Preparatory Commission: Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (Third Session, 22nd plenary meeting, followed by an informal working group meeting)

Good morning, colleagues. First of all, I wish you all a good morning and looking forward to a very productive day today. Today is Thursday, one day before the end of the week, which then will put us into a fast track into next week. But we've been working really well, I think overall, and we want to thank you all for your cooperation and that spirit of can-do. Distinguished delegates, this morning we will resume our meeting in plenary for oral reports on the parallel discussions held yesterday. Afterwards, we will resume the consideration of item five of our agenda in parallel meetings. In this conference room, we will continue our discussions regarding the modalities for the operation of the clearinghouse mechanism and time permitting, we will move to consider arrangements with, sorry, scratch that. We're not going to go to the global environment facility issue. We'll move that into the afternoon. In conference room 11, deliberations will continue on terms of reference and modalities for the operation of and rules of procedure for the subsidiary bodies including the selection process of their members while discussions on the rules of procedure for the conference of the parties will continue this afternoon instead we thank you in advance for your understanding and flexibility as further adjustments to our organization of work may be needed as we progress our discussions we kindly invite you to regularly consult the website of the agreement for any announcements in this regard we will reconvene in this room 15 p.m. sharp for the second of the three presentations of the offers made by the states wishing to host the secretariat to be established under the agreement where we will hear the presentation from the delegation of Chile. We will now provide brief oral reports on the parallel discussions that took place yesterday.

Thank you very much, Janine. I'll start with the Rules of Procedure, for which we held a further session yesterday morning, the 25th of March. The discussions continued to focus on bracketed text in the document, in particular on draft section four on the agenda, draft rule 22 on the Bureau, and draft section seven on the subsidiary bodies. With regard to draft section four, different views continued to be expressed on the inclusion of a reference to article six of the agreement in draft rules nine, 10, 12 and 13. Discussions also addressed amongst other issues, the possible role of the secretariat, the president and the bureau in the preparation of the provisional agenda and supplementary provisional agenda. With regard to draft rule 22, there seemed to be general support for the Bureau being composed of three members from each of the United Nations regional groups, with additional seats for SIDS and least developed countries. I would particularly like to thank those delegations for whom this was not their preferred option, but who expressed their willingness to be flexible and to compromise if required. Discussions also addressed whether to retain the position of the rapporteur and the inclusion of a cross-reference to financial rules regarding eligibility to serve on the Bureau pending the finalisation of those rules. With regard to part seven, discussions proceeded under the general understanding of the need to ensure consistency and prevent overlap with the discussions on subsidiary bodies taking place in parallel. Discussions addressed that in the case of conflict, the rules of procedure of the relevant subsidiary body should prevail. decision making by subsidiary bodies, including whether chairs of subsidiary bodies should exercise the right to vote, modalities for determining the dates of meetings, officers and the program of work of subsidiary bodies, and the modalities for selecting possible replacements of members of subsidiary bodies, amongst other matters. Following the delivery of oral reports, we will continue the consideration of the rules of procedure for the Conference of Parties this afternoon in Conference Room 11, starting with quorum, Rule 34, and then moving on to other unresolved issues. Just a couple of points delegates. Firstly, I would really like to express my appreciation for all of those who participated in the rules of procedure discussion in their willingness to work efficiently. It should be obvious we are having to push quite hard now in order to ensure we get through our work. and in particular the cooperation in ensuring that we finished off the subsidiary bodies item was much appreciated. We're conscious, very conscious, that most delegations are not working in their native language, but we just appreciate the efficiency and the flexibility that was shown. Secondly, it is obvious from the discussions and we have flagged at various stages that there are particular points on the rules of procedure where there are opposing views and the options are relatively binary. We would just say that when the next version of this document appears, no one will be getting everything that they want. And in fact, if any delegation does get everything that they want, then Janine and I have realistically failed in our job. So we will be asking everyone to look at the next iteration of that document through that prism. No one will be getting everything. It's whether everyone has what they need. And with that, we would also encourage some of the areas where further work is required. are pretty obvious now and we would encourage, as we know is already happening on some of the specific rules, we would encourage delegations to be talking and starting to think about where those landing points may lay. Secondly, I'll now turn to the afternoon discussion on relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional and sub-regional and sectoral bodies. for which I'll use our acronym IFBs going forward. The discussions were held yesterday afternoon on the basis of the draft decision of the Conference of the Parties prepared by the co-chairs. We completed a reading of the entire draft with delegations and intergovernmental organisations weighing in on its preambular and operative parts. We were encouraged by the general support for the draft and believe that we're in good stead to present a revised, clean, final text to delegations for consideration. Concerning the perambular paragraphs, there was some discussion on possible additions to strengthen the text, including further emphasis on the provisions of the agreement, that relate to cooperation and coordination with relevant IFBs and to the relationship between the agreement, UNCLOS and IFBs. Delegations further discussed the inclusion of references to specific IFBs in the text of the decision. On the operative paragraphs, delegations made textual proposals to enhance clarity, consolidate and streamline the text, and ensure consistency with the language of the agreement. Aspects of focus included the prioritisation of early cooperation arrangements with certain IFBs, data sharing and data confidentiality, the level of formality of cooperative arrangements, resource allocation for and financing of such arrangements, the possible differing modalities for cooperation carried out by the various institutions established under the agreement and the role of the clearinghouse mechanism in facilitating cooperation. The need to ensure alignment of the draft decision with other documents under consideration of the commission was also discussed. as well as the need to clarify certain modalities contained in the draft, in particular with regard to the proposed task force. There appeared to be convergence concerning the inclusion of a standing item in the agenda of the COP on IFB cooperation. Several IFBs also contributed to the exchange of views highlighting several potential areas of cooperation, including data sharing and management, as well as capacity building. We will distill the input received today into the final version of this document. This is a kind reminder to delegations who wish to submit their textual proposals and have not done so yet to submit them as soon as possible. We will use the session on Friday afternoon in conference room four, which was initially dedicated to IFP cooperation for the consideration of the COP rules of procedure instead. And again, for that, I thank all of the delegations and the IFPs who took the floor for the efficient way in which we went about that work and their flexibility and dedication to ensuring that we efficiently got through our work and concluded the item. Thank you. Janine.

Thank you, Adam. Turning now to the items that we covered yesterday regarding the financial mechanism, the function of the Secretariat and the financial mechanism. A second meeting on arrangements for the functioning of the Secretariat took place yesterday morning in conference room four. Discussions proceeded on the basis of the co-chairs' non-paper circulated on Monday evening, containing a draft decision of the Conference of the Parties on arrangements for the functioning of the secretariat. There was broad support for establishing an institutional linkage between the United Nations and the secretariat while ensuring that the secretariat would preserve its autonomy vis-a-vis the United Nations and operate under the authority of the Conference of the Parties. There also appeared to be emerging convergence on the head of the secretariat being elected by and accountable to the COP. In this regard, delegations inquired whether it would be possible to follow a hybrid approach under which the secretariat would be institutionally linked to the United Nations, while the Conference of the Parties would elect the head of the secretariat and The UN Secretary General would subsequently formally appoint the candidate elected by the COP. Delegations also discussed a potential role of the Preparatory Commission in the process for the appointment of the first head of the Secretariat, including the possibility of initiating the nomination process ahead of the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to enable the COP to elect the first head at that meeting. Regarding the way forward, we took note of the questions raised by delegations, which were transmitted by DEWALIS to the relevant departments of the Secretariat with a view to receiving responses that can further inform our discussions on the matter. The Co-Chairs will also prepare a revised draft decision incorporating the input received from delegations during yesterday's meeting which will be circulated to delegations ahead of our next meeting scheduled for tomorrow morning. We then turn to the voluntary trust fund and have now completed a full reading of the draft text of potential terms of reference as contained in the annex to the aid to discussions and negotiations prepared by co-chairs. Going forward, we will need to address key outstanding issues for this issue, including which meetings should be eligible for funding, and whether there should be a limit on the number of representatives from each developing state party that may receive funding for each meeting. Our intention is to prepare a revised terms of reference for the Voluntary Trust Fund, which may be circulated to delegations over the weekend. Turning then to the clearinghouse mechanism, We had our first meeting on modalities for the operation of the clearinghouse mechanism yesterday afternoon in conference room 11. The discussion focused on a list of guiding questions circulated by the Secretariat on our behalf on 24 March, taking into account the consolidated draft study on the technical aspects of the operationalization of the clearinghouse mechanism. There was broad support for developing the clearinghouse mechanism as a standalone platform under the full control of the secretariat of the agreement, while drawing upon the experiences and lessons learned from existing platforms. Different preferences were expressed regarding its model, including a centralized system, a federated system with nodes, a hybrid configuration combining elements of different models, or an envisaged transition between models. No preference was expressed for the option of retrofitting an existing platform. Delegations also shared preliminary views on the key parameters identified in paragraph 131 of the consolidated draft study that affect the architecture, functioning, and cost of the clearinghouse mechanism. Regarding the minimum required metadata fields for each type of records, There was a general acknowledgement of the technical nature, as well as the need to take into account the provisions of the agreement. On confidentiality, the importance of transparency was highlighted as paramount, while several specific elements of confidentiality safeguards were addressed. There were also preliminary views shared on user roles, verification rules and delegation mechanism, traditional knowledge safeguards, proximity-based alert policy, interoperability priorities, node role and responsibility, language and translation policy, and minimum cybersecurity baseline and audit requirements. It was a lot to take in in that three-hour session. Regarding next steps, there was general support for a phased operationalization of the clearinghouse mechanism as set out in the consolidated study. with broad support also expressed for developing a prototype or a pilot version of the clearinghouse mechanism as early as the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties. IOC-UNESCO and UNEP shared their experiences with the IOC-UNESCO offering to serve as a technical partner in the development of the clearinghouse mechanism. We will continue our consideration of this issue this morning following this plenary meeting to return to the question of next steps for the phase operationalization of the mechanism so that we can clarify or identify what is required between PrepComs 3 and COP1 and by COP1. This question could be considered in relation to the different phases set out in the report. The discovery phase, which is to define what the mechanism must be able to do at the point of initial operationalization. The alpha phase, which is to test agreed design functions or otherwise the prototype. The beta phase, which is the piloting phase and the launch and maintenance. And there are four particular questions that we would wish to address. Specifically, whether delegations can reflect on the feasibility benefits versus the trade-offs of action in the beta phase by COP1. If the pilot phase is expected by COP1, can the PrepCom agree on the parameters, including prioritization of parameters, and if so, which ones? Who could be appointed to handle queries from the build team? between Prep Comm 3 and COP 1 and what are the possible next steps for Prep Comm 3? It's a lot, but we have enough time to go over these questions. It's a really more practical oriented approach to how we will identify what we will do next in regards to the clearinghouse mechanism. And it will help the co-chairs better guide the discussion moving forward. That concludes our oral reports and as you know these reports are without prejudice to the discussion still to be held at PrepCom 3. The floor is now open for comments on the reports just made bearing in mind that they are not meant to be an exhaustive reflection of all the views and proposals raised but rather to identify the main issues that have been the focus of delegations interventions and the way forward. Bangladesh you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam and Mr. Co-Chair. Today is the Independence Day of Bangladesh, so.

