against this background, it is striking that the current draft is institutionally much leaner and in several respects narrower than comparable provisions in other conventions. In particular, it does not contain a clear mandate to cooperate with international and regional organizations, non-governmental organizations, civil society, academia and the private sector. United Nations processes generally benefit from the contributions of observer stakeholders. This has also been the experience of this process to date. Civil society, NGOs, the private sector and the permanent observers of the United Nations have all provided valuable input. It is therefore important that the Framework Convention include a clear basis for the participation of observers in future meetings of the COP in line with established United Nations practices. At a minimum, the article should also address decision-making procedures and voting requirements expressly. This would risk placing states otherwise that become parties at a later stage in a position where they have to operate under fundamental procedure arrangement that were established before they had a seat at the table. This would sit uneasily with the criticism often directed at the other international forums namely that states are expected to accept rules which they had no opportunity to shape. And then the other context, every effort should generally be made to reach decisions by consensus. At the same time, the convention could provide a clear procedure for situation in which consensus cannot be reached. Following the approach taken on other conventions, it could thereby distinguish between budgetary procedural and substantive matters. In any event, it would not be acceptable to leave this entire issue to the rules of procedure. Let me return to the point with which I began. The COP will play a central role in the operation and future development of the Framework Convention. State parties must therefore be able to place a high degree of trust in it. They must also have a genuine sense of ownership over its work and decisions. Clear balance and legitimate governance arrangements will make the other elements of the Convention more tangible and more predictable for many of the delegations in the room. they would eventually increase the likelihood of states to accept and participate in the Convention. I thank you.

Thank you, Chechia.

Thank you, Mr. Khalid, for giving me the floor. I would also like to thank you, Khalid, and the Secretariat for preparing the draft and for the opportunity to provide our comments. And we would General, I would like to echo the intervention of the distinguished delegate of Germany while especially stressing the importance of the conference of parties role. As regards the first paragraph and other provisions within the framework convention, such as article 15 and 16, the current draft contains several instances asking for review, provision of information, and other obligations or duties. Chucky, I would like to point out that we already are dealing with many administrative duties under the current framework of international tax cooperation. All this work is important but demanding, and we can imagine that other member states are dealing with at least similar set of duties and even greater capacity constraints. Therefore, we would like to underline that while considering especially the needs of low capacity countries, As a general principle, we should not impose unnecessary duties on states parties in the framework convention and ask for data or review processes only in situations where it is absolutely essential. In relation to the wording of Article 13, we would like to suggest changing the wording by stating in the first paragraph, a conference of the parties is hereby established, full stop, which is in line with the text of other framework conventions such as the UNFCCC, BBNJ and others. The rest of the provision can be deleted because it already stems from other parts of the framework convention and is therefore redundant. We would also suggest changing second paragraph by adding the words, the first meeting of after the words shall convene to bring the text more in line with provisions of other framework conventions. Alternatively, we would suggest using the wording of article 47 paragraph two, first sentence of the BBNJ with appropriate changes. Then we would suggest deleting the second sentence and using the wording of Article 47, paragraph two, second and third sentence of the BBNJ, with appropriate changes such as using the word convention instead of agreement to allow the conference of the parties to have flexibility to hold ordinary and extraordinary meetings as the COP finds appropriate. We would only suggest adding wording that the conference of parties will also decide on venue or venues where the meetings of the COP should be held. We will provide a proposal for paragraph two in drafting, but the text could read in following manner. Thereafter, ordinary meetings of the Conference of the Parties shall be held at regular intervals and in a venue or venues to be determined by the Conference of the Parties. Extraordinary meetings of the Conference of the Parties may be held at other times in accordance with the rules of procedure. In relation to paragraph three, we would like to suggest deleting the current wording of paragraph three and using instead the text based on Article 23 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control stating, "The Conference of Parties shall adopt by consensus its rules of procedure, including a consensus-based decision-making process at its first session." Only by adopting the rules of procedures by consensus and establishing consensus as a basis for decision making can state parties, state parties can make sure that institutional arrangements of the framework convention are fully inclusive as prescribed amongst other documents by article one, subparagraph A of the draft convention and paragraph one of the, in the terms of reference as adopted by the general assembly and fully respects sovereignty of each member's state party, of each state party as required by article two, paragraph B of the framework convention and paragraph nine of the terms of reference. We would also suggest adding another sentence stating until such time as the rules of procedure have been adopted, the conference of parties decides by consensus. This provision should provide necessary clarity and should provide any state party power to influence the process. As regards paragraph four, we like the wording of the first sentence and we think that the word facilitate is better than the word promote used in paragraph one. We believe that subparagraph b is crucial and should stay in the text. It will also be necessary to come back to paragraph 4 in the later stage of negotiations to review the list of the functions that the Conference of Parties should perform and what safeguards should be put in place around the Conference of Parties. In relation to paragraph 5, we think that it either could be deleted and solved by the Conference of Parties or the text has to be rewritten because it is difficult to understand what is its real meaning and what it tries to achieve. Last but definitely not least, Czechia has always considered the participation of civil society organizations, observers, and other stakeholders to be a cornerstone of the UN work, and as necessary transparency to the process, as stressed by the distinguished delegate of Germany. Hence, we would like to propose adding a wording in the form of either another paragraph in Article 13 or in the form of a standalone article that would allow participation of stakeholders in the work of the Framework Convention. For inspiration, we can use wording of other framework conventions that allow the participation of stakeholders in their work. We will also gladly provide a proposal in our written comments. Please accept my apologies for lengthy intervention, but thank you very much for the consideration.

Thank you. United Kingdom, please.

Thank you, Mr. Khalid. And as I've done a lot so far this week, I think I'm going to echo the comments of my colleague from Germany and from Czechia as well. But nonetheless, let me reiterate a couple of their points and then maybe add a few further thoughts from the UK. So I think we very much recognize the role of the Conference of the Parties in supporting the effective functioning of the Framework Convention. And so I think we're very pleased to now turn to this text. I would like to definitely emphasize and underscore the points that the colleague from Germany made surrounding both decision making and stakeholder participation. These are thoughts that the UK very much shares and would echo. There are a couple of other points that we would like to make as well, questions that we have around the functioning of this article. So I think the first is surrounding the use of exchange of information. We assume that what is envisaged here is distinct from the substance of Article 11. And I think this points to us to the criticality of having a proper and full article surrounding definitions. If exchange of information is ultimately defined, then we may need to consider alternative wording here. Otherwise, the provision could imply a coordinating role for the Conference of the Parties on exchange of information, which again, we assume is not the intention. So we would be grateful for clarity on this and again, to return to that article on definitions when we can, because that is genuinely critical in the legal understanding of the Framework Convention. Second, we note that the Conference of the Parties has functions relating to review. There are later review provisions that of course interact with this, but we would still welcome clarity now on what the model of implementation review is envisaged, including whether peer review is ultimately considered and how this would interact with Article 16. Again here, we would find an explanatory note important. Finally, we welcome the provision requiring the Conference of the Parties to take account of wider international tax cooperation. We think such a provision could be strengthened further. As I said, the colleague from Germany made some of these points earlier, but include an aim to actively augment such work to support coherence with existing international tax work and avoid duplication or conflict with existing instruments and international fora. Coming back to articles one and two, we think this should not be a consideration just for the Conference of the Parties, but a guiding principle for the framework convention as a whole. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Quick one. And your comment on action of fishing wasn't too clear. Is it that the 4A is extremely broad and can capture action of mission on tax matters? Or it's because I wasn't too clear. If you can clarify.

Sorry, I didn't think the mic was live then. So what I was trying to explain is surrounding 4A, I had assumed or we had assumed that exchange of information as it's set up there was not the same as I guess what we would call formal exchange of information under say for example what we undertake under the MAC. If this is what is considered to be for the Conference of the Parties I think that would be helpful for us to understand. Obviously again we are thinking very much here about questions of how this sits against established bodies that already exist and what the legal purview of the Conference of parties would have surrounding this around the exchange of information article. I think yesterday we spoke about some of our kind of fundamental questions about whether the framework convention is intended to create a legal pathway for exchange of information. If it is and if the conference of the state parties is supposed to have some sort of coordinating or convening role around that, a coordinating body role for example, then I think that has to be spelled out because this information is very sensitive, it concerns your taxpayer specific information and I think this is an example of where we just have fundamental questions about what is intended here. So I think it would just be really helpful at some point to get an explanatory note surrounding this to understand what is intended by the exchange of information provisions. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. The question comes back to the room, but reading this as actually since we want you, Ted, you are talking about us intending it to be, but then it still goes back to all of us to discuss. Thank you. India, please.

Thank you, colleague. While we have not exactly seen a formal draft before this meeting, we've had discussions on this article in the intercessional period. We will provide written comments on the exact text that we would suggest for this draft. So I would limit our comments to certain general principles that we would like to see in the governance structure in general and this article in particular. We could leave technical matters for final delineation for the future, but I think matters of governance should be made very clear at this stage itself. And that involves the articles that relate to the Conference of Parties, the articles that relate to the subsidiary bodies and so on. As regards the article on the conference of parties, I think what this article must do under any circumstances is to lay down that it is the conference of parties which is the supreme body for the administration of the framework convention and the protocols. Therefore, it will have to lay down, we believe, what will be the rules of procedure it will follow, whether it requires a quorum for decisions to be made. We will have to deal with the issue of decision making as was pointed out by the distinguished delegate from Germany and Czechia. How would the Conference of Parties regulate its meetings, how many times it would meet during the year, a minimum number of times. These are some things that will have to be laid down. As for the subsidiary bodies that will actually be probably referred to in the next article, this article will have to make clear that the setting up of the subsidiary bodies is a function of the Conference of Parties. So in all other articles we have had this point that the article should be high level, but I think this is one of the articles of the Conference of Parties and the articles on subsidiary bodies where we have to make a departure from that principle. And we have to be very specific. Now, I understand the point made by the distinguished delegate from Germany that governance is something that will develop over time. That is true. That governance will develop over time depending on the emerging circumstances. But that base minimum that from where we proceed, That has to be laid down very clearly. The conference of parties will agree or will decide on disputes that will arise on matters related to the framework convention. It will decide on disputes that may arise in respect of the administration of a certain protocol. So I think these are matters which should be very clearly mentioned in this article itself. Whether the Conference of Parties will be able to review its own processes and if so, how will it do it? This is another thing that will have to be mentioned very clearly in this article itself. We have made an argument that there should be a multi-level structure. We will talk about that in more detail when we get to the the article on subsidiary bodies. So the basic point that we are trying to make here is that this is an article which where all these governance structures that wherever the Conference of Parties is involved, it should be made absolutely clear. And as I said, we will provide written suggestions on this. So our, but the general comments are as this. Thank you.

