Preparatory Commission: Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (Third Session, 27th plenary followed by informal working group meeting) General Assembly Date: 1 April 2026 Language: English Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/asset/k1l/k1l53skzdj Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations. --- Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [0:02]: Good morning, distinguished delegates. I trust everyone had an enjoyable evening last night. We shall now proceed to hear the presentation of the delegation of Belgium of its offer to host the seat of the Secretariat established under Article 50 of the Agreement. The delegation of Belgium will have 20 minutes for its presentation. This will be followed by a 10-minute question and answer segment during which the delegation of Belgium will respond to questions that other delegations may wish to raise. As was done with the other two presentations, and in order to ensure. Parity amongst the candidate states, an additional 10 to 12 to 15 minutes may be used by Belgium if needed. I am pleased to now invite Her Excellency, Annelies Verlinden, Minister of Justice and the North Sea, and Ms. Sophie Meirgho-Dillen, Belgium's Special Envoy for the Ocean, to deliver. The presentation. Minister, the floor is yours. Belgium · Minister of Justice and the North Sea · Annelies Verlinden [1:13]: Thank you so much, co-chair. Good morning, distinguished delegates. We just started with a short movie to present our candidacy. Speaker 3 [2:15]: We believe that is Brussels. For generations, Belgium has led the way in ocean exploration. Today, 144 marine research groups across 20 disciplines push the boundaries of our knowledge, mapping marine life and shaping the future of ocean governance. The ocean is our planet's lifeline, a vast living system that breathes, connects, and protects. The ocean is our planet's lifeline, a vast living system that breathes, connects, and protects us all. For too long, this ocean has been vulnerable, unprotected, and exploited. This is changing. Our new treaty is a global awakening, our promise to protect what protects us. This transformative commitment needs a dedicated home, a voice, a heart. We believe that is Brussels. For generations, Belgium has led the way in ocean exploration. Today, 144 marine research groups across 20 disciplines push the boundaries of our knowledge, mapping marine life and shaping the future of ocean governance. From our local North Sea to the most remote waters, our scientists drive innovation, collaboration and protection. But science alone is not enough. Real change happens when people come together. And Brussels is where the world unites. As the home to over 180 diplomatic missions and international organisations, our capital is a global hub for decision-making. Here, policy and science converge to create solutions. As co-founders of the Blue Leaders Alliance, Belgium has been consistently advocating to protect at least 30% of our ocean by 2030. This is much more than a bid. It's an invitation to join a community already dedicated to ocean protection, a place where expertise, Innovation and diplomacy work hand in hand. Brussels isn't just ready to host the BBNJ Secretariat, it's already doing the work, ready from day one to support the Secretariat's vital mission. The ocean knows no borders, neither does our commitment to protect it. Join us in Brussels, where global cooperation turns into global action. where the ocean finds its voice and ocean protection finds its home. Support Brussels bid for the BBNJ Secretariat Brussels, a diplomatic heart for the ocean. Belgium · Minister of Justice and the North Sea · Annelies Verlinden [6:31]: Good morning. Once again, hopefully you're as well convinced that it was worth the wait to share this video with you. Co-chairs, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, I am particularly honored to speak to you from such an emblematic place. The United Nations headquarters is the real beating heart of multilateralism, where you work day in, day out to strengthen international cooperation, including for our most vast and most vital asset, the ocean. Allow me to add also that to speak speaking to you today in my capacity as Minister for Justice and the North Sea of Belgium is a unique privilege for me. These two portfolios could seem at first glance to not have much in common, but here they converge perfectly. Indeed, If justice means to guarantee equity and respect for the law, then we have today the collective responsibility to ensure that the ocean can enjoy justice as a whole. I would also like to sincerely congratulate you on this major step forward that you've already accomplished, the entry into force of the BBNJ agreement in January 2026. This was a remarkable achievement, proof of our collective ability to mobilize when faced with global issues. I would also like to express my profound gratitude to our distinguished co-chairs, Ambassador Kofi Felson and Ambassador McCarthy. And we would also like to thank all the DUALOS staff for their constant commitment throughout this process. Belgium reaffirms its full, complete support for the BBNJ agreement and above all for its swift, effective and ambitious implementation. At a time that we are completing this final preparatory stage before the first conference of the parties, there is a major decision that awaits. Who will host the secretariat? This decision should not be guided by simply symbolic considerations, but it should be guided by clear operational requirements to ensure that this historic treaty can benefit from day one from a specialized, effective and completely neutral environment. It's in the spirit that Belgium is proposing Brussels, not simply as a city on the map, but a diplomatic heart for the ocean. Switch to English. Our candidacy proposal is built on three essential pillars. First, operational readiness and independence. The secretariat must serve the agreement and faithfully implement the decisions of its parties, as adopted by the Conference of the Parties. Its independence must be protected both legally and institutionally and safeguarded against undue influence. Brussels offers a legal and institutional framework designed precisely to guarantee that independence through the rigorous application of the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. Most critically, we offer operational certainty. The proposed headquarters at the Residence Palace is a fully operational turnkey facility, available immediately. There is no construction timeline, no transition phase and no delay. To reinforce its readiness, Belgium commits an amount of EUR 600 to cover the first five years of premises costs. thereby ensuring that the Secretariat's resources are dedicated to the ocean rather than to administrative overhead. Secondly, diplomacy of inclusion. The BBNJ agreement is founded on a simple but powerful principle. No nation is too small to matter. Belgium embodies that same principle with Brussels as a global diplomatic hub where more than 300 diplomatic missions, including those of the smallest island states, operate on an equal footing. In Brussels, states and stakeholders are not guests, they are partners. Connectivity is not just a matter of convenience, it's a condition for equity. With direct links to 69 countries and an average transfer times of 70 minutes, Brussels enables all delegations to attend meetings efficiently and without constraints. To further support this inclusiveness, my government and I have approved contribution to the BBNJ Voluntary Trust Fund to support the participation of developing country delegations. And thirdly, a foundation of scientific excellence. Effective ocean governance must be