I convey the greetings in favor of Bangladesh to all delegates present here. Thank you.

Let me offer congratulations to Bangladesh. I see no other requests. for the floor. We will now suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow delegations to rearrange themselves as needed. Again, in this room, we will be doing the clearinghouse mechanism, and in room 11, Adam will be chairing the terms of reference and modalities for the operation of and rules of procedure for the subsidiary bodies. The meeting is suspended for five minutes.

Play all songs of CID.

Good morning again. We shall now resume the meeting to consider modalities for the operation of the clearinghouse mechanism. As I just mentioned in the oral report, I want to return to the issue of next steps. And just to repeat what I said, I want to look at the next steps for the phase operationalization of the clearinghouse mechanism clarify or identify what is required between PrepCom 3 and COP1, and of course at COP1 itself. I think it's really important for us to think through that phase operationalization that was embedded in the draft study so that we can understand specifically what are the steps that that you want done, what can be done, and what would be required for them to be done. I think one of the issues with going or expecting that we'll be in the pilot phase by COP1 means that we've already determined what the clearinghouse mechanism is doing. So we've already scoped it and we've decided on the design functionalities and we've already tested it. or tested a prototype and we're ready to do, we're actually going to do the piloting by COP1. So that's a lot of different steps. It also means that we would have had to identify who's doing the build, identify how we're going to be communicating with that team, the build team, and determining how we would be making decisions on any any type of the design elements. So I wanted to to put that to you. So you have the broader frame of reference. And and the first question I thought it would be helpful for you to reflect on and give me feedback on is specifically on the feasibility, benefits and trade-offs of going straight to what I'm going to use as set out in the agreement, that beta phase. I know we had IOC UNESCO that was going to come back to touch upon some of their reflections, especially since there were several delegations that asked. So if it's okay with the room, I would give you that opportunity, IOC UNESCO representative, and then have a round of discussions around that issue on the benefits and the trade-offs that we can look at in jumping right ahead to the pilot phase by COP1. IOC UNESCO, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. The IOC welcomes the constructive engagement by delegations on this topic. We have listened carefully to the views expressed by the delegations yesterday. I believe that these positions point towards a phased approach, as you've highlighted, that starts with a centralised minimal viable product, and evolve towards an establishing and connecting interoperability with existing systems as well as regional and sub-regional nodes guided by the needs of developing states including SIDS and LDCs. On the issue of prototype versus pilot phase, I think several delegations asked whether the prototype is only a design or also functional. We wish to be unambiguous. The CHM prototype will be a working, functional system, not a design document or a paper exercise. Parties will interact with real notification forms, submit test data, receive standardized batch identifiers and perform CBTMT matchmaking. Drawing on the findings of a clearinghouse mechanism study, we propose an 18-month pilot phase structured around three elements, the discovery and foundation, including lessons learned from the other clearinghouse mechanisms and mapping of workflows. Then secondly, an iterative development with a barebone but functional version of a prototype, BICOP1, and then a testing and validation phase delivering a fully tested operational mechanism by COP2. We have heard clearly from delegations that consultation must be integral to the development. The IOC fully agrees. We propose in platform online feedback tools, technical workshops with national experts nominated by parties, considering the specific needs of seas and LDC representatives, as well as short two to three-week development cycles where each round of consultations produces visible changes in the next iteration of a prototype. The Preparatory Commission may need to decide on the level and format of consultation desired to deliver this. A clear message also that came from delegations is that the clearinghouse mechanism must build on what exists, not duplicate it. The IUC fully shares this principle and the clearinghouse mechanism should function as a system of systems connecting and interoperating with existing databases through standardized APIs rather than replicating the content. The system will be built on open standards and open source components, fully transferable and independent of any single institution. Interoperability adds value, it does not create dependency. On the role of IOC as a potential technical partner in the development of clearinghouse mechanism, and particularly in the aspects of governance, we are clear that the BBNJ Secretariat manages the CHM. The IOC develops or could develop and maintain the technical infrastructures under a cooperation arrangement. Decisions of a COP prevails in all matters. The IOC statutes foresee that the IOC may respond as a competent international organization to the requirement deriving from UNCLOS and other international instruments related to marine scientific research. Under this provision, the IOC governing bodies review only financial implications and workload. It cannot and will not revisit substantive COP decisions. Furthermore, the system will be self-standing, built on open standards, as mentioned, and fully transferable. Financing would need to come through BB&G mechanisms, not the IOC regular budget. This separation is essential to ensure that the clearinghouse mechanism is sustained by the treaty community it serves and that the IOC's existing programs and obligations to its member states are not affected. A system of this complexity requires more than software development. It requires technical coordination and oversight across multiple domains, ocean data standards, biodiversity informatics, interoperability protocols, and the practical realities of operating information systems in low connectivity environment. This is the IOC's core competence through its program on data exchange on ocean biodiversity information system, on data information systems and ocean observation. The IOC has decades of experience not only building ocean data systems, but coordinating, supervising, and validating the technical work of development teams and contractors at global scales. We also recognize the need to designing a system that responds to the needs of small island developing states and LDCs from the outset. This means low bandwidth functionality, offline access, multilingual support, and targeted user testing with CSDN-LDC representatives. We also note the African group's request for alert functions and a geospatial viewer, and we propose to include both in the minimum viable product that would be developed. Traditional knowledge safeguards, including FPIC workflows and IPLC account types, could also be built in from the start. In terms of the next steps, we respectfully suggest that the Preparatory Commission consider recommending first an 18-month pilot phase producing a functional prototype version by COP1 and a tested prototype by COP2. Second, a consultation mechanism for the pilot phase. Third, the designation of IOC as a technical partner under the Secretariat's management authority. And fourth, mobilization of financial resources to begin the pilot. The IOC is prepared to present a detailed work plan with cost projections at the earliest opportunity. And of course, we are open to further discussions during the PrepCom and invites questions from delegations. Let me also highlight that the full IOC response statements that address in more details the specific questions that were raised by Member States yesterday is also published on the PrepCom website as of this morning. Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair.

I thank the representative of IOC UNESCO for elaborating on their offer. I wish to open the floor for any delegation wishing to react or otherwise to address my question regarding the steps that we anticipate to get to the pilot phase by COP1. I think IOC was pretty clear in their scenario, it's the prototype to COP1 and then the pilot by COP2. Turkey, you have the floor.

Thank you, co-chair. We ask for the floor in relation to two points concerning the clearinghouse mechanism. First, with regard to a proposal made yesterday by UNESCO-IUCN, We would like to express our appreciation for this constructive and practical proposal. We recognise the value in exploring early technical work on the CHM, including the possible development of a prototype ahead of COP1. We note in particular the emphasis placed on moving from general requirements to more concrete technical specifications. We also welcome UNESCO-IUCN's readiness to contribute its technical expertise and existing infrastructure in support of this process as a technical partner. Second, we also see merit in drawing on the long-standing experience developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity and its protocols. as the overarching global framework for biodiversity, with a view to supporting the effective implementation of the BBNJ agreement, particularly with regard to the CHM. Thank you, co-chair.

I wish to thank Turkey and I now give the floor to the European Union.

Thank you, Madam Chair, to give us the floor. I speak on behalf of the EU and 27 member states. We would like to thank IOC-UNESCO for the explanation on how they see their involvement in this technical process. We appreciate the layout of the timing of the planning. we appreciate also the possibility that they seem to offer to have a prototype already for COP1, which was something that many delegations asked yesterday to start having a building, to have something functional for COP1. I'm going from my notes, sorry. We appreciate also how they see the center of power in the BBNJ system and the way they see consultation with the group under the lead of the co-chair, PrepCom and Secretariat. We appreciate they see have the role as technical partner while the Secretariat is in charge of managing. In this regard, we would probably seek clarification on how the Secretariat and the co-chair sees a possible involvement of them as technical partner from now on. The UN member state support this possibility of having IOC-UNESCO as a technical partner to start developing the CHM. we might have further questions later, but we wanted to express our support for IOC UNESCO and ask for the way forward in this regard. Thank you very much.

I thank the European Union for sharing your views and for your reflection on the IOC UNESCO offer. And just to be clear, in terms of timeline, the EU does want a prototype at COP1 and the pilot at COP2. The floor for the European Union, please.

Thank you. Yes, I understood from the explanation from IOC-UNESCO that they see a prototype as already a working mechanism and not a design, which is probably the difference from their offer and what was highlighted in the study. So we would really like to see what we call the pilot or a prototype, but something working for the core essential function that should be available for parties to be compliant at COP one. Of course, COP one will have then all the power to decide on the way forward and also on deciding on further parameters that will need to be clarified. But yes, we would go for this technical development as soon as possible. Thank you.