Thank you. Jamaica, please.

Thank you very much, Chair. Our short intervention is just to support the views of Germany, UK, Czechia, and others who may have spoken on the value that multi-stakeholders can add to the process. And so we support their inclusion in the Conference of the Parties. join on the experience of the UN tax committee where stakeholders were even on subcommittees and that returned to the significant benefit of the work of that tax committee we also want to support India on the level of detail that is needed in article 13 and onwards as it relates to the conference of the parties thank you chair

thank you Azerbaijan please

Thank you very much, Mr. Collett.

We support the establishment of Conference of the State Parties, however, several elements require clarification.

First article should specify how

conference will take decisions, including whether decision and supplementary protocol will be adopted by consensus or by voting. In particular, paragraph 4D should clarify that any supplementary protocol will be subject to the consent. and domestic ratification procedures of each state party. Second, implementation review under paragraph 4C should be transparent, taking into account the different capacity of the state parties. Third, paragraph 4e only allows the Conference to consider capacity-building needs and recommend action. We suggest giving the Conference a clearer role in coordinating assistance, identifying funding and monitoring its delivery.

Finally, paragraph 5 should clarify what information may be submitted to the Conference, how it

will be used and which confidentiality and data protection safeguards will apply. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Italy, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Khalid. First of all, let me echo the general comments made by Germany, Czech Republic and United Kingdom. In addition, let me say that Italy believes that the main task of the Conference of the Parties should be to address issues concerning the interpretation and implementation of the Framework Convention. And for us, it is essential that the mandate of the Conference of the Party is defined taking into account the domestic constitutional constraints and the limits of the international law. The legality principle in tax matter is a constitutional principle, at least in our country, and it prevents an international body like the Conference of the Party from imposing new obligation or potential new tax liability for taxpayers. For this reason, we will have significant difficulties in accepting that the Conference of the Parties has the competence to introduce additional substantive obligation without the express consent of the party concerned. Specifically, we have concern that the Conference of the Parties may have the task to review the implementation of the Framework Convention in the absence of clarity on decision-making rules of the Conference itself. And for us, it is essential that decisions are taken by consensus. Consensus is necessary, in our view, to ensure legitimacy, legal certainty, effective implementation, and broadest participation, broadest possible participation. One comment on paragraph four, letter b, where reference is made to the need to take into consideration the work of other relevant forum. In our view, this reference should be reinforced with reference to the need to ensure synergies with the work of other relevant forum. And finally, let me also echo other delegates that have indicated the importance of the participation of the external stakeholders and civil society. Thank you.

Thank you. Indonesia, please.

Uh, thank you, colleague, uh, Indonesia support the establishment of, uh, conference of the state party as the principal body to promote and oversee the implementation of the convention. Indonesia is of the view that the function of the Conference of the States Parties should not be exhaustive, while paragraph four appropriately lists the core function of the COP, it might be useful to include a residual provision similar to that found in other multilateral conventions that allow the COP to exercise such other function as are required for the achievement of the objective of the convention as agreed by the parties. Uh, such language will provide the necessary flexibility for the COP to respond to future development while ensuring that any additional function remain firmly under the control and agreement of the state party. Echoing what delegation of Czechia previously stated, Indonesia suggests clarifying that this rule of procedure should be adopted at the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties through consensus that will provide greater legal certainty and ensure that the institutional framework become operational from the outset. Indonesia note that unlike some other multilateral convention, this draft does not assign any function to the COP relating to financial arrangement or the mobilization of financial resources. Indonesia take note of this approach, however, should the convention envisage future institutional activities requiring financial support, the relationship between the COP and any financial arrangement may need to be considered at an appropriate stage. Chair, Indonesia also seek clarity on the legal status of decision taking by the conference of the parties because without such clarity, Indonesia is concerned that the conference mandate could expand beyond what we agreed. Thank you.

Thank you. Honduras, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Collead. I'm gonna proceed and speak in Spanish. Honduras would like to thank the facilitators

and the secretariat for preparing this article. The COP is the supreme organ of the Convention and of the protocols that will be adopted. This body is an institutionally important one. It means that all the provisions that govern the COP, all of these provisions need to give us as much legal clarity as possible and as much detail as possible. So we agree with Germany and Czechia regarding the fact that this article needs to be detailed enough. We could take inspiration from the constitutional architecture of other UN framework conventions. That would mean that we could have more legal coherence and consistency of the convention and therefore facilitate its implementation. We should also be clear on the difference between strategic attributions of the COP and the strategic aspects and the more operational aspects of the COP. There are some issues that will be decided upon later, according to rules of procedure or following the adoption of protocols. We think that paragraph one could be made more simple to take into account convention practice at the UN. So we could say, for example, the COP is created as a supreme body of this Convention and protocols adopted as part of this Convention. Also, we think that this article should stipulate that the COP rules of procedure should be adopted at the first meeting of the COP, because these rules of procedure will be essential to guarantee the good functioning of the COP. We need to have certainty and clarity on how the COP would work and guarantee that the Convention can work well from the very beginning. Finally, given the very technical nature of this article and also given that the governance of the Convention will have a lot of ramifications, Honduras will also submit in writing some other proposals, particularly on aspects that we see could do with more legal precision to avoid any ambiguities and problems of interpretation. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Brazil, please.

Very much, co-lead. We welcome this discussion. We believe that this discussion should guide the establishment of the COP as a supreme body of this convention and its protocols. And this COP will be also responsible for promoting its objectives and overseeing the implementation of the provisions. We will also provide some more written comments on this article. But for now, I would like to highlight a few preliminary observations. First, we support the provision that regular meetings of this conference should be held on an annual basis. We believe that given the dynamic nature of the international tax cooperation, this regularity will be essential to ensure continuous political guidance, also monitoring implementation, in maintaining momentum in the development of future protocols. Second, we like what our colleague from Germany has raised. We would like to see a provision on broader participation of other United Nations specialized agencies, international organizations, and civil society organizations as observers since they have long contributed with technical expertise and practical experience to the matters that we are discussing here. We do believe that this participation will only strengthen inclusiveness of the process and as well the quality of the discussions. Third, we suggest that we could have an explicit mention to the work already carried out by the Committee of Experts on International Tax Matters. And this convention should also build upon the existing expertise and institutional knowledge that has been conducted in the committee. When it comes to the decision-making process and rules of procedure, we believe that this conference should retain sufficient flexibility to organize its work effectively. And we should avoid placing the conference in a procedural straight jacket. At the same time, pending the adoption of its own rules of procedure, the conference should follow the full rules applicable within the United Nations system, provide institutional coherence while preserving the conference of the party's ability to develop procedures that best serve the objectives of this convention. Chair, colleague, I submit, thank you.

Thank you, Austria, please.

Thank you, colleague. We appreciate the work undertaken on Article 13 concerning the COP. In our view, the design and structure of the government and governance arrangements of the Framework Convention should remain a priority given the clear emphasis placed on this aspect in the resolutions 78/230 and 79/235. With regard to the functioning of the COP as set out in paragraph 3, we attach particular importance to the rules of procedure given the broad responsibilities entrusted to the COP under the Framework Convention. We therefore suggest that paragraph 3 explicitly provide that the rules of procedure shall be adopted by consensus. In this regard, we echo India and its statement on the importance to address and discuss decision-making procedures and organizational mechanisms of the COP. Such an approach would be consistent with established practice under other UN framework conventions and we think addressing this would help ensure broad ownership, legitimacy and effective functioning of the COP moving forward. We also echo the statements made by Germany, Czechia and other distinguished delegates relating to the inclusion of observers in the COP, which we think should be a given. Thank you.

Thank you, Sweden, please.

Thank you so much, Chair, for giving me the floor, and thanks to the colleagues for the updated draft. Good morning, colleagues. I also wanted to voice a similar view that has already been raised by some delegations. Sweden has mentioned throughout the process the importance of ensuring that articles that are not tax-specific.

But rather pertain to broader treaty law.

Aligns as closely as possible with agreed language in other UN conventions.

And we see this.

Article as one clear example where it lacks important components that risks creating new precedents or not meeting certain standards. The participation of non-governmental organizations and the possibility of the involvement of observers are two very important aspects that should be added in this article.

We will also send this input in.

Writing, but if it's helpful for others to already now know where we're drawing inspiration from, it will be the UN Convention Against Corruption, Article 63, paragraph 3, which refers to the participation of observers, and Article 63, paragraph 4c, which refers both to cooperation with non-governmental organizations and relevant international and regional organizations. We're also seeking clarity on the authority of the Conference of the Parties and what authority is granted, so that it is clear that it should not be granted any powers that would infringe upon state sovereignty. And lastly, we also agree with others that the current drafting of the text is unclear on the decision-making modalities. In our opinion, decisions should be taken by consensus to ensure legitimacy, legal certainty, effective implementation, and the broadest possible participation. So if any additional explanation could be provided on this, it would be much appreciated.

Thank you.

Thank you. Keno of the Netherlands.

Thank you, Koen Lies, and also from my side, good morning, colleagues, and thank you for the colleagues for drafting this article. We would merely like to echo colleagues from Jamaica, Sweden, Czechia, Germany, UK and others on the point of stakeholder participation. We attach great value to stakeholder participation in the Conference of the Parties and we believe we should not deviate from precedents that we have set in the past. We may also leave certain governing decisions to the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties. But we agree with others, Honduras, Sweden, Germany and others, that we need to further specify certain items in the framework convention itself, such as decision making mechanisms. If we want a fully inclusive operating scheme, consensus would be advised and promise that some other great advocates for some that are not great advocates for consensus, Uh, we could maybe compromise, uh, to have certain specific decisions, uh, specified, uh, which have other decision making mechanisms. preference would still be in consensus as we think that this is the best way we can achieve the greatest participation possible. Thank you.

Thank you. Singapore, please.

Thank you, Khaliq. Singapore supports inclusion of a Conference of Parties article. We echo the views that have been articulated earlier, so we'll keep it short. On sub-paragraph three, I think it's important to provide greater clarity and predictability on what the rules of procedure refer to and what they will cover. So in this regard, we suggest adopting language similar to Article 47.4.5 of the BBNJ Agreement, which will set out the scope of work and what it would cover. On Article 13.4, we think, as some members have also said, they might be useful to provide greater flexibility on what it would cover. We may not want to go into too much detail here. Lastly, on Article 13, there is mention of competent international organizations, I think. Yes, so it's not really clear what competent refers to, so maybe relevant, maybe a more appropriate drafting language. We will submit further detailed comments through the written comments.