anchored in science. That scientific foundation is already firmly established in Belgium. We host the World Register of Marine Species and the Ocean Biodiversity Information System, infrastructure that serves the world's data needs today. By choosing Brussels, the Secretariat does not need to build up its capacity from the ground up. It can be embedded in a functioning ecosystem of 27 UN agencies and leading research institutions from day one. Excellencies, dear colleagues, the decision before you is not simply about geography. It's about choosing a secretariat that is accessible, effective and ready to deliver from the outset. We worked hard to bring this treaty into existence. Now Belgium offers the conditions for it to succeed. The ocean connects us all. Brussels is a diplomatic heart it deserves. Thank you so much. Belgium · Special Envoy for the Ocean · Sophie Meirgho-Dillen [13:21]: Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, dear friends, it's an honor to present Belgium's candidature to host the BBNJ Secretariat. This room is filled with delegates who have dedicated their expertise, energy and perseverance to bringing the BBNJ agreement to life. It is thanks to this collective commitment that we now stand at a turning point for the protection of our shared ocean. The experience accumulated across nearly two decades of discussions has revealed time and again what parties expect from an effective secretariat. Reliability, neutrality, professionalism and unwavering support for the implementation of the agreement. The insights gained through dialogue with delegations over the years and in these very rooms, and more recently through the focused consultations held during our campaign, have been essential in shaping our proposal. Belgium's bid is not conceived as a national project. nor as a singular opportunity for Brussels. It is rooted in clear, long-term commitment to ensuring that the BBNJ agreement has the institutional foundation it needs to succeed. In 2023, our ship reached the shore. By 2027, our collective task is to provide it with a durable home. A secretariat capable of transforming the promise of the agreement into tangible action for marine biodiversity and sustainable development. Our intention is to help create an environment in which the new institution can grow confidently into a mature, effective organization, one that serves its parties and supports all delegations with openness and excellence in service. We believe Brussels and the iconic building of the Residence Palace offer such a home. Belgium never leads alone. It leads working alongside others. Our foreign policy is firmly rooted in multilateralism and respect for international law, shaped by its belief that global challenges require collective solutions rather than unilateral action. As a founding member of the United Nations with unwavering commitment to the principles of the UN Charter and the core international legal instruments, Belgium's commitment to the law of the sea is reflected in its longstanding adherence to the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea and its support for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. We are also active parties to the CBD, CMS, IMO, CITES and CAMLR, contributing to global environmental and marine governance. Belgium's vision for the BBNJ Secretariat is that of a bridge builder in a world increasingly marked by polarization. The ability to foster dialogue, cultivate trust, and bring delegations and all relevant actors together is more essential than ever. It is precisely this spirit of cooperation that will allow the objectives of our agreement to take root and to flourish. To do so, the Secretariat and the BBNJ should become a knowledge hub for science-based governance grounded in robust science whilst honoring diverse knowledge systems. The clearinghouse mechanism will be essential to this work. Belgium stands ready to support this ambition while safeguarding the integrity and independence of both the Secretariat and the clearinghouse mechanism. Secondly, the Secretariat should enable meaningful participation with special attention for SIDS and LDCs. Every nation must be able to engage meaningfully with the BBNJ agreement regardless of their economic situation or geographical location. The Secretariat should actively enable participation through technical assistance and capacity development, ensuring that governance reflects all voices. Brussels' position as home to the world's largest diplomatic community provides the setting where such inclusive dialogue can flourish. Thirdly, the Secretariat must coordinate collaborative efforts whilst respecting the sovereignty and diverse needs of all parties, instruments, frameworks and bodies. Transparency in process and accessibility in communication build the trust necessary for effective multilateral action. Belgium's ocean diplomacy and leadership are widely recognized, built on decades of science-driven cooperation and principled multilateral action. As a founder of the Blue Leaders Alliance, a coalition advocating to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030, Belgium has consistently advanced collective ocean governance. We help maintain that momentum during COVID through the high seas online dialogues and continue to host globally recognized marine databases and research networks that support evidence-based policy. This work is reinforced by the state-of-the-art research vessel Belgica, pictured on this slide, whose core mission is marine scientific research, environmental monitoring and training. Belgium is internationally recognized as a pioneer in marine spatial planning, managing one of the world's busiest maritime corridors through a coherent, science-based and legally robust marine spatial planning network or framework. As illustrated on this smaller map, 38% of the Belgian part of the North Sea is designated as a marine protected area or marine protected areas. The larger map shows how MSP provides an integrated overview of the complexity of the process, aligning conservation objectives with multiple human uses. The new Belgian Marine Spatial Plan adopted later last month is not a static document, but it's a living and operational tool that is actively used, implemented and regularly reviewed. It enables Belgium to bridge interests between nature protection, the maritime sector and other stakeholders, providing the structure that makes high level of protection compatible with a dynamic blue economy. It also underpins Belgium's role as an early mover in offshore renewable energy development and as a catalyst for innovative solutions such as green shipping corridors. Belgium is also a member of the High Ambition Coalition for a Quiet Ocean and actively advances its priorities, including through chairing expert working groups at the IMO. Belgium's ocean capacity building is global in scope and grounded in long-term investment in people, science, and shared knowledge. Through its diplomatic training programs in the blue economy, Belgium has equipped diplomats across interalia West Africa, the Bay of Bengal, and the MENA region with essential skills for effective ocean governance. Belgium hosts some of the world's leading Marine data infrastructures integrating extensive quality control biodiversity data to support coherent science-based decision making this scientific foundation is further strengthened by Belgium's worldwide capacity building efforts through through IOC UNESCO's Global teacher uh Ocean Academy which makes training and practical tools accessible to all regions in addition Belgium hosts a and highly collaborative community of marine scientists whose research is deeply embedded in international partnerships. For example, Belgium