Thank you very much, European Union. Are there any questions from the floor? Any reflections from the floor? I don't see any, but I do have, and I will, if it's okay, just so that I can clarify in my mind, because I'm just following the study and the phases in that one. So I'll come back to the IOC UNESCO. And I think I heard the same thing that Ariane, the European Union mentioned that IOC has a prototype, whereas in the study, there's this process of first scoping the design and then moving into the prototype. So I just want to be clear that that IOC does have a prototype. That's the first thing. And if that's the case, I guess the question would be the interactions with IOC assuming, of course, all the structures that you mentioned might have to be put in place. The what is envisioned as the interaction between the common and IOC UNESCO. And then you mentioned the system of systems. And I just for my own benefit, since yesterday there was a discussion and a lean in towards a model A or model B or some type of transitioning into some type of hybrid. Does that system of system fit into one of those models? And then there was also a reference to the BBNJ batch identifier, if I'm not mistaken, it may have been yesterday. And I guess the question is what would be the basis for developing that? And would that be part of the work up towards the prototype or the pilot, sorry, phase? And that's just a question for me based on the conversation in the room yesterday with the um with the delegation so I can understand better thank you I give the floor to IOC UNESCO.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair, for those questions. I'll try to address those as best as I can. First, an issue on terminology, just to -- so we all have a common understanding. When we talk about pilot, I think we're talking about the implementation time between now and the moment the clearinghouse mechanism is fully operational. Within that duration time, we propose to develop a prototype, which currently does not exist. but would be designed fit for purpose and on the guidance received from the PREPCOM and whatever consultation process that we see forward. And within that, we see basically that kind of pilot phase, basically three steps. One, which is really focusing on discovery, foundation and core build, and that is a phase where We would be looking at a structured review of lessons learned from existing clearinghouse mechanism, particularly the Nagoya Protocol, but also mapping the national workflows of Mgr. reporting and the implications for VCHM design. We would also be looking at the establishment of basic interoperable mechanisms across relevant data infrastructures. and all three deliverables would be produced within the first months and inform subsequent development. In parallel, the phase establishes also technical infrastructure and implement core notification workflows and deliver the SBI minting service that also has been required. So the first functional version would basically be available for structured user testing within this period. The phase two, which basically would be from probably month six to month 12, expands the functionality across all four pillars based on the user feedback that we would be receiving from this first initial phase. The conduct of a structured consultation and testing, as I mentioned earlier, would be also a requirement between COP1 and COP2 to continue improving and adding new functionality to the core minimum viable product. And then they did this last phase, which is basically the validation and consolidation process where we are building on the COP1 feedback, completing a security hardening and all the accessibility audits, validation of interoperability with external systems and basically leading to a fully tested prototype by COP2. So we see really that kind of a two prototypes with the version one prototype, which would be very much, we hope, ready for COP1. And then a second tested version of that prototype finalized for COP2. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. And I guess then when you say system of systems, that's a conceptual a conceptual idea, not necessarily linked to one of the models that were discussed in yesterday's informals in the working group. So there are the model A, which central model B, which is a federated system. while C is an existing platform which retrofit, which no one really spoke to, and hybrid would be an integration of several parts. So just to be clear, what is a system of systems in relation to those models? The floor for IOC UNESCO.

I mean, the minimum viable product will be centralized system, but in the process of developing nodes and interoperability with other systems, it will move into a system of systems approach. The fully tested prototype by COP2 should already have that in mind and Although it doesn't mean that all the interoperability with all these systems will be in place because all the also all the all the other systems need to make sure that they can be interoperable with the central BB&G CHM.

Thank you very much. That was helpful. I don't see any other. Oh, I do see. Well, you can press the button and I did see Van Wouten first for PSIDS. Australia for Kenzie and then I think Japan. So Van Wato for pieces, please go ahead.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair and thank you very much to IOC UNESCO for their very helpful paper. I'm not sure that this question is actually for the piece. It's perhaps more my just a question. So we very much appreciate the paper and to IOC UNESCO for being available to us for questions. And so I had two. The first one is if you could unpack the issue of DOI a bit more. I had been advised that UUID is likely a good way forward for the BBNJ batch identifier. And I think DOI is a little bit different Given that the access and benefit sharing committee will be making recommendations to the COP about Mgr. elements related to the clearinghouse mechanism, including the BBNJ batch identifier, it would be helpful to understand maybe how flexible or changeable DOI might be, or if IOC UNESCO might be thinking of using a different or new system for the DOI. discovery phase of the clearinghouse mechanism. I'm afraid I'm I'm I think it's also considered the prototype. Um And then the second question is if you could please just repeat what you shared about, um, about IOC UNESCO visa via the cop decisions. I think you said that the council would review but just for budgetary implications, but you were a little bit fast there. Um So if you don't mind repeating, thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Vanmotu, do you want to wait to see if there are other questions? Okay, good. Now I forgot my list. Australia for Kenzie.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Pardon me. Just would like to thank Kenzie, would just like to thank IAC for their presentation. and it certainly sounds very interesting to us so we're certainly initially supportive of the work that they offer to do. We think it'll be important and we appreciate the consultation mechanisms that they laid out in terms of workshops and other consultation with the parties between PrepCom 3 and COP1, which we think will be valuable. My understanding, I'm a lawyer so I struggle with technical things, but it seems to us that the proposal seems to be a hybrid approach with elements of option A in the central mechanism and elements of option B with certainly consideration of nodes. So, and that accords with our position. Thank you. So just general supportive and very keen to see how we can progress this. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Bahamas speaking for CARICOM and then.

I'll go to Japan.

Thank you, Chair. And we just wanted to express our thanks to IOC for their presentation today and providing that information to us. And yesterday's meeting, Cara calm had expressed a desire to see some sort of pilot between prep calm.

3 and cop 1, and so we just want to reiterate that today.

With respect to.

IOC's intervention.

We note that you had indicated that a prototype would be built based.

On recommendations and feedback from this PrepCom 3. And we note that the consolidated report had laid out parameters that needed to be clarified in the discovery phase. So we would like to know if there's any more guidance that IOC, given that it's envisioned this prototype already?

On exactly, I suppose, the.

Parameters of the parameters that you would like to see from this PrepCom to facilitate that design.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mohamed. And I will take Japan, and then I'll go back to IOC. Japan, you have the floor.

Okay, thank you, co-chair. And also thank you, IOC, for comprehensive and the detail work of the, I mean, the system analysis. And one thing I'd like to highlight is I think current option, Japan think that we need to further refine. I mean, the, I also propose systems of systems. But during the piloting phase, we need to further refine what kind of option should be suitable for the implementation of BBNJ. So Japan's initial position, yesterday I explained, it's still very difficult to define which option should be at this stage. So I think we need to have a little bit technical discussion on what kind of the options or systems we should have. That kind of technical discussion still we need to have. And it could be the margin or in-home session, if possible. But we need to have some kind of flexibility for IOC to design and develop for the prototype. And the second thing I'd like to highlight during the pilot phase, Japan would like to reiterate, we need to have the early success. So also I understand that there is a budgetary constraint and the implications. Therefore, I mean, at the initial stage, we need to focus on, I mean, the limited functions and the parameters for the early success development. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. CBD representative from CBD Secretariat, can I have IOC UNESCO, I beg your indulgence so I can have IOC UNESCO respond and then I'll come to you and I actually, I don't know where you are, so, oh, there you are. I'll come to you after we have the response. So over to IOC UNESCO.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. So I think there are three main questions that were raised on the DOI, on the governance aspects, and then on the parameters. So I'll take the question on the governance aspects, and my colleague will address the DOI and how we also foresee the issue of consultation for defining some of those parameters. On the decision-making aspects, as I highlighted earlier, we completely understand the concern that the COP decisions must take precedence in all matters of technical development and I believe that we can offer this guarantee. The decisions of a COP will prevail in guiding the technical development. The statutes of the IOC, as I said, also provide a provision be able to respond to requirements from and close over international treaties such as this one. And in a sense, the IOC governing bodies, those are basically the IOC assembly and the executive council, would only look and review the financial implications of the decisions. And this is why also this issue of financing has to be clarified early on so that there's an understanding that the funding that will support the development phase that IOC would potentially implement would have to be fully on a kind of voluntary basis, i.e. not from the IOC regular budget. We certainly also understand that the role of IOC is to execute the technical mandate that would be potentially given to it. It's not to set the policy direction in this context. In other words, I believe that there is no risk of duplication of governance. To the contrary, this function of ours is very much foreseen by our governance through our statutes, through that provision that I referred to. So I'll pass on the floor to my colleague for the DOI and the requirements and definition.

Thank you for the question on the suggestion of a digital object identifier versus a UUID for the SBI, the standardized batch identifier. A DOI is a globally recognized persistent identifier already in use across the scientific and data management community. When a DOI is assigned to a batch of marine genetic resources, three things happen that are directly relevant to the agreement's objectives. First, Anyone, a party, a researcher, a member of the public can look up that identifier and immediately access the associated metadata. What was collected, where, when, and under what conditions. Secondly, when that material is subsequently cited in a scientific publication or referenced in a patent, the citation is automatically captured by the existing global research infrastructure. This means that downstream Utilization becomes traceable as a byproduct of normal scientific practice rather than requiring a separate reporting obligation. Thirdly, the identifier remains valid regardless of any future changes to the CHM's technical infrastructure. It is not tied to any single system or institution. The alternative, a purely internal identifier, would guarantee uniqueness but would not be resolvable outside the CHM. It would not be tractable through existing scientific infrastructure and would require building custom integrations with every external system that needs to reference marine genetic resources. This would be both more costly and more fragile. So in short, the DIY approach leverages infrastructure that already exists and that the scientific community already uses, turning the SBI into a practical tool for benefit sharing accountability rather than an additional administrative layer. Thank you. we can probably put in more details in the written response document as well.

Thank you very much. Yes, I know I've attended workshops on this SBI and it's very overwhelming because of the different types of options there are. But I guess as you mentioned, IOC would be guided in your offer would be guided by COP. guidance. I wish to give the floor to the CBD Secretariat.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair.

First of all, allow me to thank the distinguished delegates who have the relevant work on CHMs under the CBD in their interventions. We also appreciate the statement from IOC-UNESCO for possible collaboration with Nagoya Protocol. In the past three decades, the CBD Secretariat has coordinated the development and implementation of three clearinghouse mechanisms, one for the Convention on Biological Diversity, one for the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing, and one for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, each with their own distinct mandates, objectives, and functional modalities with specific purpose of supporting at operational level the achievement three objectives of the convention namely the conservation of biodiversity the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources I'm elaborating the three objectives of the convention as the CHM has to clearly reflect the details of operation required to achieve these objectives which would be the key to the successful CHM development In view of the limited time available for your deliberation, I will not go into details regarding these CHMs and simply wish to emphasize that we have robust experience on the design, establishment, and operation of CHM in support of multilateral instruments. And during these phases, we have had to address many challenges and gained lessons through not only from successes, but also from failures. You may also encounter similar challenges in the establishment of BBNJ CHM and the CBD Secretariat stands ready to provide further information on our experience and lessons learned in support of your work to operationalize the BBNJ CHM. Thank you.

Thank you very much, colleague from CBD Secretariat. And it sounds like you're making an offer to be a technical partner as well. But I'll leave that for you to clarify. I wish to give the floor to Samoa speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States.