Thank you.

Thank you. Israel, please.

Thank you, Chair. We want to echo Germany, Czechia, and the UK.

We think that the COP should be responsible for facilitating cooperation among state parties.

With regard to the review.

We think that care must be taken to avoid placing an excessive burden on the participating states.

Thank you.

Thank you. Kenya, please.

Thank you, co-lead. I'm speaking on behalf of the 54 member states of the African group. We appreciate the work done to develop and expound on this article, which as previous delegates have stated is very critical to the implementation of the Framework Convention and its objectives. The Africa Group also appreciates the Secretariat's efforts in providing us with a comparison of the provisions of this article that have been included in other Framework Conventions. Based on this comparison, as well as the critical nature of this article, The Africa Group submits that the current language does not provide a clear mandate to facilitate achievement of the Framework Convention's objectives. We will highlight a few issues that the group views as critical inclusions in this article. The article needs to make reference to the Conference of the Parties as a supreme organ of the Framework Convention and its protocols to ensure it has the required mandate to carry out its functions. The current draft makes reference to regular meetings of the Conference of the Parties, while it needs to ensure that the Conference of the Parties meets at least once every year to ensure regular review of implementation of the Framework Convention. The rules of procedure laid out in the current draft are limited to the activities set out in paragraph four of the article, which we note are very limited and restrictive in scope. The activities laid out in the article need to be clear and the rules of procedure need to apply to the framework convention as well as its subsidiary bodies. The current draft also does not make any reference to financial resources, which will be crucial to the implementation of the framework convention. While we note that there is a separate article on financial resources, it is critical for the COP to have the mandate to adopt financial rules for itself and its subsidiary bodies. and to strategize for and ensure sufficient funding for the implementation of the convention and its protocols. The article also needs to provide for the COP's mandate to implement both the framework convention and its protocols, as well as provide provisions enabling it to serve as the meeting of the parties with respect to the protocols. Provisions on the admission of observers, as previous delegates have expounded on, also need to be included for observers to participate both in the sessions of the COP and the subsidiary bodies. A provision on the COP's mandate to establish subsidiary bodies is also critical for implementation of the Framework Convention and its objectives. The Africa Group will be submitting its more detailed written input on this article. Thank you.

Thank you. Papua New Guinea, please.

Thank you, co-lead. Papua New Guinea welcomes the establishment of the Conference of the States Parties as the central institutional mechanism for promoting and reviewing implementation of the Convention. PNG particularly supports the inclusion of capacity building and technical assistance among the functions of the COP.

As a developing country, PNG echoes the sentiments of Azerbaijan and believes the article could be strengthened by providing a more active.

Role for the conference in facilitating and coordinating technical assistance, ensuring the effective participation of developing countries and establishing review processes that are facilitative, transparent and responsive to capacity constraints.

With regard to the proposals to include multi-stakeholder groups in the COP, PNG would like to emphasize that the convention.

Should remain member state led while drawing upon the expertise of relevant international organizations in only a supportive and advisory capacity. Thank you.

Thank you. Norway, please.

Thank you, Mr. Khalid, and good morning to everyone. We would like to thank you and the secretariat for drafting this article. It's a very important article in the convention, and we are very happy that we are able to start this discussion. We note that this text aligns quite closely with Article 63 on the Conference of the State Parties in the UNCCAR. However, there are some elements of the UNCCAR Article 63 that we find useful to include also in this article. Like others, we emphasize the importance of participation by stakeholders. And paragraph three in Article 63 in the UNCAC confirms the importance of the omission of participation of observers in the conference of the parties. And we would propose including similar language in paragraph three also in this article to ensure consistency with precedents from other UN conventions. Furthermore, with respect to the proposed subletter B in paragraph four, we would like to point to subletter C and D in Article 63, four in the UNCCAC. In C, there is language related to the cooperating with other regional and international organizations and mechanisms and NGOs. So paragraph D in the UNCCAC further states that the COP should be making appropriate use of relevant information produced by other international and regional mechanisms. An alternative could be to reflect the full text of paragraph 22 in the TOR in paragraph 4b of Article 13. We further note that the Framework Convention will potentially carry wide-reaching obligations for Member States and the seemingly wide mandate of the COP in the draft is in particular relating to the review of implementation of the Framework Convention. that could raise issues of sovereignty, we underline the importance of discussing the decision-making mechanisms of the COP and any subsidiary body as indicated by Czechia, Germany, India, and Indonesia, and a large number of other delegates. We note the examples from other UN conventions made by Czechia and others where the rules of procedures of the COP are adopted by consensus. We further note that the framework convention will potentially carry wide obligation from member states and we must continue to review the design and scope of this provision in light of the discussion on the substance of the other parts of the framework convention to fully understand the implications of the mandate of the COP and we will be providing written comments on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Mexico, please.

Thank you very much, team, co-lead and good morning everyone, happy Thursday. On this part four, starting with the article 13, we are also of the idea that we should align this more to other agreed already provisions on UN conventions in the past. I thank my esteemed colleague from Sweden from pointing out the inspiration for the sources and paragraphs that they put forward for these to be UNCCAC aligned. We can definitely support that. We also are of the idea that while having a Conference of the States Parties argument or discussion in this session is welcome, we should also decide on this in light of the other substantive arrangements that we will have on the Convention, particularly if part four of this Convention also outlines that at some point we cannot have any reservations on the Convention. So perhaps agreeing on everything that this COP is going to cover would be more beneficial before actually agreeing to anything on how this COP should be established. But for the sake of entertaining the discussion, we also would welcome the fact that the convention include the cooperation and the participation of other stakeholders, civil society, private sector, whether it is in the regular sessions or the bodies, we would like to see them take part in this. in this process. We also, on the decision-making question, think we should learn from example. I think that there is an ideological difference in how some Member States are interpreting the convention itself. Is it a convention on international tax cooperation or is it a convention on international tax enforcement? If we are talking about international tax cooperation, then of course the traditional consensus-based negotiations and agreements as in the UN headquarters should suffice for a discussion in which it will be a framework which supports cooperation between member states if it's going to be about enforcement which is what I've been seeing put forward in other articles and strengthen the mandate that member states will have to implement then the suggestion would be to to try to also avoid having a discussion in which Member States might be forced to make a decision where they don't want to and not learn from what the practices at the OECD seem to be causing trouble. So we would recommend having a further discussion on what we want this COP to actually do. And if it's about international tax cooperation, which Mexico is 100% committed to, then maybe we should just look at the types of decision making, as my colleague from the Kingdom of the Netherlands put forward, that we're going to undertake to see if we find other mechanisms. We'll refer to the last time we discussed decision making here. We went a long time discussing the different mechanisms within the protocols and the convention. We simple majority for convention and and two thirds majority for the protocols. So let's not repeat that when we discuss what the Conference of State Parties will actually have as a decision making agreement until we have covered everything else. Thank you.

Thank you. Japan, please.

Thank you, colleague. First of all, we welcome the reference to the work of other relevant forums in the area of international tax cooperation, but in addition to this, we believe that collaboration and coordination with other relevant forum would be essential to -- for effective implementation. Also, given that the objective of this framework convention is to promote and strengthen international tax cooperation and that this is about tax, we echo Germany, Czech Republic, Italy, Indonesia, Australia, Austria and others that decision-making process should be consensus for effective implementation and broad participation, and this should be clearly stated. Thank you.

Thank you. Republic of Korea, please.

Thank you, Mr. Co-Lead, for giving me the floor. Good morning, everyone. Korea would like to thank the Secretariat and the Co-Lead for preparing this draft. I will be brief. Korea recognizes the important role of the Conference of the Parties in supporting the effective implementation of the Convention. In this regard, we share the views expressed by previous speakers, including Germany, Turkey and others. First, we believe that the functions and powers of the Conference of the Parties should be clearly defined. Second, as for the decision-making process, we support the views that the rule of procedure should be adopted by consensus. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Ireland, please.

Thank you, Mr. Coeli, for giving me the floor.

We welcome this discussion and thank you and the secretariat for the updated article.

We echo many of the comments made by the delegates for Germany, Czechia, Italy, and the others, they echo it as well. The Conference of the State Parties is designated to have a supporting role in the implementation of the future convention. The text of the convention should, however, make it explicit that the conference of the parties.

Does not have the competence to create additional substantive obligations without the express consent of the parties concerned.

The current drafting of the text does not specify the decision-making modalities of the COP, as Manning has alluded to.

We consider that decisions should be taken by consensus.

Consensus is necessary to ensure legitimacy, legal certainty, effective implementation and the broadest possible participation. Any departures from this principle could significantly undermine both the convention itself and the willingness of states to fully participate. Also, the COP should ensure that its acts are complementary to existing international agreements, seek synergies or address gaps. It should thus not merely take into account the work of other international fora, but as a first.

Step consider the added value of its own actions taking into account the legal certainty and stability of the international.

Tax system. Like many others, we note that the article does not provide for observers to the COP. Ireland supports inclusivity, transparency and meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement in the future of the convention as we have done to date in the work of the INC.

In our view, it is important that the framework convention includes provision for.

Observers at the COP in line with established practice We are examining the examples of agreed convention language on this matter and we will submit written comments.

Thank you. Nigeria, please.

Thank you, Mr. Co-Lead. Good day, everyone. For Nigeria, we fully support the position and statement that have been read out by Kenya on behalf of the 54 African group members. We fully support that statement. Then in addition, we also want to indicate that we prefer a detailed article on COP so that we have an article that is clear, unambiguous, we have provisions that we be effectively, effectively be able to guide members and their relationship in terms of this convention. And in that regard, we require that or we prefer that decision making is clearly specified and clarity is provided in the article. However, for us, as We note that this agreement is an agreement on international task cooperation, and the preference would be to indicate the default US rule of a simple majority. However, in specific articles where we think there can be change, this can be specified in this article or in the rule of procedure. Then we issue observers. We also support participation of observers. And in that regard, we support the participation of civil society. And we also expect clarity for states that have signed but have not fully become state party because they have not submitted their instrument of ratification. will they be allowed to participate as observers? I think clarity should also be provided in this article. So like the African group, we will also be submitting written comments, but this is our few comments for now. Thank you.