supports marine capacity building through the Vliss Marine Institute by strengthening national capacities on marine biodiversity such as national registers, data management, institutional capacity and fair data through the development and maintenance of regional and national sub registers. including in the Caribbean area, as a direct contribution to the implementation of BBNJ and the Nagoya Protocol under CBD. Together, these efforts have made Belgium a global marine knowledge hub that advances shared expertise and reinforces collective action for the ocean. Belgium backs its commitment to marine capacity building with a contribution of $92 million to the GEF9 replenishment and providing an initial financial contribution to the BBNJ trust fund of $70,000. Belgium is also excited that the European Union has pledged 40 million euro through its Global Ocean Programme to support the implementation of the BBNJ agreement, particularly focusing on aiding developing countries with ratification and marine biodiversity protection. This initiative includes a 10 million euro on-demand technical assistance component and support for the BBNJ High Ambition Coalition. Immediate operational readiness, proven multilateral expertise, inclusive and extensive diplomatic ecosystem. Why Brussels? Brussels boasts the world's largest diplomatic community, with over 300 diplomatic missions already present. The BBNJ Secretariat will thus find a home in a vibrant diplomatic ecosystem, ready to support the Secretariat from day one. The city is also closely connected to a wide network of academic and research institutions, offering direct access to cutting-edge expertise and innovation. As a culturally diverse and inherently multilingual capital, Brussels provides an open, vibrant, and globally minded setting where communities, ideas, and perspectives naturally converge. Brussels is an accessible, affordable, and inclusive location for all delegations, offering high quality health care and excellent international education options. Brussels Airport offers direct flights to 70 top destinations on all continents, with single connection access to around 120 additional destinations, covering roughly 70% of all countries worldwide. The average transfer time is around one hour, making connections easy. Belgium places a strong emphasis on environmentally sustainable transport. Our extensive rail network is one of the most comprehensive networks in Europe and ensures efficient and far-reaching international connections. Direct train services takes travelers from the airport to the residence palace in just about 20 minutes. What do we mean when we say multilateral ecosystem? Within reach of the residence palace, you will find the headquarters of the African, Caribbean and Pacific States, ACP Secretariat, the World Bank Brussels office, the African Union office, the European Union institutions and UN liaison offices such as UNESCO and UNEP. Moving on to access and Belgium's visa policy, we'd like to emphasize that our system is built for maximum ease of entry. Currently, nationals from 59 UN member states enjoy full visa-free entry. We've also extended these exemptions to diplomatic passport holders from an additional 19 states. And most importantly, we remain proactive in this area. We are actively open to negotiating further exemptions both diplomatic and service passports to strengthen our international ties. Beyond our specific borders, we offer what we call the Schengen advantage. A visa for Belgium gives you access to 29 European countries. It allows for truly seamless travel across the zone, meaning once you've cleared the initial entry, there are no further international passport controls to worry about. The Residence Palace is a modern, secure headquarters, uniquely suited to host the BBNJ Secretariat. It was originally built as an innovative Art Deco complex combining luxury residences with extensive shared facilities, and this building has evolved into a fully equipped hub designed for international work. Today, it provides state-of-the-art conference, media and IT infrastructure, reflecting decades of adaptation to diplomatic, governmental and press-related functions. Brussels offers access to some of the world's best professional interpreters. On these pictures, you can see that its architectural flexibility allows rapid configuration of offices, meeting rooms, and operational spaces. The building's long history of hosting large administrations means that logistical systems, security features, and technical services are already in place and fully operational. Belgium can therefore ensure swift staff deployment and offer comprehensive host country support from day one. guaranteeing immediate readiness for the secretariat's activities. The building provides space not only for office work, but also for daily activities such as meetings and potentially sessions of subsidiary bodies. As shown, Brussels, and particularly the area around the Residence Palace, is fully equipped to host large international meetings and, if so decided, future COPs. Belgium · Minister of Justice and the North Sea · Annelies Verlinden [28:40]: Thanks to our special envoy for the ocean, thank you, Sophie. Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, dear friends, allow me to summarise the very solid foundations of Belgium's bid. Belgium offers a stable, fully secured and operational environment for the secretariat. Our five year financial commitment covers all rent and utility costs, ensuring budgetary predictability from the outset. The premises benefit from a robust security framework tailored to protect staff, assets and high level events. In addition, advanced cybersecurity systems and full general data protection regulation compliance guarantee the highest standards of data protection and digital resilience. Brussels offers an outstanding quality of life for both secretariat staff and visiting delegates. Our world-class healthcare system ensures reliable and accessible medical support, while excellent education options, including multiple international schools, provide stability for families relocating to the city. With its green urban environment, strong social fabric and welcoming international community, Brussels offers a safe, healthy and enriching setting that directly supports the well-being of those who work for the Secretariat and those who come to engage with it. Belgium offers a solid and predictable institutional framework for the Secretariat. The full application of the UN privileges and immunities ensures the independence, protection and smooth functioning of the organization from day one. Belgium's longstanding experience as a host nation of a wide variety of international organizations guarantees a clear, uniform and legally robust framework. Within this framework, host country and seed agreements can be negotiated and concluded swiftly. This enables any new secretariat to become operational without delay and to focus immediately on delivering its mandate. To find an example of such an agreement, I invite you to scan the QR code you see on the screen. In addition, robust constitutional and legal safeguards uphold transparency, inclusiveness and institutional independence. providing a stable environment in which the secretariat, the delegates and experts can operate with full confidence. To conclude, these legal and policy foundations reinforce Belgium's reputation as a reliable partner and a host country, one that fully respects the autonomy and legal status of international organisations. Dear colleagues, dear friends of the high seas, the ocean connects us all. Belgium offers Brussels not merely as a location for the secretariat, but as a diplomatic heart for the ocean. Thank you so much for your kind attention and for the opportunity to present our bid. We look forward to engaging with you today and in the future. Merci beaucoup pour votre attention. Merci. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [32:26]: Sorry. I thank Her Excellency Minister Ferlinden and. Ms. Sophie Miego-Delienne for the presentation, and I will now open the floor for questions. The floor is open. European Union, you have the floor. EU [32:43]: Thank you very much, Mr. Co Chair, thank you very much, Madam Minister and Madam Ocean Envoy. From the EU, we have a clear interest in the clearinghouse mechanism, which is a powerhouse to the BBNJ agreement. So we wanted to check how you envisage the Secretariat's management of it as regards ensuring long-term stability, accessibility to the Clearing House mechanism, data and information accessibility and confidentiality. Also, would this proposal allow for a governance model in which the Secretariat ensures coordination and management for the Clearing House mechanism while the underlying data infrastructure is facilitated by an internationally trusted institution. I thank you. Belgium · Minister of Justice and the North Sea · Annelies Verlinden [33:42]: Thank you so much for your question. Regarding your question, our response is unequivocally positive. We strongly advocate for the adoption of a light touch governance model, one that remains in full and strict alignment with both the provisions of the agreements and the subsequent decisions enacted by the COP. The primary objective of this model is to guarantee the consistently effective and efficient functioning of the clearinghouse mechanism. Furthermore, we express our clear support for the selection of an internationally trusted entity by the COP. Such an entity would be tasked with the critical responsibility of ensuring the professional management of data and information, thereby securing its long-term accessibility for all stakeholders. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [34:37]: I thank the Belgian delegation and I give the floor to the Russian Federation for their question. Russian Federation [34:45]: Thank you very much, ministers, special envoy, colleagues. Thank you for presenting your bid for Brussels to host the BBNJ secretariat. The Russian Federation in recent years has often faced many violations of their rights some states neglect of their obligations, including as host countries of international organisations. We have seen difficulties with Russian diplomats obtaining visas to attend official meetings in Schengen countries. In this connection, we would like to know how how much Belgium, if their bid is successful, will fulfil their international obligations on this and impartially ensure that all parties can participate in the work of the secretariat without exception. Could the colleagues provide some kind of guarantees to that end? Moreover, we also found in the brochure that was disseminated today a claim that Belgium will fully apply the provisions on the UN Convention on Privileges and Immunities will be fully implemented. This was also confirmed by yourself this morning. However, from what we understand, negotiations on the applicability of this convention are still ongoing. So we'd like to ask a question for clarification. Does Belgium plan on applying this convention in all cases or depending on the outcome of these aforementioned negotiations? Thank you very much. Belgium · Minister of Justice and the North Sea · Annelies Verlinden [36:25]: Thank you so much for this important question, which goes, in our opinion, to the heart of inclusiveness and effective participation under the BBNJ agreement. On visas and facilitation, Belgium has a long and established practice as a host country for major multilateral processes. Brussels hosts hundreds of international meetings every year, including UN, EU and global environment processes with participation from CIDS, LDCs, indigenous peoples, experts and civil society representatives. Belgium applies the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations rigorously. For meetings convened by UN secretariats, this provides a clear and predictable framework for visa facilitation, expedited processing and close coordination between the host authorities and the secretariats. This is not theoretical, it's an operational practice that has been tested repeatedly. Importantly, Belgium works in close partnership with UN secretariats. Practical arrangements such as advance notification, dedicated contact points and tailored facilitation for official participants are handled jointly, with particular attention to delegates from CIDS and developing countries. Beyond visas, accessibility is a broader ecosystem. Brussels is one of the most globally connected cities in the world. It's served by an international airport. The average transfer time is around 70 minutes and the city offers highly reliable digital connectivity, enabling hybrid participation where needed. Belgium knows that participation is not only about logistics, but also about equity. This is why Belgium has committed to supporting participation through a contribution to the BBNJ voluntary trust fund of $70,000. Furthermore, $40 million was provided to the Global Ocean Programme to drive the treaty's implementation. In particular, in relation to the regime of immunities and privileges, Belgium is fully committed to ensuring that the BBNJ Secretariat, its staff, experts and delegates on mission, benefits from the privileges and immunities necessary for the independent and effective performance of their functions. First, Belgium stands ready to grant the privileges and immunities, as I just said, foreseen under the 1946 Convention, which Belgium applies fully. Should the organisation require a regime equivalent to or adapted from the 1946 Convention, Belgium is prepared to ensure a comparable level of protection. Second, a complementary SEAD agreement between Belgium and the BBNJ secretariat would specify and operationalise these privileges and immunities. Belgium has extensive expertise in negotiating and implementing such agreements with other international organisations on its territory and would treat this also as a priority. Thirdly, expats and delegates on mission would enjoy the privilege and immunities necessary for the independent exercise of their duties, and that consistent with established UN practice. Taken together, these elements ensure a robust and fully operational regime of privileges and immunities. For the secretariat, its staff, and all experts and delegates who are on a mission in Belgium. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [40:03]: I thank the Minister for the benefit of Minister Filindon and also for all delegates. I have four speakers inscribed on my list for questions, Japan, Vietnam, Iceland and Morocco. I think that's where we'll draw a line under the list and let's see how we go with time. Japan, you have the floor. Japan [40:23]: Thank you, co-chairs. Japan's question will be brief. In relation to Belgian government's offer to fund the renting and the utility cost of the premises for the initial five years, could you please provide a rough estimate of the rent per year for sixth year and afterward, as well as any indication on the possibility for kindly extending the offer beyond the initial five years? Thank you. Belgium · Special Envoy for the Ocean · Sophie Meirgho-Dillen [41:01]: Indeed, we provide for the cost of the rent for the first five years. Of course, we will facilitate a smooth transition to the period thereafter. We believe that with the trust, with the funds, with the contribution, this is feasible. What is important to us is that we can really give the secretariat a kick start. We have a momentum now with the treaty and for us it is important that we have that operational So that's why we offered it. And of course, we will, as the host country of the secretariat, do whatever we can to facilitate. It's also a very agile setup, given the fact that it's a large office building. Belgium · Minister of Justice and the North Sea · Annelies Verlinden [41:45]: We can extend and fill it in. Belgium · Special Envoy for the Ocean · Sophie Meirgho-Dillen [41:48]: The team of the secretariat will have its office location over there. Belgium · Minister of Justice and the North Sea · Annelies Verlinden [41:52]: But you have seen the pictures of meeting rooms, breakout rooms, video conference facilities, all protected for cybersecurity. Belgium · Special Envoy for the Ocean · Sophie Meirgho-Dillen [42:00]: Reasons and so we have the experience of using the residence balance for similar activities so that's why we believe it's a good proposal to start immediately with the secretariat. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [42:15]: Thank you Minister and I give the floor to Vietnam. Viet Nam [42:20]: Thank you Mr. Co-Chair. The delegation of Vietnam would like to join previous speakers in thanking the Minister and Special Envoy Belgium for their comprehensive and informative briefings. We note with appreciation Belgium's proposal to host BBNJ Secretariat in Brussels. Like the two other offers currently under consideration, this proposal demonstrates the willingness of Belgium to contribute in a concrete manner to the operationalization and implementation of the BBNJ Agreement. As discussions continue and with the view to further deliberations at COP1, we would appreciate further clarification on the following two points. First, what scientific and technical assistance would be made available to the secretariat and the subsidiary bodies established under the agreement, including specific support for the establishment and operationalization of the CHM, and second, How does the expat welcome desk intend to manage a possible surge in staffing during the transition period? And would BBNJ specific personnel be assigned to support this process? Thank you. Belgium · Minister of Justice and the North Sea · Annelies Verlinden [43:54]: Thank you so much for your questions. These are really relevant. On the expat welcome desk, we see it as a free multilingual public service designed to help international residents navigate the administrative complexities of moving to and living in Brussels. Belgium · Special Envoy for the Ocean · Sophie Meirgho-Dillen [44:13]: The service is completely free and. Belgium · Minister of Justice and the North Sea · Annelies Verlinden [44:15]: Independent, and the desk can act as a one-stop shop for administrative advice, especially focusing on housing, finances, tax issues, and family and education. In relation to your other questions, for us, it's really important that we include all countries, including developing countries. Belgium · Special Envoy for the Ocean · Sophie Meirgho-Dillen [44:41]: We really want to do whatever we can to lower the barriers for participation in the secretariat, including that is done by a financial contribution, by a four year. Belgium · Minister of Justice and the North Sea · Annelies Verlinden [44:55]: Contribution to the GEF and a strong commitment to capacity building, technology transfer and regional outreach. Belgium sees the hosting of the Secretariat not just as a privilege, but as a responsibility to enable meaningful participation by all parties, particularly those with limited resources. And I think it's very relevant that you bring up this. Belgium · Special Envoy for the Ocean · Sophie Meirgho-Dillen [45:18]: Point so that we can take this point back home to see how we can further strengthen the facilitation of inclusion for all countries. Belgium · Minister of Justice and the North Sea · Annelies Verlinden [45:28]: Every voice must be heard. Belgium · Special Envoy for the Ocean · Sophie Meirgho-Dillen [45:30]: We need to do this together. Belgium · Minister of Justice and the North Sea · Annelies Verlinden [45:31]: The ocean connects us all. It's important to all of us, whether you're a big or a smaller country. Belgium · Special Envoy for the Ocean · Sophie Meirgho-Dillen [45:37]: We really believe that we need to do it together. Belgium · Minister of Justice and the North Sea · Annelies Verlinden [45:40]: Thank you. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [45:41]: I thank you, Minister. We have two questions left, Iceland and then the Philippines, but I'm sure the Minister through her delegation will be happy to field any additional questions from those delegations that have been unable to take the floor. With that, I give the floor to Iceland to be followed by the Philippines. Iceland [46:00]: Thank you, co-chair, and thank you, Belgium, for your presentation. As you know, the effective implementation of the BBNJ Agreement is contingent on the successful cooperation with other instruments, frameworks and bodies which serve as avenues of the BBNJ compliance. The Secretariat will have a key role in linking the BBNJ Agreement with these IFBs, and one can imagine the challenges of this task to coordinate the currently quite fragmented framework of different bodies. Much has already been said about the Belgium offer that is helpful in this instance, but we would like to ask if you can tell us more or perhaps give specific thoughts on how your secretariat offer facilitates connectivity with and between IFBs which are spread across the globe. Thank you. Belgium · Minister of Justice and the North Sea · Annelies Verlinden [46:48]: Thank you so much for your. Belgium · Special Envoy for the Ocean · Sophie Meirgho-Dillen [46:52]: Question indeed connectivity is related to access and to participation on an in an inclusive way for all parties considered so first of all as we said we do have a lot of diplomatic missions in Belgium so the secretariat is founded on the platform not only that offers multilateral connections but also bilateral relationships so there is a presence of a lot of the countries to the treaty in Brussels and so if you come to Brussels you immediately have a whole range of bilateral relationships that is offered as well and next to that and I also want to underline that we consider it being a triangle you have IMO you have other United Nations agencies that are very close by we have not only a very good national railway system but also internationally you go by train to London to Paris it's one hour flight to Geneva for instance and so traveling to Brussels is opening immediately the door to many more organizations and for us it's crucial of course we need to do data sharing the clearinghouse mechanism is very relevant to that we also do data protection we really see the secretariat as a tool to facilitate the the ambitions set out by the BB&G treaty it's not about the interest of one government it's about the interest of all participating countries to the treaty and the platform of the secretariat should open that window. And we believe, given the location of Brussels, it offers really a global lookout on a lot of institutions and we should not, let's say, do the work in double. We should make use of the knowledge and the expertise that is already available in the other agencies and institutions and organisations. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [48:46]: I thank the Minister and I now give the floor to the Philippines for the final question of this session. Philippines, the floor is yours. Philippines [48:54]: Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. I think the elaboration of Belgium has already answered our questions. Thank you. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [49:05]: I thank the Philippines. And with that, I would very much like to thank Minister Verlinden and the Belgian delegation As we have indicated, the delegation will be happy to take any further questions that may arise over the course of these proceedings or going into the future. I think if we can provide the customary acknowledgement of the Belgian delegation. Thank you very much. Delegates, I'll just give 30 seconds for the Minister and delegation to depart and then we'll go on with our business. Excellent. Thank you. Play song, Manoj Kumar. Thank you, delegations. We will now resume consideration of item five of our agenda in parallel meetings. In this room, we will continue our discussions regarding arrangements to enhance cooperation with relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional, sub-regional and sectoral bodies. In conference room three, deliberations will continue on modalities for the operation of the clearinghouse mechanism, financial rules governing the funding of the COP and the funding of the secretariat and any subsidiary bodies, arrangements with the Global Environmental Facility to give effect to the relevant provisions on funding, and, time permitting, operationalisation of other provisions on financial resources and mechanism with a focus on the special fund. Delegations, I'd like you to pay particularly close attention now. It is our intention to resume the plenary at 5:30. To review the credentials report and also to provide advice on the organisation of work for tomorrow. So just to repeat that, we will reconvene in plenary at 5:30 this afternoon. With that delegations, we will turn to the oral reports and I will commence with a report on the. Rules of procedure for the conference of the parties which continued during an eighth meeting on this topic held on Tuesday. We discussed sections 4 to 8 and sections 9 to 15. With regard to sections 9 to Sorry, I'm not reading my Roman numerals correctly. Four to eight discussions addressed amongst other issues, the composition of the Bureau and the cross reference to the financial rules in rule 22 and the alignment of the rules of procedure of the conference of the parties with the document on subsidiary bodies in relation to section seven. With regard to sections nine to 15, discussions addressed the threshold for closing sessions of the conference of the parties in rule 33, the quorum for decision making under rule 34, paragraph one, the cross reference to the financial rules in rule 44, paragraph three, the modalities for determining where the consensus has been reached under rule 45, paragraph two bis, the threshold with regard to secret ballots in rule 51 paragraph one, and the procedure for amending the rules of procedure under rule 60. Upon completing the reading of the entire document, the co-chairs noted that the following issues would benefit from further discussion. In small group formats. Meeting modalities under rule 3 bis, Intersessional decision making in respect of emergency measures under Rule 3 tier. Modalities concerning observers under Rule 6 and Rule 33. The composition of the Bureau under Rule 22. The rules of quorum under Rule 34. And amendments to the rules of procedure under Rule 60. These were in addition to ongoing consultations on issues relating to rule 39 bis and references to article 6 of the agreement and the issue of voting by regional economic integration organisations under rule 34 paragraph 2 and 44 paragraph 2. Turning to the afternoon session on arrangements for the functioning of the Secretariat, following the responses provided by the Secretariat to the additional concerns, proposed by delegations on Monday, we continued our discussions on the draft decision of the COP concerning arrangements for the functioning of the secretariat and the excerpts of a draft letter from the co-chairs of the Preparatory Commission to the Secretary-General concerning secretariat arrangements circulated on Thursday last week, with a view to consolidating areas of convergence. Views on these documents confirmed the broad support for a secretariat that would be institutionally linked to the United Nations while having functional, operational and financial autonomy. One delegation reiterated its preference for an autonomous secretariat that would enter into a relationship agreement with the United Nations and indicated the merit of retaining this type of arrangement as an option for consideration by the COP. With regard to the head of the secretariat, views appeared to converge on the need for a transparent selection process which would ensure that the head is accountable to the COP. Turning to the selection of the seat of the secretariat, there was broad support for a proposal from the European Union to establish relevant modalities through a separate COP decision in order to provide for clarity and certainty for the process to be undertaken at the first COP. In terms of the way forward. An exchange of views took place regarding the steps to be taken intersessionally in the lead up to COP1. Under which it was proposed that the co-chairs, following the conclusion of the PrepCom, address their letter to the Secretary-General, while any input received from the Secretary-General would be transmitted to the PrepCom for its consideration in preparing for COP1 and for any follow-up questions from delegations to be channelled through the Bureau. Based on these discussions, we intend to issue a revised draft decision on the relationship with the United Nations, revised elements for our letter to the Secretary General, and a draft decision on modalities for the selection of the seat at COP1. Janine. Co-Chair · Janine Coye-Felson [58:57]: Thank you, Adam. Discussions on the, first of all, good morning everyone. Discussions on the operationalization of other provisions on financial resources and mechanism under the agreement, with a focus on the Voluntary Trust Fund and Special Fund, continued on Tuesday morning in conference room three. Delegations first considered the Voluntary Trust Fund, where the distinguished delegate from Canada reported back on the discussions of the informal-informal which took place yesterday morning. Discussions then focused on key outstanding issues, in particular the application process, including the consideration of applications. There was broad support for the Secretariat to engage the Bureau when the number of requests for assistance exceeds the availability of funds. Further consideration will be required as to whether, and if so, to what extent, the potential terms of reference should set out guiding criteria for the consideration of applications. Further consideration will also be required on 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. Taking into account the discussions we have had on this issue, we are conducting further consultations with a view to issuing revised draft terms of reference for the Voluntary Trust Fund today. Building on the progress achieved thus far, we are confident that a balanced and workable outcome is within reach. We then turn to the Special Fund, where the distinguished delegate from Australia reported back on the discussions of the informal informal held on Monday evening. We then completed a reading of the draft decision of the Conference of the Parties for the purpose of operationalizing the special fund, which was circulated on Thursday last week. On the composition of a possible ad hoc committee with limited membership, there seemed to be growing convergence towards a model with differentiated membership, with state parties participating fully and other stakeholders participating as members, but without the right to