Thank you, co-chair. And thank you to IOC-UNESCO for their presentation. Samoa takes the floor on behalf of AOSIS to share some views on the discussions here today. From the outset, The clearing house mechanism is consistently referred to as the beating heart or the nervous system of the agreement. In order to move to effective implementation of the agreement and the variety of functions assigned to the clearing house mechanism, it is critical that we move swiftly and efficiently to its establishment. Launching a form of pilot or prototype before COP 1 affords us the opportunity to evaluate effectiveness and therefore identity. review and address any gaps in design. This would help facilitate appropriate decision making in COP 1 without having to wait for the second session. As indicated yesterday, EOSIS is in favour of facilitating the development of a pilot or some form that potentially can be stepwise and further developed after the first COP. Without prejudice to the COP having the ability to pursue another approach to design and implementation of the clearinghouse mechanism. It therefore means as we continue to consider the IOC UNESCO proposal or any other proposal that can lead to development of a pilot before COP1, the COP will not be locked into a mechanism that is not fit for purpose and does not serve the parties in line with the principles and scope of the agreement. We have done significant work on the clearinghouse mechanism including the flow chart outlining the extensive functions of the clearinghouse mechanism and the draft study prepared by the consultant, which already does a stocktake on existing mechanisms and repositories and proposes a work plan and roadmap on the technical aspects and consideration for setting up the clearinghouse mechanism. We are therefore at a point where we would be moving forward equipped with this information and research to commence work that can support the timely development of beating heart of the agreement given its relationship with elements across the entire agreement. EOSIS is ready to engage on the full list of parameters as outlined in the study and the draft study. However, we are also prepared to engage in discussions on what key parameters would require agreement to help inform the design of a pilot or prototype of it and its functionality. We would look, we would look to IOC UNESCO, but also look to the consultant to provide insights on this as well. However, from the outset, we are of the view that some key parameters to resolve would be the user role taxonomy, minimum required metadata fields, most of which are set by are set by the agreement, cybersecurity, categories of information and proximity based alert policy. We are also of the view that we need to develop a clearer understanding of how the proposal aligns with what was discussed in the room yesterday. Is there also room for a group of technical partners to do this work? And we look forward to hearing from others as we continue to discuss next steps. I thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Samoa, speaking on behalf of EOSIS. I now give the floor to Mexico, speaking on behalf of CLAM.

Muchas gracias, senora presidenta. El CLAM agradece y tomamos nota de la propuesta de EOSIS. La estamos analizando.

Gracias. No hay traduccion.

Oh, sorry for that. Okay, we thank and we take note of the intervention and the proposal of the IOC. The club is analyzing it and we will consult and we will explore this as a possibility. So we reserve for the moment on that aspect. However, we think that we might be putting the the carriage before the horse in this case, maybe it would be good to carry on with our work and define on the parameters that we need for the current house mechanism before determining who could or might be the technical partner in this sense. So bearing that in mind, I don't know if it would be the moment to carry on with the first question, Madam President. Thank you again. With respect to the first question concerning the feasibility of action, of actually a pilot or beta phase by COP1, our assessment is that this would be only viable if it is clearly understood as a highly limited, minimum viable product. We were thinking of developing phase one and two by COP1, and in a position to start beta phase during COP and the launch following COP2, this is the phase four. We are open to further reflections in this aspect. We would like to note that according to the study, moving from one phase to the other is subject to a decision point. This is flagged in paragraph 134. CLAM has doubts in this aspect on the moment in which passing from phase two to phase two will be approved, bearing in mind that the passing from one to another phase will be taken intercessionally. Turning to a specific question, CLAM sees that a narrowly scoped pilot could provide tangible benefits. It would allow us to test real-world usability rather than just a theoretical design. It would help identify constraints related to access, connectivity, and user support, and it would generate practical evidence to inform decisions prior to full launch. At this, at the same time, this approach entails important trade-offs. In particular, we see a real risk of prematurely locking in design and governance choices that should remain within the competence of the COP. Once certain functionality, once certain functionalities of structures are tested in a live environment, it might become institutionally, operationally, and politically difficult to revisit. Moreover, this could have implications on the way in which certain provisions of the agreements are or be interpreted. Also, we reflect on the possible costs and time effects of this decision in case we need to revisit some aspects. In this regard, we will also welcome further clarification on a key practical question. What would be the cost in financial, time, and operational terms including feasibility of reverting to earlier phases if the COP does not agree with elements tested during the pilot phase. This is essential to proper assess the feasibility. For CAM therefore, any openness to a pilot phase by COP 1 would need to be subject to three clear safeguards. First, that it remains strictly limited in scope. This means to operationalize only those technical aspects envisaged in the agreement; second, that it is fully reversible, allowing a return to earlier phases such as discovery or alpha if needed; and third, that it is conducted without prejudice to decisions to be taken by the COP. I will stop there, Madam President. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mexico, speaking on behalf of CLAM. On that particular question, I'll refer to the consultants to speak about how you can reverse if we're not happy with the product. But let me give the floor to Philippines to see if there are other questions that might come up.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Just Not specifically on those questions, but we also just wanted to convey our support to IOC UNESCO's engagement as technical partner for the clearinghouse mechanism. We also agree on the timeline proposed on having a prototype by COP1 to be pilot tested up to COP2. What's important for us in the Philippines is the inclusion of a capacity building for small islands and developing states. incorporated in the work plan of IOC UNESCO to ensure that all states are able to effectively engage and utilize and contribute to the system as it evolves. At the same time, the Philippines emphasize the importance of meaningful and continuous consultation with the parties. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Philippines. I guess just to be clear, we I did give the floor to IOC, this is for everyone, not just Philippines. I did give the floor to IOC UNESCO because they were requested to provide some further elaboration on their offer, but not because that's the basis upon which we're proceeding. As we heard from Mexico speaking on behalf of CLAM, there are some preliminary steps that we'll probably have to address. including at some point in time, we'll have to determine how we move forward to selecting whatever is the appropriate team to do whatever we decide we need to be done by COP1 and between COP1 and COP2. But thank you very much. What I'm hearing is that there's an interest in having a specific timeline that one could either have the pilot by COP1 or have a prototype that's tested and then a pilot that goes between COP1 and COP2 so that COP2 there's a full launch. So just to be clear on what I've heard. Mexico, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, just to add another clarification that we were seeking in order for IUC maybe could help us here. And this is in line with the question that was raised by Banorte. We would like to know a little bit more of if the DOI would be suitable for use in relation to patents or commercialization. We align with our hosts on the importance of developing a prototype to inform decision making at COP1, provided that COP remains, retains full prerogative to review and modify it as appropriate. Finally, could a system of systems approach entail retrofitting existing systems? Thank you. Those clarifications would be helpful. Thanks.

Thank you very much, Mexico. Let me take China. I'll give the floor to the consultants to respond to your first set of questions, and then I'll revert again to IOC UNESCO with those specific questions as well. China, you have the floor.

Oh, thank you, madam.

Thank you, madam. Co-chair and also think, uh, UNESCO LC give us the offer. And, uh, as we are talking about the deliver models and, uh, China think now the, uh, priority at present is to decide on the approach. Uh, then COP may confirm the key, um, parameters such as the technical and the operational requirements of the CHN and the exercise overall management and the supervision over its development process. So we just want to add this present to give our comments on this topic. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. China, can I offer the floor to the consultant on the other end?

Thank you very much for the opportunity. So I believe the question you wanted me to answer is on the resetting question. So yes, it is possible, but it's almost like building something and then go scratching it and then going back to the discovery phase. So it's there. There's obviously loss of investment and time and going back to where you started. So that's potentially a risk. And also there's a question as to whether you let, for example, if what IOC had produced has to be redone, if IOC would do it or if a separate build team would do it. So there are multiple questions associated with going back to the first step. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Hiroko. And may I offer now the floor to IOC-UNESCO to respond to the questions that were raised specifically regarding to the DOI and the system of systems?

Thank you, Madam Chair. On the first question that was raised, which attend to the issue of DOI, I would ask for your indulgence that we need to actually look into these technical aspects in more depth, but be happy to provide an answer to Mexico. And on the issue raised by Vanuatu on this system of system approach and It's not so much about retrofitting existing systems that would potentially be linked to the core central system. It's really about potentially adding additional functions to existing systems that would actually potentially respond to some of the requirements defined. An example of that could be, for example, existing matchmaking capacity development platform, which could be also leveraged to add on this potential filter around BB&J kind of technical training needs, for example. So that potentially is the way we would look at this. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much, IOC-UNESCO for the response. Colleagues, I think the point that was raised by our colleague from CLAM about trying to get a good sense of the steps that we need to take is where I wanted us to sort of focus our attention. It will help for clarification and understanding the next steps. We began also through Samoa and CLAM to focus on issues relating to specific parameters that might be necessary to have a sense of in order to get to the point where we can maybe even discuss issues around the discovery phase. And that was as well pointed out in paragraph 138 of the of the consolidated draft study. Now, there are a lot of parameters that were indicated there and potentially not all parameters need to be decided at the outset. EOSIS helpfully pointed out five in particular. I'd be interested to hear from delegations if they also have a priority list in terms of the parameters that would be relevant in the scoping phase of the to help the scoping phase of the development of the clearinghouse mechanism. So just so Samoa for EOSIS, if I got it correct, it was the user taxonomy, metadata field, cybersecurity, something else, I didn't write it down, proximity-based alerts, and then there's a fifth one, information. Traditional knowledge? Samoa, please correct me.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. It's just the, so it was user role taxonomy, minimum required, oh sorry, it was cybersecurity categories of information and proximity-based policy alerts. I think you were missing the categories of information. That was the fifth one from us.