Thank you.

Cote d'Ivoire, please.

Thank you, co-lead. Good morning, all. Cote d'Ivoire wishes to unfailingly support the view expressed by Kenya on behalf of the African group and also supported by Nigeria, especially on the matter which speaks to the point that this article deserves greater detail because we believe that the COP is a crucial link in all of the provisions of the Framework Convention as a whole, and it has its full, its place, its scope and detail is absolutely crucial in terms of whether states are going to join it. And so we support the African position also on the question of the frequency of meetings of the COP, we believe that one meeting per year or every other year, every two years, is a reasonable period given the topics under discussion. We also feel that there is a gap here, there needs to be a provision on the financial resources and how the COP and the different bodies and subsidiary bodies are going to be funded. That deserves to be corrected. Having said that, we wish to make some remarks in our national capacity. On paragraph 2, like preceding delegations, we believe that this COP should speak of the very first meeting of the COP, that point they would adopt the necessary mechanisms and that is the point to build a link between paragraphs two and three. As regards paragraph 4a which speaks of exchange of information on policy, we believe that that line deserves a great deal more clarity. There are A number of parties on a number of occasions we've talked about exchanging information and so the wording of that line should be clear. This is not exchange of information or fiscal information for fiscal ends, versus tax collection. So I think we need to review the formation of that article. that line on B, the reference to the works of other competent bodies. That is a recommendation that stems from the mandate and the terms of reference. But it does seem important to us to stipulate the scope of that reference by very clearly indicating in this paragraph that the COP and the work of the COP should not be subordinated to the work already carried out in other bodies and the reference to the work should be conducted with the respect for the autonomy that is provided for under the present Convention. On E, we believe that the verb used here is too weak and does not reflect an operational commitment that states that the COP will examine states needs in terms of technical assistance and recommend appropriate measures. We would recommend alternative wording which would be as follows: in order to better coordinate or mobilise, promote necessary resources for capacity building to ensure that the COPs mandate is much more operational. Finally, we think that we need to insert on Article 4 a paragraph that gives the COP decision-making powers. In our view, consensus should be the main governing principle, but when this principle cannot be relied upon to produce a decision, we should be able to take a decision by qualified majority in order to avoid getting stuck. Like the African group and the other delegations, Cote d'Ivoire will also be submitting written comments and proposals on this article. I thank you.

Thank you. Spain, please.

Thank you very much, co-lead. Good morning, all. Just briefly, I wanted to say that Spain supports the remarks made by Germany, Czechia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Italy, and a number of others. And we in particular wish to highlight that we believe that the COP should not establish any substantive obligations without the express consent of the parties. And as regards the rule on decision making, this should feature under Article 13 and it should, any decisions should be adopted by consensus. Thank you.

Thank you. Zambia, please.

Good morning, colleague, and good morning, colleagues. Just briefly, Firstly, we welcome the development of this article. It's a very key article in ensuring effective implementation of the framework convention. We echo the submission made by the delegate of Kenya on behalf of the Africa group. And we also just highlight a few things. We support the inclusion of stakeholders in this work. Stakeholders provide a lot of technical expertise in the work, as we've seen in other forums of the UN, and therefore their inclusion as observers and also in terms of what they can contribute to this work in terms of implementation of the Framework Convention is very important. We also welcome the issue of the COP looking at the work done in other fora. This is very important. but does not mean that the work of the Corps should be subsidiary to the work done in other fora, but it's very important that work done in other fora is considered if we have to make progress and efficiency. But I think it would be important in the rules of procedure to also guide how this will be done, because work done in other fora has been done by different organizations. I'm not so sure in terms of the institutional arrangements. We know there will be subsidiary bodies, technical working groups. I think that most delegates have been raising that issue, but I think in terms of the rules of procedures, that clarity on how that consideration of work done in other fora will be very key and which fora will have to be considered. But that's an issue that will be considered obviously in the rules of procedure. The issue of decision-making has also come up a lot and we echo even what the delegate of Nigeria said. I think it would be important to be clear in terms of decision-making and also to adopt the rules of procedure that are there in terms of decision-making from the UN so that at least the work is effective and there's clarity and certainty of how the work shall be done, I submit.

Thank you. Belgium, please.

Thank you.

We would like to echo what the Czech Republic, Germany, UK, Italy, Austria, Netherlands, Sweden, Ireland, Spain has said before us. We would like to highlight again that the precise.

Mandate of the Conference of the Parties should be very clearly circumscribed.

We agree with India that this is an article where we cannot remain high level.

A detailed and clear.

Text is crucial here and we look forward to seeing their proposal with an increased level of detail.

We want to highlight again that we.

Oppose any interpretation of the text that would allow the Conference of the Parties to create substantive obligations. And this is particularly concerning to us because the framework convention does not allow any reservations. So it leaves us as a state.

Uncertain about the scope of obligations we would actually accept if we were to sign the convention. Thank you.

Thank you. Colombia, please.

Thank you. Colleagues, very good morning. We'd like to thank the Secretariat and the drafting team that have been working on this draft. Colombia reserves its final position on this article. Preliminarily, however, we would like to request, as other delegations have done, we would like to request greater precision with regard to the system and the rules for decision-making for the reins, as expressed by a number of regional groups already and as expressed by Belgium referring to Indian's proposal. We believe that this is essential, we must have this clarity. Secondly, and as a matter of principle, we believe that the text should faithfully reflect and be in line with the principle of sovereignty, which we have been talking about since the beginning of the week, that the supreme sovereign organ, the supreme sovereign body, is the Conference of the Parties. That needs to be made very clear in the text. And in line with this, We believe that in the third paragraph here, there should be a clause that ensures that the hierarchy of norms is rigorously respected in this regard. We believe that after the word article, it should say that in the event of a conflict between the rules of procedure and the convention, the convention prevails. Under E of the fourth paragraph, Perhaps the text could be improved by a direct reference to a request from the State party concerned on the matter of observers and stakeholders. Such words have baggage that we don't even know is there. So I think we need to be very clear about what we are referring to here. We are saying in some way that we're referring to observer states or under observers are we also including other organizations? We need to be clear about this. This is important because, as I said, this is a conference of the parties, a conference of states parties, and at this time There is no framework convention that refers specifically to this matter. There is a general rule, but I am open to being corrected here. I think that this is a matter that is addressed typically in the rules of procedure, and I think that, in the event of a contradiction between the two, it is the convention that should prevail. That is all for the moment. Thank you very much, colleague.

Thank you. Russian Federation, please.

Thank you very much, colleague. Very good morning, colleagues. I wanted to draw attention to one thing. This is the first time we're discussing this text article at a plenary, at the plenary meeting. And I think that working in the intercessional period, a lot has been done on this and thank you very much to the Secretariat for that. But as the statements so far made have shown, we've heard that there are positions that have been set out. And so very briefly, I'd like to touch on a couple of points. Overall, we support the position of the African States Group. Analysing the provisions of this article, we've also come to the same conclusion. Inasmuch as we do need to be more specific on the role of this body, the central body that it is, and also draw attention to the fact of how often meetings will be held, how often COP meetings will take place, and we need to be clear on the participation of observers in this process, and also we should highlight the financial aspects of the work of this body. And one last thing I want to draw attention to is was covered by the distinguished delegate of India and also Belgium that raised this point that it is this article that we should be having exceptions to because the provisions of this article need to be concrete and as detailed as possible. Why? Well, because it will determine the work of this important body for years to come. So here we should not be taking approach whereby this article needs to be on a high level. It needs to be actually a very concrete and detailed article for the purposes that we need. Thank you.

Thank you, France, please.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, dear colleagues. We listened very carefully to comments that we made so far and we would like to echo the majority of speakers, more specifically Czechia and Germany, but also many others, to highlight more specifically the questions of participation. And also there's a need to clarify that the participation of observers is possible. and on the questions of the role of this entity, of the role of the COP, but also on the role of the decision-making mechanisms, which should also be made more precise in the framework convention. And we will call for consensus to be the guiding principle on this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Khaled. I do not want to duplicate the helpful points already raised by colleagues, but Saudi Arabia supports the establishment of the COP under Article 13, and it's comfortable with it to have a flexible nature and also support the comments made by India, Belgium and Russia. And generally, we emphasize that such flexibility and such details suggested of this text must be carefully managed and structured to ensure the COP's efficiency. We will be sharing our written comments after the meeting as well as for Article 12. But maybe a specific technical comment for Article 13. With respect to the elaboration and adoption of supplementary protocols under Article 13, paragraph 4d, we just wanted to reiterate that the future protocols must remain entirely non-binding. on any state party unless it is unless and until it is explicitly accepts or ratifies them in the in accordance with their institutional and procedures, internal, constitutional and procedures. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's look, please.

Thank you, Chair. I would be short. I would like to echo Spain's comment as well as the different member states that were quoted by Spain, especially on the point of the substantive obligations under the framework convention that cannot be independently from the conference of parties. And I will leave you with that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Denmark, please.

Thank you, colleague, for giving me the floor.

I'll be rather brief. We want to echo the points made by multiple European countries and others in the room regarding decision making, participation, and powers of the COP. This will especially be expressed by Sweden, Germany, Czechia, and others. Thank you.

Thank you. Senegal, please.

Thank you co-lead, I'll be very brief. We support the comments made by Kenya on behalf of the African group, particularly as regards the absence of financial resources in this provision and mention made of that. We're also of the view that the COP is the implementation body so it needs to have sufficiently strong mechanisms available with language for that as Cote d'Ivoire says but the language here we've got in paragraph four seems quite relatively weak whereas the COP needs to be able to take binding decisions and it needs also to be able to define implementation mechanisms for this convention. So with all of that in mind, as it stands at the moment, we haven't got any of those elements in this article. That's the same thing on paragraph 4e when they also mentioned identifying technical assistance that the states parties may need to consider technical assistance that states parties may need before, but before considering that they need to identify this and for implement it they also need support but they also need the financial the financing for this in order for this technical assistance and capacity building to be possible and for that to be possible that we can have a successful implementation of the convention by the parties concerned thank you.

Thank you Estonia please.

Thank you. I would like to echo the comments of Czechia, Germany, and more lately Luxembourg regarding the detail of the rules of this article. Also, all the other countries who made the point that we need to elaborate on the decision making and the powers of the conference of the parties in this article. And also, I would like to reiterate that the participation of stakeholders is of utmost importance. Thank you.

Okay, Portugal, please.