vote. However, this was without prejudice to delegations, which still preferred an open-ended ad hoc working group. Other issues which will require further discussion include whether the decision should provide for interim arrangements for contributions to the special fund in accordance with Article 14, paragraph six, as well as how best to describe the output of the process on which there appears to be emerging convergence. Time permitting, we will return to this issue this morning in conference room three. We had our third meeting on modalities for the operation of the clearinghouse mechanism yesterday afternoon in conference room three. The delegation of Palau reported on informal discussions it co-convened with the delegation of New Zealand on the way forward for the operationalization of the clearinghouse mechanism. These discussions focused first on key parameters with a view to providing clarity and guidance for the development of a prototype before the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties, and second on possible pathways for developing such a prototype and the expected outcomes of PrepCom 3, including a possible decision of the PrepCom. At the request of delegations, we suspended consideration of this issue to allow these discussions to continue in an informal setting, providing additional time for delegations to work on the proposed draft decision. Prior to adjourning, IOC-UNESCO reiterated its offer to support the development of such a prototype and shared the steps to proceed with the offer and procurement. The Secretariat, in response to questions raised, provided preliminary information on indicative timelines for procurement through formal methods of solicitation, as well as on the distinction between such processes and the engagement of consultants. We will revert to this item later this morning in Conference Room 3 after disciplinary meetings. That concludes the oral reports. I wish to now open the floor for any comments. And I have two. I have Iran and then Turkey. Iran (Islamic Republic of) [1:03:12]: Thank you so much, Madam Kocher. I just wanted to thank you for the presentation and of course all the hard works during these two weeks. Actually, we took the floor in the Belgium's presentations. Unfortunately, we were not granted to take the floor. We understand that we all have limited time. We only have tomorrow. But I believe at least with the withdrawal of the question of the last speaker, it would have been quite possible for us to reflect our view regarding Belgium's presentations. Just wanted to kindly ask that all delegations be treated equally and with respect. Thank you. Co-Chair · Janine Coye-Felson [1:03:47]: I thank the representative of Iran, and I can assure you that we will do so. I wish now to give the floor to Turkey. Okay. Thank you. It just showed up on my screen. Just a little glitch there. We will now suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow delegations to rearrange themselves as needed. I do see a request for the floor from Colombia. Colombia [1:04:34]: Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair, and a very good morning to you and all of our colleagues. Very briefly, not wanting to take up too much time, we understand that there are various small groups who are engaging in efforts to reach an agreement, to reach agreements. However, in CLAM, we're a little bit confused. about what these small groups are, who is coordinating them. We'd like to request that as far as possible this information be sent to all delegations about what small groups exist and who's coordinating them so that we can make sure that we can be present in the different rooms. I don't know if it's possible for this to be published on the website, for example, so that we can be informed and know exactly who is coordinating them and so that we can reach out to them. Thank you. Co-Chair · Janine Coye-Felson [1:05:26]: Thank you for flagging that issue of concern and we will do our utmost to make sure that everyone is advised if and when such small groups are meeting. Colleagues, thank you very much for your attention this morning. And we will suspend now for five minutes so that we can rearrange ourselves in this room. We will continue issues on the IFBs and in room three, we will continue considering quite a bit clearinghouse mechanism, financial rules, global environment facility, special fund, and anything else. The meeting is suspended for five minutes. Speaker 45 [1:06:08]: Thank you. no, we don't. No, okay. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:09:59]: Play song, 'Sridevi'. Good morning, delegations. We shall now resume the meeting to consider arrangements to enhance cooperation with relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional, sub-regional and sectoral bodies. I note that a revised draft decision for consideration by the first meeting of the Conference of Parties to the Agreement on arrangements to enhance cooperation with relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional, sub-regional and sectoral bodies contained in document CRP.6 was circulated to delegations yesterday. Delegates, I will now explain how I intend to structure these discussions. In our session on this issue last Wednesday, we received a lot of commentary and suggestions. The draft before you is an attempt to synthesise what was a large volume of material into a manner that took up as many suggestions as we could and was balanced in terms of the respective comments that we received, some of which were directly contradictory. which is inevitable in a process like this, but it's an attempt to find the best balance. This is a draft decision of the first Conference of Parties. In other words, whatever is forwarded from this Preparatory Commission will be subject to consideration at the Conference of Parties itself. In other words, and I'll be frank, while this is an important issue, in the hierarchy of needs, it rates secondary to those issues that we need and those products that we must conclude in order for the COP to be able to meet. So I would ask delegations to focus in particular on what they absolutely need in this document, what they can't possibly live with, and please, if it's fit for purpose, if it does the job but it is not necessarily as you might have drafted it, if we can please leave it alone. As per all of these sessions on the IFBs issues, I really want to leave time, if at all possible, for IFBs themselves to be able to comment and also for NGOs. So if delegations could bear that in mind. We must conclude our deliberations on this paper by the time this session concludes, which is at one o'clock or a couple of minutes before. So if everyone who is intending to take the floor could please also bear that in mind as well. With that, the floor is open. Oh, sorry, apologies. I should have made one final thing clear. I'm opening the entirety of the document. So the entire document is open now for comment. My apologies. I see no state or group looking to Antigua and Barbuda on behalf of CARICOM, I presume. The floor is yours. Antigua and Barbuda · CARICOM [1:14:48]: Thank you very much, co-chair. First of all, thank you to the chair and your team for the dedicated work and expertise in addressing the positions of various states. CARICOM is pleased with the general tenor of the document and while noting the need for flexibility from all parties to execute the work of the agreement, our members feel it necessary to raise two further comments for consideration. Firstly, as it relates to OP1 sub-paragraph b, CARICOM is concerned with the narrowing of the prioritization for early cooperation arrangements. Our position remains that an over-persuasive process runs the risk of limiting the