Yes, that's correct. Are there any further reflection on specific parameters that are of high priority? I'm mindful that some of you did address some of those yesterday. Senegal, on behalf of the African group.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chairs, Co-Chair for giving me the floor. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the African group. At the outset, the African group would like to thank IOC for the further elaboration that has been made possible today to give us more information on how they see their role as technical partner. These elements will be further considered by the group, which will give its views at a later stage. Now turning to the guiding questions you've asked, Madam Co-Chair, on feasibility, benefits and trade-offs, The African group considered that advancing a better phase by COP1 is both feasible and highly desirable, provided that the necessary preparatory steps are taken immediately after PrepCom 3. On benefits, this approach would allow the delivery of a minimum viable package of functionality, including standardized batch identifiers, core matching function for capacity building and transfer of marine technology, EIA notification workflows, multilingual navigation, low bandwidth and offline continuity tools, and basic alerts with a simple geospatial viewer. The CHM should be built according to the core strength of option B, which is authoritative central hub and decentralized nodes, which directly supports the special requirements of developing states, African countries, and states. by ensuring practical usability, localized support through regional and sub-regional nodes, and equitable access without undue obstacles, as enshrined in Article 51 of the Agreement. This approach would also enable early institutional ownership and user testing in that beta phase. On trade-offs, the beta phase must remain realistic and not aim for full technical maturity from the outset. A compressed timeline risks undermining sustainability if the fully cost implementation pathways is not ready. However, the group believe that the benefit of early functionality far outweigh the risks, especially if the preparatory commission requests a detailing financing and staffing plan broken down by phases and initiate delivery arrangement promptly. Delaying the beta phase would only compress the overall timeline and undermine practical readiness for COP1. Delivering a better version would also inform the COP1 on resources to be allocated to the CHM under regular budget and on any arrangement that should be considered in the first years to allow a coherent development, including with regards to the integration framework and the notes policy. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Senegal, speaking on behalf of the African group. Thank you for outlining the timeline that the group sees. So you're looking at the actual piloting by COP1, as opposed to piloting between COP1 and COP2. And thanks also for highlighting some of the parameters that are critical, as well as reinforcing the point on the model that the group prefers to inform the design phase. I want to now move on to questions about some of the issues that will arise from regardless of which timeline we use if we're doing the pilot by COP1 or if we're doing pilot between COP1 and COP2. get into COP1 will require some discussions between whoever is selected to do the build and basically the parties to the agreement. And I'm interested to find out your views on how you see that relationship working between PrepCom1 and COP1. I did hear from the floor a question about what role do the co-chairs envision during that period of time. We don't have any assumption of roles. Really, it's for the delegations to provide some guidance, recognizing that there will be some highly technical issues that could come up. as well as there could be policy issues, which I'm not quite sure that the co-chairs are empowered to take on behalf of an entire group of state parties to an agreement. So interested to hear your views on that, or if you need a pause to think about it, that's fair enough. But the floor is open. I don't see anyone racing to take the floor, but I think this is something that needs to be contemplated. We do have, there are some issues related to policy that come up with respect to the parameters. So as we've heard from some delegations already, there are some views on what would be required, although there might be some further elaboration on some of those parameters. But there will be there will be a need for interaction in between. Prep com three and cop one. So I think it will be be necessary for us to have a conversation of what that could potentially look like. And it's fair we may not have responses just now, but I think it needs to be flagged that that is going to be an issue. In addition to, of course, questions around financing or resources. So we're back to where we started then, in the sense that we do need to identify clearly what we want for COP1. There's no distinct agreement here. There's this potential, of course, to be to have a more accelerated phase that goes straight to pilot by COP1. And then there is the moderated phase of doing a pilot between COP1 and COP2 with a launch at COP2. In any case, it doesn't sound that the launch would necessarily be at COP1. But to get to that point, there are certain preliminary steps that would have to occur. In our questions yesterday, the question was raised about what would be envisioned in terms of who would take this work forward. Let's assume that we get to a point where we agree to certain parameters. Who would take it forward? We have an offer, of course. There may be other ways to think about it. You have a vendor. Does the secretariat do it? Are there any particular views about questions around who might be able to bring this forward and what does the PrepCom envision about taking the work forward for the phased operationalization of the clearinghouse mechanism. Mexico, speaking on behalf of CLAM.

Thank you so much, Madam President. We will go back a little bit. First, we would like to react to the response given by the consultant. the pilot. I would add. We will add that, of course, there's cost in running and changing then the course of the pilot. But if it If it cannot be changed. What is the point of the pilot, then, uh, only to make minor adjustments is something that we are reflecting in the clam. Um turning back, Madam Chair with the On the parameters of possible pilot phase, CLAM will provide general guidance. We think it's important to have a general view of this. From our perspective, priority should be given to ensuring that the core functionalities of the agreement are operational from the outset. We have some areas where we would like to underscore. First, the effective functioning of components related to MGRs including fair and equitable benefit sharing. Second, the operationalization of matchmaking functions for capacity building and the transfer of marine technology. Third, metadata aligned with agreement, with the agreement itself, user and verification roles, confidentiality, and interoperability, and the ability to ensure coherence and interaction with the work of subsidiary bodies under the agreement itself. These elements, we believe, go to the heart of the mechanism's purpose and should guide any initial operationalization. With respect to your last question on how to decide these policy questions, on the handling of queries from the technical partner between PrepCom 3 and COP 1, CLAM sees merit in a pragmatic arrangement, whereas where the co-chairs together with the secretariat, in this case, the interim secretariat, dualos, can address technical questions to ensure continuity and efficiency. And for questions that might carry policy implications during the pilot phase, CLAM was considering in showing flexibility so that the co-chairs possibly in consultations with the Bureau, can address them. For CLAM, it's very important to maintain a clear distinction so that the technical processes do not inadvertently substitute or preempt intergovernmental decision-making. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Mexico. Can I give the floor to the consultants, and then I'll come to the other speakers?

Thanks for the questions regarding the phase approach and ensuring that we stay in line with the philosophy of iterative approach. So, to be clear, it's not that we can't adjust. In fact, I think that's the right approach when it comes to building a platform. It's more that the consultant report when we wrote the phases, what it does is it allows for those types of check ins to happen early and often. so that you don't get to phase three building something that you wouldn't expect to work. So phase one already has a discovery phase that should have the appropriate check-ins and oversight from an external party to the build team. And that allows for things to be built in the pilot phase that you know already works. So that's the approach that we recommended to take in order to get this to the pilot phase without surprises like that.

Thank you very much. Erin, may I give the floor to United Kingdom?

Thank you. Also jumping back somewhat, the UK would also like to express its thanks to IOC-UNESCO for the presentation and to say that the UK is ready to engage. We welcome the clarity on the consultation processes that they set out in the presentation on workshops testing. and also support the 18 month pilot prototype timeline ambition and also think that that's achievable. Just picking up on the point raised by yourself and others in the room, we are reflecting on how the ongoing consultation processes would be facilitated between now and COP1 and then going forward and would like to sort of put a query into the room as to whether there could be a role for DUALOS in facilitating this between member states and technical partners.

Thank you very much, United Kingdom. And please, for your reactions as well. Japan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, yesterday, Japan a little bit mentioned how to proceed this work and the, I think clearing house mechanism development is type of the hybrid project. And one pillar, the database development part is agile project. And evidence gathering, like the lesson learned of the existing clearing house mechanism, mapping a national workflow, and also refining a scope is kind of the so-called waterfall type. That can be-- waterfall type can be designed in the time sequence. And I think it should be parallel. Basically, we need to have the discussion with the technical partner, like the IOC and the also country partner. But we need to be think it is parallel. And I think waterfall part, it's a sequence part. We need to have consultative work with the support of the in-house coordination with the Dwaros. And I understand software development cannot be go back, maybe in the later stage. But if it is early stage, agility type project, software development, I assume it can be go back with getting more information from waterfall part. So that kind of the arrangement we need to discuss whether it is feasible or not feasible. And if it is feasible to feedback from the, I mean, some consultancy work to the development of the database, we should go with that. That kind of idea we need to be discussed. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Can I ask the consultants to just reflect on that point, please?

Sure. Thank you so much. So as Aaron was saying, the whole purpose of the phased approach is that in each phase there is a consultation process. So the idea of some functions not working would be sorted out in each phase with engagement with stakeholders. So do you want to add some more? So it is an iterative approach. I think it does align with what everyone is saying, that it's not just one prototype made and that's it without consultation.

Thank you very much. Okay, so we've thank you very much for that intervention as well. I think Clem, has indicated a role for the secretary and the co-chairs with some functions also with the Bureau. And UK and the United Kingdom and Japan have also indicated some role for the Wallace. It would be helpful to hear other views on what might be a mechanism for consultations during during the period from PrepCom 3 to COP1. Samoa on behalf of AOSIS, followed by European Union.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. As stated earlier, we are of the view that there is significant benefit in developing a pilot or prototype of sorts. It's clear that there are some questions remaining and issues to consider, including on the proposal from IOC-UNESCO. Also, as suggested by CLAM, we should try to resolve those key parameters needed for the functionality as a blueprint of sorts for the pilot or prototype before deciding on the appropriateness of any proposal on the table. We would also look to Dualos. as managing queries from any potential technical partner or partners between PrepCom 3 and COP1, and would inquire on the possibility of this. In terms of what the forms of continued discussions or engagement might look like to advance work, we think a technical partner is certainly needed to help facilitate the prototype. However, we cannot decide that unless we see progress in those areas, we have not discussed fully yet or clarified. We see inclusive and transparent consultations as an important tool to this process. This can also involve the co-chairs to oversee the process. Finally, in terms of a phased approach, we may consider whether the prototype will seek to deliver all functions or a suite of functions. that can be agreed here. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Samoa speaking on behalf of EOSIS. And I do hear the request to at least I like the word that you use, but I know I get nervous about saying any word in this very technical discussion, but the blueprint, that can go to the whoever ends up building this thing. And then, of course, looking at the need for this, what facilitates that iterative approach that's envisioned within the various phases. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you very much. Trying to give some help and we would like to support the delegation but just express the idea that there would be a role for the secretariat and the co-chairs and possibly for the Bureau also to be consulted with our Member State. This is a preliminary ideas that we are having, but we fully trust the capacity of the co-chairs and the secretariat to have and to lead inclusive and transparent consultation in the intersessional period. We believe that the choice is to be made between having something working for PrepCom 1, where many delegations asked for it yesterday, and still being in a phase of design at COP1, sorry. We are also very open to have discussion on the key parameters. As we said yesterday, we have flexibility on this. Thank you.

Thank you, European Union. I can't wait to tell Adam about the potential role of the co-chairs on this very technical issue. I'm curious to know the Wallace's reaction right now, but appreciate these views. That is entirely in jest, but sometimes maybe you need a little light moment so that you release some pressure. But that's helpful again to hear this interest in seeing a role for the Wallace, potentially the co-chairs and potentially the bureau, certainly something that we could come to. But clearly there still needs to be a little bit more plumbing in the beginning, in the first part around, you know, what exactly would be that, that the model that would be pushed forward and the parameters that would be needed in order for any, any build team to, to take forward our ideas. It's also very clear that we want something going at COP1, whether that is still in the prototype phase or in the pilot phase. And I'm using, I heard IOC-UNESCO's framing of what prototype is. I'm just using what I have as a basis, which is the technical, the consolidated study. So whether or not we're doing the beta or the alpha, we clearly want to have something by COP1. I'll give the floor to Australia for Kansi and then I'll go over to Vietnam.