Thank you, Mr. Khalid. I would like to echo what many others have said here. I remember Spain, Luxembourg, and Germany, and about what we are establishing here on the COP, because it is very important. We all agree, but it shouldn't be a mean to establish substantive obligations that have to be made in constitutional terms. And also, I would like, if that would help, because the provision on the COP would benefit from a clear distinction between two levels, the framework convention And the protocols, because they, they, they, they are different when establish, establish high level principles. Uh, the other, it is, it is binding, it goes towards implementation.

So.

It is important also to take in consideration in establishing the procedures of decision, these two different things, the framework convention and the protocols. And so, yes, and just to the importance of respecting constitutional limits, including when we are interpreting. And this is my contribution. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Poland, please.

Thank you, Mr. Cowling.

I would like to thank you for presenting and preparing the draft of the provisions concerning Conference of the Parties. I think that this is one of the most important provisions in our convention because we are setting up the governance structure for the future cooperation and the platform for the international tax cooperation here. That's why we should be, in my opinion, very precise here and should address also issues of decision-making process by the Conference of the Parties. For example, and here I would like also to echo and support our colleagues from the Czech Republic and Germany and others, we believe that we should base our decision-making process on the consensual basis. especially when we talk about any substantive issues which we are dealing with, for example, very important issues on the rules of procedures of the Conference of the Parties. So I believe this proposal is a very good starting point. Thank you very much that we are able to start the discussion on that and I believe that we will be able to develop this provision to be more precise and to avoid any future problems with the application. Thank you very much.

Cameron, please.

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor and for giving me the opportunity to make a few proposals on this Article 13, on the crucial question of governance of international tax cooperation. that we're seeking to create and strengthen in our negotiations here. Cameroon would like to, of course, much like previous speakers, particularly from Kenya, who presented the African position on this, we wish to express that we share the proposals expressed on behalf of the African group. Particularly the proposal to the idea that we need to recognize that the COP will have will be the supreme governance body of all the instruments that we're going to adopt. This framework convention on international tax cooperation or indeed subsequent instruments will be adopted, for example, the protocols. And also the need to be more clear on how often the COP will meet. Because then we, in order to set the agenda, I think the annual, the idea of having an annual COP seems to be the best one as we see it. also about financing the COP. And by way of an addition to this, we would like to echo the proposal made by Senegal to perhaps look at the attributions of this conference and to be very clear and precise on its mandate and what it is tasked with doing. particularly in how it works alongside the subsidiary bodies, which we are planning on creating too. So yes, to echo Senegal on that. Thank you.

Thank you. Kenya, please.

Thank you, co-lead. Speaking on behalf of the 54 member states of the African group on the issue of decision making, The Africa group's position is that the UN has established rules of procedure on decision-making modalities. And while consensus may be pursued, the decision-making modality should be by simple majority. Thank you.

Thank you. European Union, please.

Thank you, Khalid. In line with interventions delivered by a large number of distinguished delegates, we'd like to also note that Article 13 is currently lacking appropriate references to the involvement.

Of observers in the COP. We'd like to reiterate that UN processes, including this very process, do benefit from the input of observer stakeholders, including.

Civil society, NGOs, private sector, as well as the permanent observers of the United Nations. In this regard, it is important that the framework convention includes provision for observers at the COP.

Going forward in line with established practice.

I thank you.

Thank you. African Union, please.

Thank you, colleague, for giving us the floor. The African Union fully aligns itself with the intervention made by Kenya on behalf of the Africa Group, and also the interventions from Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, Zambia, Senegal, Cameroon on Article 13, as well as the interventions by India, Brazil, and Russia. We wish to emphasize a few points. Firstly, the name and status of the body. The African Union supports the use of the term conference of the parties rather than conference of the state parties. This is not merely a terminology. Paragraph 13 of the terms of reference envisage clearly a conference of the parties and the use of parties preserves the rights of the conventions and its capacity to accommodate the broad participation that is future will develop. We therefore propose that both the title and the text of Article 13 be aligned accordingly. The article should also clearly establish the Conference of the Parties as the supreme decision-making body of the Convention and its protocols. An organ described is not an organ necessarily empowered. The Convention must therefore set out on the face of the text a clear and sufficiently broad mandate of the Conference. Secondly, on its mandate and institutional capacity. The Conference of Parties should be expressly empowered to review and assess the implementation, provide policy and strategic guidance, oversee the Convention's institutional architecture, adopt protocols, establish subsidiary bodies, and take any necessary measures to advance the objectives of the Convention. Its mandate should not be unduly restricted. Its rules of procedure should apply to the full range of functions exercised under the convention, including the work of subsidiary bodies. The conference should meet at least once every year, particularly during the early stages of implementation, to maintain political momentum, address emerging challenges, and ensure effective oversight. This was well articulated by Kenya in its intervention on behalf of the Africa Group. It should have the authority to adopt financial rules for itself and its subsidiary bodies and to promote mobilization of adequate, predictable and sustainable resource for the resources for the implementation of the Convention and the protocols. We further support the provisions enabling the participation of observers, including relevant United Nations entities, international and regional organizations, and other eligible stakeholders in accordance to the rules adopted by the conference. Lastly, the relationship with other protocols, the convention will develop through protocols and not every party of the convention will necessarily become a part of every protocol. The African Union therefore proposes an express provision by which the conference serves as the meeting of parties to a protocol, decisions taken by those bound and others participating as observers. This closes the gap before it arises and it also honors the settled law of consent. Co-lead, these elements are essential for ensuring that the conference of the parties is inclusive, adequately empowered, properly resourced, and institutionally capable of advancing the objectives of the convention. The African Union supports the Africa Group submission and stands ready to engage constructively on the detailed textual proposals that we will be submitting in writing. I thank you.

Thank you. Etta.

Firstly, Chair, we thank you for giving us the floor. We also want to align with position presented by Kenya on behalf of the African group, as well as the intervention made by the African Union. She also views the COP as the backbone of every framework convention. For that reason, Chair, an article on COP must be robust and complete by itself. We agree that it is not a broadly acceptable practice to have procedure for bodies like the COP and its subsidiary bodies have their procedure observed by multi-stakeholders. As such, we support language that makes such participation possible. Additionally, we observe the terminological inconsistency on the face of the draft. As pointed out by African Union, Article 13 style the organ as conference of the state parties. Yet Article 20, paragraph one empowers conference of the parties to adopt protocol. These are the same organ under two names. We recommend the draft, that the draft settle on conference of the parties. This is consistent with the terms of reference. As such, article 13, 14, 16 to 21 should be aligned accordingly. Left or control chair, the risk we see is that this divergence will eventually lead or generate avoidable interpretative disputes. Second, The mandate in Article 13 is underbuilt for a supreme organ. It omits an express supremacy clause, oversight of the subsidiary architecture and authority over methodologies and appointment. We recommend that the CHAPPA affirm the conference of the parties as the supreme organ of the convention and that it also enumerate functions in an expanded manner to match the governance weight which had been trusted on the Conference of the Parties. Paragraph three and four correctly encode concept here. A state must be a party to the convention to join a protocol and it is not bound unless it has sent to such protocol. But the draft is silent on how the conference sits when it acts under a protocol. We recommend an express provision that when the conference serves as the meeting of the parties to a protocol, only parties to that protocol take decision. Other parties may participate as observers and no protocol based decision may bind a third party. This gives the instrument an institutional form to the consent rule which the draft rightly encodes in paragraph three and four. Chair, in addition to this our submission, We are available to make technical draft input by way of written submission. We thank you.

Thank you. Ghana, please.

Thank you, Koli. First, we would like to thank the Secretary for preparing the draft of this article. Ghana supports the statement delivered by Kenya on behalf of the 54-member African group, which was also supported by the distinguished delegates from Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, Zambia, Senegal and Cameroon. We agree that the article should provide clearer and more comprehensive rules of procedure to facilitate the effective implementation of the framework convention. as well as establish a clear mandate for the conference of parties regarding decision making and the establishment of any subsidiary bodies that may be necessary to carry out its functions. And on the issue of decision making, we are in support of the submission by Kenya, as was recalled by the African Union and ATAF, that decision making by the COP should be by simple majority. Lastly, We also welcome the inclusion of stakeholders as observers to the Conference of Parties. We will provide written inputs on this article through the African group to further elaborate our views and proposals. Thank you, co-lead.

Thank you. Burkina Faso, please.

Thank you, co-lead. We fully support the statement made by Kenya on behalf of the African group. We very much agree with what was said by Nigeria, Zambia, Cote d'Ivoire and Russia as well, and Cameroon. We think that indeed beyond the current wording of Article 13, we do need to be clear on the rules for decision making. So for us, the modalities for decision making need to be stipulated in this convention. For us, and echoing what Kenya said on behalf of the African group, we are of the view that a simple majority would be the best approach. We believe it is also important that the financial modalities for the conference should be stipulated in this article, as well as the modalities for the work of the Bureau. We will also share some further comments in writing. Thank you.

Thank you, TJNA please.

Thank you, Khalid. My name is Noura Samatayan, and I deliver this intervention on behalf of the Institute for Economic Justice in South Africa, a member of Tax Justice Network Africa, the African Civil Society Working Group on the UN Tax Convention, and the wider civil society group coordinated by the Global Alliance for Tax Justice. The Conference of the Parties will be the principal institutional body responsible for guiding the implementation and the future development of this Convention. A strong and empowered Conference of the Parties is therefore essential to ensure that the Convention remains effective, responsive and capable of addressing evolving international tax challenges. Without a sufficiently robust mandate, there is a risk that the Conference of the Parties becomes limited to facilitating implementation rather than the supreme body responsible for driving it. This would weaken the Convention's ability to achieve its objectives. We thus recommend the following. First, align the terminology with the terms of reference by referring to the body as the Conference of the Parties, COP, rather than the Conference of the State Parties, Cosp. Second, add the following sentence to paragraph one adapted from article 7.2 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. It shall make within its mandate the decisions necessary to promote the effective implementation of the convention. We further recommend revising the heading of paragraph four to state that the conference shall promote rather than facilitate implementation. Finally, we recommend adding a new paragraph four F stating that the conference shall exercise such other functions as are required for the achievement of the objectives and commitments of the Convention, as well as all other functions assigned to it under the Convention. This wording reflects established practice in other international conventions, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Ultimately, these amendments would help ensure that the Conference of the Parties has the mandate and flexibility needed to translate the Convention's ambitions into meaningful implementation. Thank you, Khalid.

Thank you. Marta, please.

Thank you, Khalid.

As this is the first.

Time we are taking the floor, we would like to thank you for the work done on the draft. Malta considers that the Conference of the Parties should have a facilitative role and should not create, modify or interpret substantive obligations without the express consent of the parties concerned. Moreover, Malta supports consensus-based decision-making for matters affecting the substantive rights and obligations of parties. Furthermore, Malta notes that Article 13 appears to lack appropriate provisions regarding the participation of observers in the COP, Malta considers that the work of the COP would benefit.

From participation of observers, stakeholders, including civil society, non-governmental organizations, the private sector and permanent observers of the United Nations.

Malta therefore supports including appropriate provisions on observer participation at the COP in the Framework Convention in line with established.

Practice. I thank you.

Thank you. United Republic of Tanzania, please.

Thank you, Mr. Khalid.

Tanzania fully aligns with the statement made by Kenya on behalf of the Africa Group. That was supported by Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, Zambia, Senegal, Cameroon, Ghana, AU, ATAF, Brazil, and Russia. We support the inclusion of dedicated article establishing the conference of the parties. In our view, the conference of the parties is essential for the effective implementation of this convention to ensure that the convention remains responsive to emerging international tax challenges. Tanzania also supports the inclusion of provisions on financing the activities of the conference of the parties. Without predictable and adequate financing, the conference of the parties will not be able to effectively discharge its mandate, particularly in supporting capacity building, technical work, and follow-up mechanisms required under this convention. On decision-making, Mr. Koli Tanzania wishes to emphasize that the United Nations had already established the rules and procedures that guide multilateral processes. This should be observed in this convention.

We therefore support decision-making by simple majority.

A strict consensus may delay implementation and weaken the ability of the convention to deliver its objectives. This convention is intended to address real and agenda challenges in international tax cooperation, including domestic resource mobilization. Its institution framework must therefore be capable of taking decisions and moving implementation forward. Mr. Akele, Tanzania will continue to cooperate with the African group to refine this article and submit an alternative written.

Text that reflects our common position. I thank you.

Thank you, Algeria, please.

Thank you, co-leads. First of all, we would echo and support the statement made by Kenya on behalf of the African group. And we'd also echo other statements that have been made by Brazil, Russia, Ghana, Nigeria, Tanzania just now, and plenty of others. On this article, we would recommend that it be clear, there should be no ambiguity in it, the aim being to avoid any difficulty in implementing and interpreting the Framework Convention and the Protocols. This needs to be clear so that the Conference of Parties is the supreme body for the Framework Convention and its Protocols. On decision-making, We would recommend that decisions be made by a simple majority. And we also have other comments, but we will share them in writing after the session. Thank you.

Thank you. GIESCR, please.

Thank you, Chair. My name is Ezequiel Stewardman, and I speak on behalf of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. With your permission, I would like to begin with a somewhat unusual request. I would kindly invite delegations just for a moment to turn around and look towards the back of this room. You will see civil society organizations, trade unions, academics, journalists, indigenous peoples, business representatives, and other stakeholders. Throughout this process, we have submitted proposals, shared expertise, and scrutinized the text. As CSOs, we also produce the daily chronicle that circulates among your desk. As recently acknowledged by a vast majority of delegates, these negotiations have become richer because of broad and proactive participation. However, the current text does not guarantee that this will continue once the Convention enters into force. The ink negotiating process is participatory, but the institutions that will govern the Convention are silent on participation. What you see behind you today has no assured place tomorrow, despite the fact that paragraph 21 of the terms of reference stresses the importance of stakeholder participation and the objective of establishing an inclusive and transparent international tax system that is aligned with international human rights law. Our request is simple. Article 13 should expressly recognize meaningful stakeholder participation. GIACR has circulated concrete language proposals informed by comparative research, requiring transparent rules on accreditation and participation, and allowing the Conference of the Parties to receive and act on information from relevant stakeholders, including civil society. This is precisely the sort of technical expertise that robust civil society participation can bring to these negotiations. Meaningful participation must go beyond mere observer status. It should include access to meetings and documents, the ability to submit evidence, and opportunities to contribute in written and oral form. These safeguards are necessary if the convention is to fulfill the universality, transparency, and accountability that its own principles demand. Participation also cannot stop at the doors of the Conference of the Parties. Article 14 should include similar guarantees for subsidiary bodies and technical working groups, where technical debate will shape the agenda recommendations that will actually be considered later on in COP. We will return to this point when Article 14 is discussed. We are glad that several delegations have affirmed that they will submit texts on this matter to be considered at future sessions. As per the precedent of the February session, it is vital that these proposals are made public through the INGO website to allow for transparent, timely and appropriate scrutiny. This INGO process has already shown the value of broad participation. Let us carry the spirit of the United Nations and the terms of reference into the Convention itself. And to conclude, When you turn back to the text or when you submit new language proposals, please remember what you saw when you turned around as my intervention started. The people behind you are not a backdrop to these negotiations. We bring expertise, scrutiny and public legitimacy. The Convention should therefore secure that contribution for the future. Thank you very much.

Thank you. GPI, please.

Mr. President, I speak on behalf of Greenpeace International and the Global Alliance for Tax Justice.

We have been looking.

Forward to this discussion and to the formulation of the article on the Conference of the Parties. In accordance with usual practice under UN conventions, the Conference of the Parties will be the central governance body of the convention, as well as the key vehicle to ensure ongoing implementation and review happens. In relation to the calls to limit the powers of the COP, we want to underline that the COP can never go beyond the decisions made by the parties because the COP is the parties, hence the name Conference of the Parties. The COP is also what enables the text of the convention itself to be a bit more high level and not full of unnecessary details and small technicalities. Based on strong and clear mandates from the convention.

The COP can then help with operationalizing it and establishing specific mechanisms for delivery.

While more work still needs to be done to strengthen the mandates of some of the commitments, including articles 4, 6 and 8, we are happy to see that some mandates are now evolving in other articles of the draft convention. Furthermore, we have one specific suggestion regarding paragraph 4B of this article. We understand from the debate that there is a lot of awareness and indeed concern about different non-inclusive forums outside of the UN system. There are also many other relevant processes and international agreements within and under the UN system itself, which should be taken into account. Therefore, to promote full inclusivity and coherence within the UN system, we suggest that paragraph 4B is redrafted to say, and I quote, take into consideration and align with the work of other relevant UN forums, full stop. Thank you very much.

Thank you. DMUN Foundation, please.

Thank you for the floor. I have the honour to take the floor on behalf of the Financing for Development Children and Youth Constituency of the Major Group for Children and Youth. Mr. Co-Lead, children and youth welcome the establishment of a Conference of the Parties as the Convention's principal governing and implementation body. However, the Convention's and the Conference's effectiveness will depend on equitable multi-stakeholder participation and transparent decision-making, which must be systemically embedded at the Convention level itself. Processes pertaining to the accreditation of observers should be clear, consistent and inclusive, with particular attention to the history of undue objections that have been raised towards certain legitimate entities in numerous intergovernmental processes, including this committee and ad hoc committee for the drafting of the terms of reference, where observer accreditation was made under a non-objective procedure. In particular, we believe that special attention must be provided to the participation of historically marginalized rights holders, including but not limited to children, indigenous peoples organizations, and communities discriminated on work and dissent. In this context, we especially highlight the urgent need for the mandated participation of major groups and other stakeholder constituencies identified by the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and subsequent resolutions of the General Assembly in the work of the Conference of Parties. We further encourage the automatic accreditation of stakeholders that have been admitted to the INC and NGOs that already hold valid consultative status with economic and social council to the COP. With reference to paragraph 4a, the exchange of information on legal policy and technological development, we believe that this provision could be supported by a secure, digital and regularly updated clearinghouse mechanism, drawing on institutional models under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the High Seas BBNJ Treaty. The rules should also ensure that developing countries and countries in special situations can participate effectively by listing practical measures such as financial support for delegations, provision of hybrid modalities of participation in COP meetings, and geographical balance in the selection of venues for future COP meetings. Dear colleagues, a framework convention that leaves us stakeholders and rights holders behind cannot and will never be able to deliver on its mandated commitments. Children and youth demand the framework convention and conference of parties that is inclusive, participatory and intergenerational. We thank you.

Thank you very much for the contributions and the comments. We'll take a quick break, 10 minutes, and then come back and continue. Thank you. Let's settle down, please. Okay, thank you. Before we move to the next article, just to give a little more clarity on the decision-making rules at the UN, the Secretariat will give some little background that will be for our information. It's not for debate now, it's not for comment now. It's just information that we can use when we are preparing our comments for written comments or later discussions. So please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Co-Lead. Good morning, distinguished delegates, excellencies, observers, stakeholders. This is in particular in response to the question we registered from the distinguished delegate of Sweden with regard to decision making of a conference of parties should the INC or rather should the convention establish a conference of parties. We discussed internally and just to confirm first The matters discussed this morning are exclusively for member states to determine, certainly not for the secretariat. But also, as many of you have pointed out, it is important that the intent of states is clearly stated in the convention and that there is no ambiguity, especially on matters of such importance as decision making. Now, where an instrument does not specify how decisions are to be taken, the established practice of treaty bodies has been to proceed by consensus. This reflects the fact that absent an agreed voting rule, there is no basis on which a decision could be adopted over the objection of another party. So again, if an instrument does not specify how decisions are to be taken, the established practice is to proceed by consensus. The secretary notes that this is a matter of practice rather than a rule stated in any instrument and that most instruments address the question expressly rather than leaving it to practice. So that it is again, as you have pointed out this morning, it is clear, it's unambiguous, it's easy for any and all to understand. Now, in practical terms, it is possible for the conference of parties to take by consensus a decision that subsequent decisions will be taken by means other than consensus. For example, the Conference of Parties could decide by consensus to adopt rules of procedure that provide for decision-making by majority vote. But again, unless otherwise provided for in the convention, such a decision would have to be taken by consensus. One final point, in terms of what was referred to as the hierarchy of norms earlier by the distinguished delegate of Colombia. If the convention provides that decisions are to be taken in a particular matter, for example, all decisions are to be taken in this matter or in that matter, it would not be possible for the Conference of Parties to decide by itself in a matter that is inconsistent with how the Convention prescribes that decisions are to be taken. So if the text of the Convention says that decisions are to be taken in a particular matter, there is no downstream decision, if I can call it that way, that the Conference of Parties could take that would be in direct contradiction of the Convention. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We will now move to article 14, subsidiary bodies, for comments. Italy, please.