Thank you, Chair. Just coming a little late to the party, like several speakers before us, Kansi also thinks the co-chairs and DOALOS could have a role in the ongoing consultation process with the developer, as could the Bureau as necessary. Engagement with the parties is important and could also be facilitated with meetings as necessary. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Australia, Vietnam, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor. So we would like to emphasize the importance of this mechanism in the implementation of the agreement, particularly in helping bridge the knowledge gap between the developed and developing countries by improving access to information on marine biodiversity in the area beyond national jurisdiction. Overall, The consolidated draft study provide a comprehensive overview of the operationalization of the clearinghouse mechanism. We remain flexible with the proposed timeline and we engage in a constructive dialogue to see how it's progressed. At present, concerning the key parameters for the clearinghouse mechanisms, we would like to make two points. First, we emphasize the importance of allowing the parties not only to submit data information, but also to amend the submission after filing, including by deleting files or attaching additional materials prior to its publication or inclusion in the database. Second, we underscore the need for a flexible and accessible and user-friendly data extraction function to facilitate reporting for example, by allowing user to download information from the database in report format or as a chart and graph so that the data can be more easily used and analysed. So we will continue to consult with our technical expert to determine whether we wish to provide further comment at a later stage. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I'm not going to push you to say anything more, but if you Indonesia, and then I have an observer. Indonesia, you have the floor.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to add some reflection in the discovery phase, and then going to comment about potential role of the co-chair. For institutional oversight, Indonesia emphasizes that, well, technical expertise is required from external sources and the secret that must remain its central mandate to manage the mechanism under article 51 of the agreement. This ensures that in the development of the HSM remain a party led process and some reflection on the pace approach in the the best one discovery. we'd like to highlight about key technical activities in the phase one. During this phase, the delivery team, secretariat and expert is tasked with confirming end-to-end workflows for how information will be submitted, reviewed and accessed, identifying critical constraints such as the infrastructure challenges, local connectivity environment specifically highlighted by Indonesia as critical for archipelagic state. Confirming context-specific operating requirements, including security and confidentiality standards necessary for sensitive data. Defining functionalities for initial operationalization. Recording policy-dependent parameters. Clarifying the role and responsibility of both automated systems and human administrators. Establishing standards for interoperability to support the linking of information across external systems. And for potential roles of the co-chair, as the question of the co-chair, the co-chair provide the high level of political and procedural guidance necessary to ensure that technical work remain party-led and transparent. The role including leadership appointment, expert selection, operational oversight, that providing overarching guidelines to in the informal group and receiving regular progress updates from the co-facilitator. And as for potential roles of the dualos, their role include nomination management, technical support, maybe pace management, confirming that acceptance criteria have been met at each state of PACE operationalization, for example, confirming the completion of the PACE 1 before moving to PACE 2 alpha or maybe before between the PrepCom 3 to COP1. And then consultation facilitation, conducting targeted consultation with each geographical specific area, institutional coordinating and project management. I think that's all. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Indonesia, and look forward to seeing your statement. I wish to give the floor to Singapore.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. We align this intervention with that made by Samoa on behalf of EOSIS. Unfortunately, I'm also one of the lawyers in this room, and I'm not able to contribute to the technical aspects of the discussion, but instead, what we were thinking about is even if the Prep Com enables or gives the co-chairs and DUALOS the mandate to interface with a technical partner in the period between Prep Com 3 and COP 1, how will we determine which technical partner the co-chairs and or DUALOS would interface with? Unless PrepCom comes up with a decision to, as IOC UNESCO suggested, formally recognize somebody, a body as the technical partner, I'm afraid we are not able to see how a technical partner would be able to come up with a prototype by way of a minimum viable product in time for COP1. without funding being given to them or without a specific mandate that they need, that a technical partner would, any technical partner would need for them to do their work on creating the prototype by way of a minimum viable product. It seems that what PrepCom is in a position to do is to come up with the parameters, as you say, to design or come up with a blueprint of sorts so that any technical partner, whoever that is, can look at it and think, oh, this is what the COP wants to have at the end of the day, right? So instead of, okay, so we can come up with the parameters, we can come up with the blueprint, but I wonder whether we are able by the end of these two weeks to formally designate and recognize somebody as the technical partner for them to do their work between now and COP1 in January. Instead, could we be open to there being an invitation to any interested technical partners and that be an open invitation for purposes of transparency and inclusivity for any technical partners to on their own funding create that prototype for presentation to COP1 and that is for COP1 to then go through the considerations of the merits of each prototype that's being put up and then think, okay, this is this, this technical partner, this prototype, and then we will go forward through the discovery phase, et cetera, through alpha beta, et cetera, as Hiroko and Aaron have laid out for us. So I'm just thinking in terms of the process that would lead us to taking the eventual decision as COP on the technical partner. and the eventual model that we build. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Singapore. Like you, I'm also a lawyer, and when I start hearing terms like technical partner and I read the consolidated study, I have a different definition of a technical partner as opposed to one that's actually building the platform. So that's a further complication that maybe the consultants might be able to address. However, I would highlight that there are really good points that have been raised that are helpful, and I think we'll need to find a way to have another type of dialogue around some of these issues. So the first one is identifying the blueprint that would be sort of what gives guidance to whoever's building and whoever's advising. We've heard several ideas of models, and we might need to narrow that down, or it's subject to what the consultants might be able to guide us, whether or not there are some agility to those models between A, B, and hybrid. the next thing, of course, would be identifying what happens once we have that blueprint and how, as Singapore pointed out, how do we get to the point that someone's actually going to be able to develop, whether it's a prototype or whatever it is that we're aiming for, for COP1. If we do an invitation, we probably have to do a procurement process to get someone or otherwise there can be an invitation to get someone. But there's also the potential to have technical partners who could also support it, as you pointed out. Then there is the process of consultations. Many have already said, well, we see a role for dual as well. We see a role for co-chairs as well. We see a role for bureau. That's another area we might want to just have a little bit more dialogue around so that that could be understood. And of course, finally, the timeline relative to the phases that I'm going to refer to either we're getting into an alpha or a beta in COP1. So those are a couple things that I've taken away from this discussion. I know we have to wrap up in 10 minutes. I'll give the floor to High Seas Alliance and then if there's any particular issues that the consultants might want to flag for us, I'd offer them the floor. High Seas Alliance, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll be brief. We're encouraged by the resounding support for PrepCom 3 to initiate a process to build a prototype or pilot phase. We welcome the consultants clarification and the intervention of Japan clarifying that indeed the purpose of all phases is to be iterative and learn. And we recommend a timeline that would allow progress to phase three better by COP1. On the process, as others, we see DUALOS in consultation with the co-chairs as the natural fit to execute the next steps, which could be split into, on the one hand, facilitating intersessional consultation with States and stakeholders, and two, on the other hand, contracting the technical partner. To Singapore's intervention, we wonder if an instruction to DUALOS could include modalities on selecting the technical partner.

Thank you.

High Seas Alliance and finally just give it to the given the floor to the consultant to provide any if you wish to flag any issue for us thanks

sure the So I think there are various ways to look at this. So there could be a separate build team that engages with technical partners. IOC has proposed as a technical partner, CBD has proposed as a technical partner. There may be other IFBs that want to propose their support as a technical partner or a technical partner such as IOC could be the build team. And so there could be different configurations.

And I can elaborate on that. I am actually not a lawyer, so maybe one of the only engineers in the room. And so hopefully this is understandable. the basis for a good partnership in order to build a platform is really between a build team that has the expertise in the engineering with a stakeholder that has an expertise in the domain. And then that translation is the key part for making this platform a success. So we wouldn't expect a build team to know every aspects of the BBNJ or the terms of reference, but we would expect them to know what questions they need answered in order to successfully build a platform that meets those requirements. So that translation by a technical partner is the key aspect. that would need to be uh has like has a role to be filled um by by doing the translation

and I would add that the purpose of the study we we try to balance that approach so it's it's it's was drafted to inform a potential build team as well as the um the parties the policy makers to understand what the potential political questions may be so it's it's supposed to be to serve both in a way. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thanks for responding. Thank you to IOC for also elaborating and responding to the many questions. Thank you all for your engagement. I outline a couple issues that we need to have some further dialogue around in order to better understand where we come out of this PrepCom 3 with a clear directive towards accelerating work for the operationalization of the clearinghouse, the phased operationalization of the clearinghouse mechanism. So thank you very much. Please stay in your seats. We will convert to a plenary meeting for the presentation from Chile. Suspend for five minutes? Yes, suspend for a few minutes. May I invite Chile to come to the podium?

Play song, Sridevi. Play all songs of CID. Play song, 'Sridevi'. Play song, Manoj Kumar.

Distinguished delegates, we shall now proceed to hear the presentation from the delegation of Chile of its offer to host the seat of the Secretariat established under Article 50 of the Agreement. The delegation of Chile will have 20 minutes for its presentation. This will be followed by a 10 minute question and answer segment during which the delegation of Chile will respond to questions that other delegations may wish to raise. An additional 12 to 15 minutes may be used by Chile if needed to ensure parity amongst the candidate states, given that yesterday we exceeded the allocated time for the presentation by China. I am now delighted to invite Ambassador Claudio Garrido, Deputy Permanent Representative of Chile to the United Nations and Charg d'Affaires, and Ms. Jimena Alcaidega, Head of Oceans and Biodiversity at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile, to deliver the presentation. The floor is yours.

Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, colleagues and friends of the ocean. On behalf of Chile, I am pleased to present in this plenary our offer to host the Secretariat of BB&J agreement in the Port of Valparaiso. As a overview of our presentation, we will start with the principle that underlies our vision for the Secretariat that the last generation agreement such as BB&J deserve. Then, We will address why Chile and why Valparaiso should be the seat for the Secretariat. Finally, we'll go in further detail on the components of our offer, including privilege and immunities, administrative facilitation, and the main features of our proposed location. The principles that move us, our vision for the Secretariat. For Chile, the BB&J Secretariat should be efficient, accountable, inclusive, transparent and party-driven. Efficiency in the discharging of its function and accountable before the parties, maximizing synergy for the benefit of the membership while ensuring due oversight. Inclusiveness at all levels is entailed not only internal inclusiveness on the recruitment processes, but also regarding parties and stakeholders. Transparency is critical guiding principle for the multiple mandate that BBNJ carry out. Finally, Chile advocate for the party-driven secretariat, reaffirming that are the parties and no other agendas which shall enlight the action of the secretariat. Why Chile? Our proposal is sustained in three big pillars. First, the longest standing commitment of Chile with the Law of the Sea. Since the declaration of Santiago in 1952, which provide the basis for the 200 nautical mile recognized as economic exclusive zone, Chile has been actively shaping the present and future of the Law of the Sea. Second, a responsible offer with higher standard venue and services. In this regard, Chile has a long-standing experience in hosting regional UN offices and international conferences. Since the 60s, Chile has been the seat of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, ECLAC, as well as the regional office for FAO. Also, as many of you remember, in 2015, our country hosted the second version of our ocean conference, precisely in Valparaiso. Such know-how is supported by our commitment to adequately fund the proposal with resources for the establishment of the secretariat in Valparaiso. Third, Chile represent a physically and digitally well-connected alternative for the global south perspective. We are a pluralist society based in a liberal democracy, member of OECD since 2010, with economy open to the world. Our global connection is more than physical. to multiple daily direct flight to various destination around the world. Chile is fully integrating the digital era. Thanks our technology and neutrality, we have one of the fastest internet in the world. Valparaiso has the third place in internet speed connection to multiple submarine cables including under development Google Humble connection connecting Latin America with Australia and the Pacific Island. and the provision of multiple administrative and financial services just a one click away, including real time banking transfers, online insurance, and multiple certificates, and of course, fully digital BB&J visa. Since the very beginning, Chile Offshore count with the widest support at all level, from the central government to civil society, including local government, parliament, and academia. or March 2023, Chile announced its candidacy to the host of the BBNJ Secretariat, reaffirming the message in June that year during the historic adoption of the agreement. Since then, we were being actively working with governmental authorities, Congress representatives and civil society on wider support for this dream. A dream that gained even more traction after the unanimous ratification of BB&J by our national congress, leading us to become the second country in the world and the first in Latin America to become a party of the agreement. We have been sharing our proposal, but overall hearing and taking into account your valuable input during the last two years. Our delegation has also been a reflection of our vision, ample participation with close regional representation for government, parliament, academia, indigenous people, and local communities. In addition, we have been stressing coordination and exchange with civil society, university, and governmental entities all together to work BB&J Secretariat in Valparaiso. In this regard, Chile is prepared to provide first rate scientific and technical support to the work of the Secretariat. Our academia is among the top ten publisher worldwide of ocean science in BB&J with seven dedicated center for diverse area of marine science and more than 20 university developed marine teaching and research. Four scientific vessel included the largest eye breaker even built in South America as well as multiple programs on joint scientific cruise demonstrate the active engagement of our country in South South cooperation on marine research. We already contribute in kind in several international organization for sound and robust scientific for informed decision making and progress of our population. Now let me pass the floor to my colleagues in charge of the ocean affairs of the our Minister of Foreign Affairs. Thank you.

Thank you, Claudio. Moving on with our agenda, I will now explain why Valparaiso should be seat for the BB&J Secretariat. Valparaiso offers a strategic location with seamless international connectivity via direct flights through the Santiago airport, just a short drive away. Operating in the same time zone as New York, it provides an ideal environment for real-time global collaboration. The region boasts a world-class infrastructure, including modern hospitals, prestigious international schools, and robust banking services. This is all complemented by a relatively low cost of living and a privileged lifestyle where you are steps away from the Pacific coast and within easy reach of world renowned vineyards, the Andes and premier ski centers. Now I will introduce you our offer. We aim for full operational functionality for the Secretariat. its officials and their families by providing a world class headquarters at our own expense. Our proposal offers a tailored framework of privileges and immunities aligned with the COP decisions, safeguarding the secretariat's independence and efficiency. To further support staff, Chile provides a streamlined administrative facilitation, including the B, B, and D visa, for easy entry and the legal right for spouses and dependents to undertake paid work. These features establish Valparaiso as a premier family friendly duty station with the New York aligned working hours, access to top tier international schools and hospitals and a high quality of life right next to the sea. Chile offers the ideal balance for a globally recruited workforce. Regarding privileges and immunities, Chile's position to offer an ample and robust framework, regardless of the institutional regime for the secretariat to be decided by the parties. Chile remains fully flexible and respectful of decisions adopted by the COP in this matter. thereby ensuring the necessary legal safeguards for the secretariat's independent and efficient operation. Chile is prepared to incorporate the various scenarios and categorizations discussed throughout the three PrepCom sessions. and is open to accommodating international instruments such as the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations as the COP deems appropriate. Regarding administrative facilitation, Chile recognizes the importance of tailored arrangements for both permanent and transitory staff. To this end, we offer a comprehensive support package, including the legal right for spouses and dependents to undertake paid work and the validation of driver licenses. For all participants, including those from state parties of several states and experts on missions, Chile remains flexible in providing any additional facilitation the COP deems appropriate, with a steadfast commitment to the expedited issuance of visas. Finally, reflecting our deeply rooted democratic values, we ensure that all members of the secretariat feel at home and protected by law. Regarding the expedited issuance of visa, Chile emphasized that effective and inclusive participation in international meetings depends on seamless entry processes. While a vast number of countries already benefit from our reciprocal visa waiver agreements, Chile is fully committed to providing a dedicated BB&J visa. This specialized category represents more than just a fast-track timeline. It is a fully and free digital process that eliminates the need for consulate visits or in-person interviews. We are committed to a close partnership with the BB&J Secretariat to ensure that all participants can secure their documentation efficiently and without barriers. Having outlined our institutional commitments, we invite you to explore the physical home of the BB&J Secretariat. Chile is proud to offer a world-class heritage building as the permanent home for the BB&J Secretariat. Spanning 11,000 square meters of flexible space, the venue is ideally suited for modern offices, high-level conference rooms, and specialized facilities. Designed as a sustainable and smart building, it combines historic prestige with future-ready technology. The location ensures full connectivity with Valparaiso, its surrounding areas, the capital, and the international airport. To ensure an immediate start, Chile is committed to fast track construction timelines and will provide at our own expense temporary office space to allow the Secretariat to become fully functional from day one. And Valparaiso serves as a high speed global getaway, offering seamless international access through Santiago International Airport. Our network provides mostly daily direct flights to major hubs across the Americas, Europe, and Oceania, ensuring maximum flexibility for international travel. For delegates traveling from Asia and Africa, efficient one-stop connections through these global hubs ensure a smooth and reliable journey to the Secretariat. This deep integration with a world class international airport ensures that BBNJ Secretariat remains connected to every corner of the globe, facilitating the inclusive and continuous participation of all state parties. The city of Balfaraiso offers seamless and affordable multimodal access perfectly integrated the secretariat with the city, the region and the world. Located at the heart of the regional transit network, the headquarters sits between two metro stations at either end of Baron Park, providing rapid links to major cities across the province. We dedicate bicycle lines and public transit right at the doorstep, staff benefit from sustainable local mobility. Furthermore, major highways provide direct, efficient routes to the Santiago International Airport and the capital, ensuring the BB&J Secretariat remains globally accessible through mostly daily direct flights and optimized international connections.

Besides, the secretariat in.

Valparaiso offers a level of predictability and affordability that stands in refreshing contrast to other global hubs. Situated just 90 minutes from Santiago International Airport, the community is supported by the dedicated airport shuttle service for just $5 to $10. For those accustomed to the New York experience, this offers a significant logistical upgrade. While a journey from Manhattan to JFK can be a high stakes race against unpredictable two hours traffic and one hand taxi first, the connection to Valparaiso is defined by consistency. With high frequency buses departing from Santiago every 10 to 15 minutes, Chile ensures that the only thing extra about your travel is the scenic view, not the time or the cost. Now we are moving from logistics to the physical seat. Situated directly on the coastline, you will find Byron Park and its centerpiece, the historic Simon Bolivar Warehouse. This is a space where history meets the future of ocean governance. The project features 11,000 square meters of flexible state-of-the-art workspace designed to adapt to the secretariat's evolving needs. The layout is strategically strategically organized into three main functional segments. First, integrated office suites, ample and modern workspace optimized for collaboration and focused administrative tasks. Second, the grand distribution hall, A double level volume that houses the primary security checkpoints and reception desk, ensuring a secure and efficient flow for delegates and visitors. And the modular auditorium, a cutting edge facility designed for versatile configurations. Its modular nature allows for simultaneous meeting of subsidiary bodies or a single unified space for plenary sessions. Tili offers a sustainable and smart design headquarters engineered to meet the highest environmental and technological standards. Looking toward the future, the building is uniquely scalable to 22,000 square meters. Its structural design allows for a seamless expansion into a two-story configuration, ensuring that the BBNJ Secretariat has a permanent home that can evolve alongside the growth of global ocean governance. Chile's proposal follows a fit-for-purpose modular configuration, designed to grow organically alongside the organization. We recognize that a newly established secretariat does not need floor after floor of empty unused space. Instead, our approach provides a tailored environment that matches the BBNJ's current scale while offering the immediate potential for expansion. This strategic layout significantly reduce maintenance and operational costs, ensuring that the treaty's budget is prioritized for BV&J objectives, expert staff, and effective and inclusive participation, rather than maintaining unnecessary square footage. And the secretariat measures The building's flexible design allows for a seamless two-story expansion, providing a permanent home that is always the right size for its global mission. The layout features modular, soundproof meeting rooms that can be easily reconfigured to accommodate both private negotiation and larger training sessions. Strategic architectural choices such as thermal efficient materials and optimized natural lighting create a self-sustaining climate smart environment. This minimizes the building's carbon footprint and slashes maintenance overhead, ensuring that the BBNJ's operational budget is spent on its missions. not on utility bills. Besides, the project features ample multi-use spaces that seamlessly adapt to various diplomatic functions. Chile's proposal goes beyond efficiency to offer a welcoming and inclusive work environment rooted in universal design and 360 degrees inclusivity, ensuring full accessibility and comfort for all delegates and staff. Our architectural vision centers on a welcoming and inclusive work environment that transcends traditional office design. Through integrated biophilic design and the use of sustainable novel materials, the facility is envisioned not merely as a workspace, but as a high performance hub for increasing demands of the ocean governance. Every space is optimized to support seamless daily operation, ensuring a high performance environment for both permanent staff and transient delegations. Chile is committed to delivering a premier institutional seat that mirrors the global significance of the BB&J agreement. Our proposal ensures operational continuity and diplomatic inclusivity by providing ample dedicated spaces for regional groups and constituencies. To guarantee the Secretariat begins its missions without delay, Chile will implement fast track construction timelines for the permanent headquarters while simultaneously providing and funding temporary office space for the immediate installation of staff. By covering all associated costs until the permanent facility is completed, Chile offers a solution that prioritizes the agreement's objectives from day one. The facility features a state-of-the-art modular auditorium with a total capacity for 200 participants, specifically engineered to support the subsidiary bodies meetings. Its versatile design allows for a seamless partition into two independent rooms. enable parallel sessions of 100 people each without acoustic interference. As you can see, the seat does not end in its walls. It is integrated in the bottom park, 11 hectares consecrated to the recovery of the coastal border of Aparaiso. For Chile, a treaty dedicated to the ocean deserves to be immersed in it. The Baron Park offers to delegates and officials an space for that permanent connection with the ocean, a friendly reminder of our global mission. Finally, for Chile, Establishing the seat in Valparaiso is an act of institutional coherence. In these surroundings, you will find a city that lives by and for the sea, a community whose identity is inextricably linked to the ocean we seek to protect. This environment is not just a backdrop. It is a constant reminder of our shared responsibility. We invite you to embark with us on this journey, anchored in a city that breathes the spirit of the BB&J. But we don't just want to tell you about our vision. We want you to experience it and collaborate to make our dream come true. Please join us a brief virtual tour of the future home of the BB&J Secretariat.