Thank you very much, Mr. Khalid, for giving me the floor. We recognize that subsidiary body may be useful to support the Conference of the Parties for specific needs and where technical expertise may be required. However, we have some concern about this article. We believe that the formulation, the current formulation of this article is very broad. also in terms of tasks of the subsidiary bodies. Moreover, the implications, including for financial resources, are not sufficiently clear. On paragraph 1, we find problematic the last sentence, which provides that the subsidiary body should propose periodically recommendations for the Conference of the Parties on the necessary action to improve the implementation of the Convention. In our view, the role of the Conference of the Parties and its subsidiary bodies should be to facilitate the implementation of the Convention. It should not be, as this sentence seems to suggest, to review the implementation by the Parties and recommend actions where presumably there will be an inadequate implementation of the Convention. In addition, the decision-making process is not clarified. and we have major concern that this could result in going against the principle of sovereignty. On the composition of the subsidiary bodies, we agree that participation should be open to all state parties. We have instead reservation about the restricted composition of the advisory standing bodies. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't have any member state yet, India. India, please go ahead.

Thank you, Colleen. Now, in line with what we had mentioned with regard to Article 13, we would suggest that there should be a matching level of detail in this article also. Some language of this article seems to suggest that these temporary, these subsidiary bodies will be temporary in nature, et cetera. What we would suggest is that we have not subsidiary bodies, not as temporary in nature, but we should have them standing bodies. And we would suggest that if the governance structure of the framework convention with the conference of parties at the apex. If it needs to be well structured, then we should have a two level structure for subsidiary bodies. Right at the bottom, we can have certain working groups. and maybe each working group can be assigned subjects related to one or two of our commitments that we have made under the Framework Convention. Some of these working groups can examine or look at the technical issues related to the administration of the protocols. These working groups, the way we look at it, they will not have any decision-making power, but they will only have the expertise. They will examine the technical issues involved and they will make their findings known and their recommendations to the intermediate body. We could call that intermediate body a standing committee, a bureau, a steering group, whatever we can think of a name. And While I know that there may be certain calls that the participation in these subsidiary bodies should be open to all member states, but I am not sure whether that will be an efficient way of functioning. While it should be open to all member states, maybe we can think of a rotational arrangement where people would, where member states would rotate in and out of these bodies. Everybody would participate, but not all together because that possibly would also help efficiency. So the intermediate body would be the steering group or advisory committee or something like that, which would consider the work and the recommendations of the working groups. And they would then report into the Conference of Parties who would take a final decision on the matter as would be laid out in the article that relates to the Conference of Parties. So I think it is only when we have a defined structure, a structure that is given more to function rather than just symbolic presence of all parties. I think it is only then that we will be able to effectively and efficiently administer this work. Because if actually we have a successful framework convention, we actually have protocols which people, more than these two protocols that we are negotiating now, and we have people signing up to these protocols, we hope that there will be a lot of technical work generated in the operation of all these things. So that is why we would suggest that we have sufficient detail in this article related to subsidiary bodies. Thank you.

Thank you. Indonesia, please.

Thank you, Colleen. Indonesia recognizes the importance of providing the establishment of subsidiary bodies. Such body can play an important role in supporting the effective implementation of the Convention and assisting the COP in carrying out this mandate. However, from both a structural and substantive perspective, we are of the view that the current paragraph two and three would be more appropriate placed under Article 13, particularly as part of the provision relating to the function and power of the COP. In our view, the authority to establish subsidiary bodies is inherently a function of the COP, Accordingly, the legal basis, mandate, composition, reporting arrangement and so on remain under the authority of the COP. This approach also ensures a clearer institutional hierarchy and greater coherence within the Convention. Therefore, Indonesia proposed that the provision currently contained in paragraph 2 and 3 be relocated to Article 13 alongside the provision setting out the function of the COP. We thank you.

Thank you. Germany, please.

Thank you, Mr. Kohli. Germany fully aligns itself with the statement made by the distinguished delegate of Italy. Thank you.

Thank you. Singapore, please.

Thank you, Kohli.

Given the technical and complex nature of international tax cooperation, we agree that the implementation of the framework.

Convention may require subsidiary bodies to focus on select areas of implementation in accordance with and in adherence to member.

States sovereign tax laws and regulations.

On the structure of this article, we would suggest that paragraphs two and.

Three be incorporated into article 13, paragraph four on the COP, rather than maintain as a stand-alone article.

This approach is consistent with the structure.

Adopted under the BBNJ Agreement, the UNFCCC, the UN Convention against Corruption, and the UN Convention against Cybercrime. We also like to restate our earlier comments on Article 13, that greater clarity on the rules of procedure, including those governing subsidiary bodies, would be helpful, and this could similarly be built into Article 13. Thank you.

Thank you. Saudi Arabia, please.

Thank you, Mr. Khalid.

Saudi Arabia supports the establishment of the subsidiary bodies and implementation mechanisms under Article 14 to assist the Conference of the States Parties. However, we wish to emphasize that the advisory and recommendation roles of the subsidiary bodies, implementation, any additional working groups under paragraph one and two must be carefully managed. Specifically, it is vital to ensure that any recommendations, advice, or output issued by these bodies do not create new binding obligations on state parties that would exceed what has been explicitly agreed upon within the framework convention. Thank you.

Thank you. Honduras, please.

Thank you very much, co-lead. Honduras recognizes that subsidiary bodies can play an important role in supporting the effective implementation of the framework convention and its protocols. However, given that these bodies will form part of the institutional architecture of the convention, we believe that their mandate and functions should be drafted with greater precision.

First.

Honduras considers that the role of the subsidiary body for implementation should be clearly defined.

It should.

Serve as a permanent technical body responsible for supporting implementation, providing technical advice, monitoring progress, and reporting to the conference of the states parties. It should not perform policy making or decision making functions, which must remain exclusively within the competence of the COP. Second, we believe that the current drafting creates some uncertainty regarding the nature of subsidiary bodies. Honduras considers that the subsidiary body for implementation established under paragraph one should be a permanent body, while the additional mechanism of technical working groups referred to in paragraph two may be established on either a temporary or standing basis, depending on the needs identified by the COPS. To enhance legal certainty, undersigned suggests clarifying paragraph one by expressing stating that the subsidiary body for implementation is hereby established as a permanent technical body to assist the COP in the effective implementation of the framework convention and its protocols. Finally, because this article establishes the governance structure of the Convention, Honduras considers that the respective responsibilities of the COPS, the Subsidiary Body for Implementation and any additional subsidiary mechanism must be clearly distinguished. Technical drafting is particularly important in this provision to avoid overlapping mandates and ensure an efficient institution. institutional framework. Honduras will therefore provide detailed drafting comments in writing. Thank you very much, co-lead.

Thank you. United Kingdom, please.

Thank you, Mr. co-lead. The UK would like to echo some of the comments made by Italy and also repeat some of the, this will relate some of the comments we've made relating to Article 13. The UK considers that the COP should operate as a high-level forum and that any mechanisms that sit beneath it should be carefully scoped with clearly defined functions and decision-making powers. We would welcome clarity on how and when these will be defined. We recognise it might not be possible to specify in advance the subsidiary bodies the COP may consider necessary over time, but powers to take such actions as it considers necessary, as is in the text, seems far too broad. We think it's important that state parties are provided with a clear sense of what these binding institutional commitments entail in practice, but also that decisions to create new bodies are taken by consensus. We would also welcome more detail, ideally in an explanatory note, on how implementation review is intended to work. We note this intersects with a later article on review, and we do have some fundamental questions about what is intended here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Colombia, please.

Thank you, Colombia. With the indulgence of colleagues, I must refer to the previous article once again in relation to a remark made by the Secretariat as regards the hierarchy of norms, the possibility that there may be a contradiction between rules or norms of different hierarchies. exist in all legal systems in national and international law and it is a possibility that there may be a material contradiction and incompatibility or non-conformity between them. This can happen regardless of the decision-making system and this is why the concrete proposal for the third paragraph of Article 13 There is a full stop after article and so that will be as follows.

In the convention and the rules of procedure, the convention shall prevail.

Gracias, Senor Collier.

Thank you. Thank you. Now we please.

Thank you, Mr. Collier. Thank you to you and the secretariat for your efforts in drafting this article. With regard to subsidiary bodies, we see value in having a provision on establishing subsidiary bodies to the convention, as long as they have a clear and specific purpose, and their mandate should be guided by a demonstrated need and added value. And for the issue at hand, contribute to more inclusive and effective tax cooperation. We agree with India that it should be made clear that the COP is the decision-making body with respect to the framework convention.

We would appreciate further.

Clarification regarding the proposed implementation body in paragraph one, and we are interested in understanding the rationale for this proposal and whether there are precedents that have informed it. We note that the COP in Article 13 is currently mandated with the review of implementation of the Framework Convention and not the implementation itself. In our view, the implementation of treaty obligations is generally a matter for states themselves in accordance with the Vienna Convention, whether monist or dualist in nature. We would therefore welcome a better understanding of the intended functions and appropriateness of such a body as proposed in paragraph one. Thank you.

Thank you. Philippines, please.

The Philippines supports the provision establishing a subsidiary body to assist the COP in implementing the Framework Convention and its protocols. On its membership, the subsidiary bodies and technical working groups should adhere strictly to equitable geographical representation, because this ensures that the regional and developing regions are.

Or their comments are considered and there's fair implementation. We support the statements of India and Indonesia on making clear the hierarchy between the COP and the subsidiary body and both the.

Statements of Indonesia and Singapore on adding the provisions on subsidiary bodies to Article 13.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Kenya, please.

Thank you, co-lead. I make this intervention on behalf of the 54 member states of the Africa group. Subsidiary bodies will represent a critical element in ensuring the implementation of the framework convention and its objectives, especially in this technical area of international taxation. It is our position that this article needs to be expounded on to ensure implementation of the framework convention. Under paragraph 1, subsidiary bodies have been given the role of making recommendations on actions necessary to ensure implementation of this convention. However, we see some wording that could impose limitations on this role by imposing timelines which may negatively affect the effectiveness of this mandate. The provision on regular reporting should also include the submission of regular recommendations on actions to be taken as and when they arise, as opposed to including the time period of not later than 2035 and every five years thereafter. These recommendations should be made as and when they arise. We support inclusion on provisions ensuring regional representation. and also participation by subject matter experts to enhance effectiveness. In addition to the subsidiary bodies that the COP may establish as required, the Africa Group proposes that specific subsidiary bodies should also be established within this article in relation to the commitments under the Framework Convention. These would include establishing subsidiary bodies on tax treaties, dispute resolution, taxation of the digital economy, among others. Finally, while paragraph three on the rules of procedure is critical, this provision should also be included in Article 14 to be clear that it falls within the mandate of the COP. The Africa Group also supports the submission that has been made by the distinguished delegate from India. Thank you.