Thank you.

Music.

Muchas gracias. We now invite Ambassador Claudio Carido and Ms. Ximena Alcahuega to respond to questions asked by delegations Could you please indicate a desire to take the floor in the usual way? Please, okay. I see the European Union to be followed by Colombia and Vietnam. European Union.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for the presentation. European Union and its member states are very interested in the clearinghouse mechanism because we think that this is really a powerhouse of the BBNJ agreement. So we wanted to ask you How you envisage secretariat's management of the clearinghouse mechanism long-term sustainability, accessibility to data, information accessibility and confidentiality of data? And in case of this secretariat, would the proposal allow for governance model in which the secretariat ensures coordination and management for the clearinghouse mechanism while underlying data infrastructure is facilitated by an internationally trusted institution. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much. I didn't know that this was like at your own wheel here. Oh, this is amazing. You have a lot of power. Oh, thank you so much for your question. In this regard, in the first place, it's quite important for us to say that even if we have a national capacity, we are working through our regional group, which is CLAM, you're already here on the positions on the floor, but of course, our position as offering, as a bidder of this proposal, of course, is collaborate in anything that the secretariat needs under the guidance of the Conference of the Party. which means you, regarding the effective implementation of the agreement and in particular regarding implementation of the clearinghouse mechanism. I know this is not a full answer regarding specific modalities, but what I try to underscore with this response is that we are here to serve the Secretariat, to support the independency of the Secretariat and support the parties. on the way that the parties decide to actually implement the BB&J agreement. As a host country, our intention is not to interfere in the decisions that the COP takes regarding how you as parties decide to implement the agreement, including the clearinghouse mechanism. Say that Chile could provide several multiple technical elements that could actually could support the effective implementation of the clearinghouse mechanism in this regard on technical requirements and particularly on confidentiality uh we are super proud that since January 2nd 2026 Just this year, we start with our new cyber security agency in Chile. The National Cyber Security Agency is now aligned with the top tier standards on cyber security, and we hope that those elements could serve not only for our domestic air regulations, but also for the Clean House Mechanism framework that this and COP decide that and guided by the parties on this regard. So thank you so much for the question because we are here to serve, but we pretty much think that we are here in your hands open to collaborate in everything that you need to actually make words what you decide. Thank you.

I thank you and I now give the floor to Colombia to be followed by Vietnam and the Marshall Islands. Colombia.

Thank you, Co-Chair. In the name of CLAM, we would like to express our thanks to our fellow CLAM member, Chile, for the presentation. However, CLAM would like to express its concern that it was not possible to give this presentation to be delivered in its official language, which is one of the six official languages of the UN. As strong supporters of multilingualism, CLAM is concerned that this situation may create unequal conditions among candidates.

Thank you.

I thank Colombia on behalf of CLAM, and I give the floor to Vietnam.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The delegation of Vietnam thanks Chile for its detailed and informative briefing. and notes with appreciation its proposal to host the secretariat in Vientiane, Laos. As a developing coastal state, Vietnam attaches importance to the secretariat that is transparent, inclusive, accountable, efficient and party-driven, as emphasized in Chile's proposal. In this spirit, We also view Chile's offer as a meaningful demonstration of the commitment of developing country to contribute more actively to the BBNJ process. Vietnam will continue to engage constructively as discussions move forward and with a view to facilitating its further consideration by the PEPCOM and subsequently by COP1, we would welcome further and elaboration on the liaison arrangement between Papua New Guinea and my other major transit hubs in Americas and beyond, as well as on the capacity of conference facilities, accommodation options for delegation and any plans for onsite support services. I thank you.

Thank you so much. In the first place, thank you so much, Colombia, on behalf of CLAM, for raising this quite important point. Regarding Vietnam's intervention, thank you so much to distinguished delegation of Vietnam for your kind comments and thank you so much for these elements that you put on the table here because it's actually part of the constructive work that we are trying to do here at the PrepCom. It could be part of the probably intercessional work that we need to take formally on and formally away and of course regarding what we will need to decide as parties of the agreement during the conference. the parties next year. So in that regard, without prejudice, the decisions that of course the parties of the agreement should take under the COP, we would like to stress that Chile is in full disposition to contribute with all the information that you need regarding those elements as conference services, accommodation delegation, among others. And we would like to bring to hear as Ambassador Garrido already said, Chile has already a lot of experience working with regional United Nations organizations, for example, ECLAC, FAO, ILO, et cetera. Several of their offices are based on Chile, so we already have host country agreements in place and we already being hosted several international conference in our country and we have quite a lot of experience on how we actually could contribute to realize whatever decision that the COP decides in this regard. So we would like just to underscore here that we are willing to work together and of course to offer the strongest assurances that you could have a smooth facilitations of any kind of process that it will could be conducted in Chile thank

you thank you before I turn to the Marshall Islands I'd just like to give the floor to the Secretariat just to respond to the very important point raised by Colombia on behalf of clan Vladimir the floor is yours

thank you thank you go chair so Unfortunately, distinguished delegates, as you would recall from the second PREP COM, this week was according to us on the understanding that the interpretation will be provided on as if available basis. We have been in constant contact with our colleagues from the DGACM. We had an understanding that this meeting would be given priority should any services be available. And that was happening. We have been working hard. However, I was yesterday informed by the head of the interpretation services that they were not able to complete some teams because of many interpreters are actually on sick leave. And that's the fact of life. There are no capacity. There is no capacity. This week is busy, extraordinary busy. And notwithstanding our best efforts and our colleagues in interpretation and DGAS in best efforts, we are simply no capacity to cover that and we well we have to take it we have to accept it as it is as I as you know the Secretariat is very much attached to multilingualism as you are thank you

Can I also just say from the perspective of the co-chairs, DUALOS's efforts in regard to this and to ensure interpretation for all three presentations has been absolutely unstinting and complete and has been very much aware of the desirability in every effort has been made by DUALOS in that regard. I'll give the floor to the Marshall Islands. Marshall Islands, floor is yours.

Thank you, co-chair. As a fellow Pacific state, the Republic of the Marshall Islands expresses our sincere thanks to Chile for its gracious offer to host the BBNJ secretariat and for its detailed presentation for its bid. RMI is strongly committed to the swift implementation and long-term durability of the BBNJ. For this reason, we would be grateful to understand more detail on Chile's plan for negotiation of the host country agreement and the steps that it will take to ensure its long-term commitment to support the Secretariat, including the clearinghouse mechanism, for many decades to come.

Thank you.

Thank you so much to the distinguished delegation of the Marshall Islands. Just before to go to your question, I just would like to thank to the co-chairs and the secretariat for your efforts. We know that we are having here a liquidity crisis and we know that sometimes we need to face that we cannot get all that we want. I'm sorry, I already forgot the Rolling Stones songs. I'm really bad with that, but sorry, I'm really bad with lyrics. But coming back with serious here, and we got in the host country agreement, we are super flexible in this. And again, we are on your hands as parties of the agreement. on which what you need, we can accommodate wherever institutional agreement that you decide. And when I say whatever institutional agreement that you decide for the secretariat is, if you want to pursue a fully UN integrated secretariat, we already have host country agreements with the United Nations. So we could actually follow pretty much the same pathway there. If you are going for a standalone secretariat, a fully independent autonomous model, we all actually have and also a lot of experience on that regard because we were actually having in our country hosting meetings from not UN linked organizations. For example, last year in January, we have their meeting of the SPREMO, the South Pacific Regional Management Organization in Chile. We are usually having different meetings from the Antarctic System Treaty, so we already have experience on both of those borders of the huge spectrum of a variety of options that the COP could decide. So as we expressed before, Chile is here to serve. We could actually accommodate which decision that you decide and we are open to engage on those discussions. And we have the flexibility in our legal framework to accommodate those positions. So in such regard, including, for example, the CHM, we actually have several elements that could strengthen, always under the guidance of the Conference of the Party, the effective implementation of the clearinghouse mechanism. We have neutral technological neutrality. We provide also really good connectivity. And also we have the IT systems that could actually support the technical requirements of that clearinghouse mechanism. Fully respectful of the independence and the idea of the party driving secretariat. We again are in your hands regarding the specific qualities of the clearinghouse mechanism that as parties decide in the conference of the parties. But we would like to reassure you that Chile is ready to work with whatever kind of model you choose. And we are here to serve again, as I said before, and thank you so much for the question. And of course we are open, always open to continue engaging on these discussions.

I thank you. I am actually an expert on the lyrics of Rolling Stones songs. And you can't always get what you want. You hope you get what you need. In this case, we apologise for the fact that you didn't get what you need. I can assure you on behalf of Janine and I that it was not for a lack of unstinting effort on behalf of Vladimir, Charlotte and the DUALOS team. They really did everything that was humanly possible short of possibly kidnapping fluent Spanish speakers on First Avenue and bringing them here. So we do apologize for that, but I'd like to thank Chile very much for their presentation this afternoon. Thank you. Muchas gracias. Thank you, delegates. I will be very quick. We shall reconvene at 3pm sharp this afternoon to continue with item five of our agenda in this conference room, conference room four. delegations will consider financial rules governing the funding of the COP and the funding of the secretariat and any subsidiary bodies and the GEF MOU. And in conference room 11, delegations will continue discussions on the rules of procedure for the Conference of the Parties. The meeting is adjourned.