Thank you. Nigeria, please.

Thank you, Mr. Kolig. Nigeria fully supports the positions and the statements that have been provided by Kenya on behalf of the 54 African group members. Then in addition, Nigeria also wish to make this additional comments. Number one is, we look at paragraph one and we think we need to have clarity and more details on what will be the function and the rules of the subsidiary body that will be created in paragraph one. Also, in that paragraph one, they are expected to provide some regular reporting. And also in another sentence, they are expected to provide some reporting within five years. We think there should be clarity on what they are expected to be reporting on regularly, then also clarity on what we also mean by regularly. Then on the second reporting that is expected to be five years, we think we need clarity on what are those activity or functions they are expected to perform that they need to be reporting on within five years. And we think five years may be too long, maybe three years. However, it shouldn't be every three years, it should be not later than at least three years. That is when they have a burning issue to report, they don't wait three years before they report it. So instead of saying every five years, we think it should be at least within three years or at least every three years. But also, as we have said earlier, we need clarity on the difference between those two functions. Then we also think that In paragraph two, we need some substantive subsidiary bodies, as mentioned by Kenya on behalf of the African group. There should be some substantive bodies that should be established in accordance with the various commitments that we have in this convention. particularly as mentioned earlier by Kenya, the dispute resolution on tax treaties on digital economy and all the other high net worth individual and the specific other specific commitments that we have in the convention. And of course, now allowing the COP to also be able to create more subsidiary bodies, then we can also have, of course, the subsidiary bodies should also be, I mean, the COP, the COP should also be able to create ad hoc committee when they need to do so. But in all these subsidiary bodies, it is important that we ensure that we have fair representation. by regions, whether it is substantive or is the ad hoc, it is important that we have fair representations so that every region is represented and is able to make input to issues that are being worked on. Also, currently we have the committee of experts. at the UN. We also want to seek clarity on what will be the role or is he expected to be one of the subsidiary body that we created or that will be that will come under paragraph two. So for instance, we currently performs important function, especially as it relates to the UN model. So Do we still want them to retain that function? And if so, I think we need to provide clarity in this article so that we know their role, their function, their reporting, and every details regarding them. Thank you.

Thank you. Austria, please.

Thank you, Khalid, I'll be brief. We really appreciate the work done in relation to Article 14 and we are going to distinguish delegates from Italy, the UK and Norway. Thank you.

Thank you. African Union, please.

Thank you, Khalid, for giving me the floor. The African Union takes the floor to speak on Article 14 and commends you, Khalid, and the Secretariat for the foundation you have laid thus far. We rise not to unsettle the foundation, but to make it stronger. In this regard, we align fully with a statement made by Kenya on behalf of the Africa group and the statements made by Nigeria, India, and Indonesia. We agree that this article should provide greater clarity on the nature, mandate, institutional hierarchy of the subsidiary bodies. It should be clear that all subsidiary bodies operate under the authority of and report to the Conference of the Parties. The Conference should be expressively empowered to establish subsidiary bodies and technical working groups as required for the effective implementation of the Convention. We also support the Africa Group's proposal that these technical working groups addressing the Convention's core commitments should be established from the onset rather than left until to future discretion. Subsidiary bodies should report regularly and make regular recommendations whenever necessary without being constrained by the unnecessary lengthy timelines. Their composition should be ensure that there is geographical representation as highlighted very clearly by Nigeria. These clarifications will ensure that the subsidiary bodies are technically capable, representative of all the member states and fully accountable to the Conference of the Parties. The African Union stands ready to support the proposal by the Africa Group and remains able to constructively engage as we will do so in our written submissions. Thank you.

Thank you. Republic of Korea, please.

Thank you, Mr. Khalid, for giving me the floor. At the outset, Korea would like to thank the Co-Lead and Secretariat for preparing this draft. As this is the first time that provisions on subsidiary bodies have been introduced for discussions in this plenary meeting, we appreciate the efforts to provide a basis for our consideration. In general, we align with the views expressed by previous speakers, including Italy, Germany and the UK. Korea recognizes that appropriate institutional arrangements may contribute to the effective implementation of the Convention. In this regard, we share the views expressed by previous speakers that any subsidiary bodies should have clearly defined purposes and mandates based on identified needs and their value. In addition, we would also welcome more detail on how implementation review is intended to work. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Morocco, please.

Thank you very much. I would like to support the statement made by Kenya on behalf of the African group, as well as the statements made by Nigeria and African Union and other colleagues. And mine is rather a question. I don't know. I think it was touched upon by Kenya this morning, which is the procedures for the subsidiary body for implementation, because we have in the previous article, the.

Procedures for the Conference of the Parties that will be established by the Conference of the Parties.

And then we have in the third paragraph, the Conference of the State Parties shall determine the rules of procedures for the mechanisms. and bodies established pursuant to paragraph two, which is the additional bodies, but for the paragraph one, the subsidiary body for implementation, I can't see the procedures, the rules and procedures for that subsidiary body. So does it imply that it would follow the rules and procedures of the Conference of the Parties?

I thought it was not clear here. Thank you.

Thank you. Generally, the COP would establish those rules just like the other bodies. Papua New Guinea, please.

Thank you, colleague. Papua New Guinea supports the establishment of subsidiary bodies. We would like to speak to the text of paragraph one. As it is now, it is loaded. We propose that paragraph one be shortened as follows, to insert a full stop at the end of the word established. So it should read, a subsidiary body for implementation is hereby established. This can be complemented by including a definition of subsidiary body in article three. which provides for definitions. Furthermore, that the second sentence in paragraph one onwards be moved to a new paragraph two. We echo the sentiments of Indonesia and Singapore with regard to the existing paragraphs two and three, that these be moved to article 13 because they outline obligations of the COP and are better placed under the specific COP article. With reference to additional mechanisms, bodies and technical working groups, this group should have clear TORs in place, including guidelines to determine their permanency. Lastly, we echo the sentiments of the Philippines, the African group and Nigeria for the article to include wording that will ensure fair representation for member states in subsidiary bodies. Thank you.

Thank you, Ireland, please.

Thank you, Mr. Coley, we appreciate the efforts made on this article. Just to say we echo the comments of our UK, Italian, Norwegian and Korean colleagues. Thank you.

Thank you, ATAF, please.

Thank you, Chair. Chair, we want to start by stating that we align primarily with the views expressed by by the distinguished delegate of Kenya on behalf of the African group and also that of Nigeria. Chair, our first comment on additional comment comes on paragraph one. We want to align with the insight brought by India to say that there's need in which paragraph one should be reformed to establish an intermediate technical steering group, technical steering committee as against just implementation subsidiary body. We also want it to be made very clear that the COP remains the supreme organ to implement the convention and the protocol and not subsidiary bodies. This subsidiary body to be established by paragraph one of Article 14 should instead focus in assisting the COP in implementing the convention. That said, we are also of the view which was expressed by India that it will not be very efficient and effective if it's open for all parties. It could be open for all parties in the rotational manner, but could be constituted in a representative way in which all the regions of the UN is represented. When that is done, we move to paragraph two and paragraph three. With respect to this paragraph, we have made initial comments saying that the COP article should be complete by itself. So in that sense, we align with the view expressed by Indonesia that paragraph two and paragraph three should be moved to the article 13 on COP. Now, what could constitute the new paragraph two for article 14 should be the sentiment expressed by Kenya on behalf of the African group. That is to say, we need to establish some subsidiary bodies which are technical working bodies are well consulted with function that we pay specific function that we perform with respect to certain areas of international tax. Chair, we think this is very, very important because as we are adopting protocols alongside this convention, those bodies may become very, very important and relevant to the implementation of those protocols. We yield back, Chair.

Thank you. Kodewa, please.

Thank you, co-leads. We would like to echo, express our support for the Kenyan position on behalf of African group supported by Nigeria, ATAF and other speakers. Cote d'Ivoire is in favour of including a provision on the creation of a subsidiary body for implementation of the Framework Convention and its protocols. On the first paragraph, from what we know of Framework Conventions in general, in terms of subsidiary bodies, framework conventions generally have two types of standing bodies, a subsidiary body for implementation and then a subsidiary, a technical subsidiary body. The aim is that for that of that is providing technical opinions to the COP. In the wording that we have currently of paragraph one, It's true that the subsidiary body covered in paragraph one is defined as an implementation body, but as part of its mandate, the impression given is that it plays both roles, an implementation role, but also a technical role for technical advice and technical opinions. As we said, we need to be very clear on the mandate for this body. Still on paragraph one, we share the views that have already been put forward on how often reports should be submitted to the COP by the subsidiary body. We think that five years is too long and so we would recommend two or three years for that. with five years as proposed, the first report we'd get would be around ten years later from now, ten years from now, at a time when developing countries need swift implementation of the provisions of the Framework Convention and its protocols, which will then be adopted following this process. So we would recommend a shorter timeframe for that. On paragraph two of Article 14, We also reserve what's been said about the mandate of the subsidiary body, as is covered in paragraph 1. We believe that the option for the COP or indeed the creation of a standing subsidiary body, that's technical one, should not be left to the discretion of the COP. I'm referring here to the last sentence of paragraph two. We believe it's important for the convention to already provide for the creation of this second standing subsidiary body that would provide technical opinions to the COP. And then paragraph three, we share the concerns raised by Morocco. saying that the rules of procedure of these mechanisms and bodies created pursuant to paragraph two of this article. This wording is not clear on about the mechanisms of functioning and the rules of procedure for the subsidiary bodies created by the paragraph. So I think we need to have a reference here to paragraph two to give the COP the opportunity to define the rules of procedure and the mechanisms for functioning of all the bodies that are created either by itself or by the Convention, by the COP or by the Convention. And then the last sentence finally of paragraph three, which requires equitable geographical representation for subsidiary bodies. This, as we see, it should apply to all subsidiary bodies. that are created, because it's important to address this within this provision and that should be included in this article so then it would make sure it covers all bodies in question. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. And with that we'll, it's past one o'clock. So we'll break for lunch. When we come back, we'll take the stakeholders. Thank you. Have a nice lunch, everybody.