effective implementation of the agreement. While we understand the need for identification of priority needs, we do not wish to exclude other IFBs from the prioritization process mentioned herein. We therefore suggest the removal of the phrase, particularly those with competence or mandate to regulate activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. As it relates to OP1G, Gbis and Gter, in line with CARACOM's position to avoid over-prescription, we suggest a reversion to the former text of OP1G which read: G, the need for a flexible approach to cooperation under the agreement that allows for cooperation arrangements to adapt to emerging needs and priorities that evolve over time while taking into account the practicality of arrangements and complementarity in activities, as well as the respective capacities, resources, operational limits, and cycles of the instruments, frameworks, and bodies concerned as appropriate. In Caricom's view, the paragraph references all the elements of the trio of the current G paragraphs in the current draft, while noting directly that flexibility must be applied when attempting to balance these different elements. Caricom believes this will avoid any possible misinterpretation of GBIS and GTER as currently drafted that could view those paragraphs as mandating the engagement in a specific modality that does not take flexibility into account. Thank you, Chair. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:17:11]: I thank Antigua and Barbuda on behalf of CARICOM and I give the floor to Argentina on behalf of CLAM. Argentina · CLAM [1:17:21]: Thank you, Co-Chair. On behalf of CLAM, We would like to thank the co-chairs for all of the work that they've done in order to take into consideration the different positions and different suggestions as expressed by delegations to reach a consensus based text. We think that more generally, this document does pick up a large number of concerns and suggestions that our group made during our first intervention. Having said that, we would like to Nevertheless, make a few observations on this new version of the document, particularly on paragraph 1b, where we see that mandates was deleted and we added work. We would like that mandates be mentioned. because it is the mandates that determine the scope and the jurisdictions of the instruments, frameworks and different bodies. So I think that limiting this just to the term work without providing reference to the general legal framework for them is too vague, is not precise enough. We'd also like to underscore that paragraph C uses this reference of mandates already. So in order to make it consistent, We think that we should go back to the initial wording, which used the word mandate rather than work. Also, we'd like to insist on our proposal to delete directly intersect with the objectives and replace that with are functionally related to specific provisions because this then refers to the effective and timely implementation of the agreement. So the term provisions would be more appropriate here. Finally, on the last sentence, which starts by while ensuring that such cooperation does not undermine the objectives of the agreement, CLAMM would propose to replace this with does not undermine, replace does not undermine with promotes because cooperation from a point of view of the BBNG COP is underpinned by the promotion of its application, of course, which then allows them to achieve the objectives of the agreement. On paragraph 1e, and on the basis of the elements that have already been shared by CLAMP in our previous statement, Cooperation should be based on a specific cooperation agreement, a formal agreement, and then after we could then envisage informal cooperation in practice. So we propose to replace cooperation with this type of cooperation. Now on paragraph g bis, CLAM believes that the need or not to have consultations between statements by the IFBs is part of their own mandate and their own functioning. So this doesn't seem to be guidance that could be in the attention of the BBNJ Secretariat. So consultation with concerned stakeholders is part of the IFB's internal processes and it's covered by cooperation agreements or by different adaptations and adjustments of existing agreements. So therefore we propose to delete including taking into account their needs to consult relevant stakeholders. On paragraph ter then, in its current drafting, it would be difficult to implement in practice because there will be quite a lot of IFBs who then will have their own agendas. That would then provide a further burden on the COP if we really want to be able to properly coordinate all the work on the cycles established by the OFB. So they will then, cycles will be based on the need defined, as defined by the parties for the implementation of the agreement. So we should then delete JITA completely. CLAM would also like to reiterate its proposal to add a further subparagraph to the first paragraph of the section. We propose to add A, which would say the need to ensure consistency with UNCLOS, including with regard to the competence of international organisations recognised by it. in line with Article 5 of COP. And finally, on to bis, CLAM could agree with what's said for the call for cooperation with IFBs, but having said that, we don't know how parties will be able to commit to promote cooperation between IFBs. cooperation between the BBNJ and IFBs of course, but how can we promote cooperation between them, between IFBs? That's why we propose to delete "among". Now, as for the phrase "including to ensure as by appropriate relevant instrument frameworks and bodies are sufficiently prepared and equipped to cooperate with bodies and participate in processes of the agreement", it's not clear how the BBNJ parties can ensure that the IFBs are sufficiently prepared and equipped to cooperate and participate in the processes. This comes down to the mandate of the IFBs themselves, so we would propose the removal of the phrase that begins with "including by ensuring" to the end of the paragraph. Now, as for operative paragraph 2ter, we understand that this must be in square brackets because it will depend on what is agreed in the terms of reference of the SPs that is under discussion. As for operative paragraph five, first of all, we understand that the phrase "using input from the programmes of work to be developed by the subsidiary bodies established under the agreement" also must remain in square brackets because it will depend on what's agreed in the terms of reference of the SBs. In order to strengthen the principle of not undermining it, we would add after for the achievement of the objectives of the agreement, the phrase in a manner that it does not undermine the mandate of said relevant instruments, frameworks and bodies. And lastly, Mr. Co-Chair, CLAM wishes to understand the reason for the removal of the operative paragraph six before we can consider it. Thank you very much. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:25:39]: Thanks. I thank the distinguished representative of Argentina on behalf of CLAN. On the specific question of the removal of six, I'm going to have to get back to you. I'm sure there's a reason. We've had a lot going on. So I will revert to you on that in due course. But I will give the floor now to the European Union. EU, the floor is yours. EU [1:26:09]: Co-chair, the EU and its 27 Member States wish to deeply thank the co-chair and the WALO Secretariat for the efforts made in reviewing the draft decision on IFPs while trying to accommodate needs and concerns of all delegations, including the EU and its 27 Member States. We are pleased to see that the current new text of the decision has taken into account most of the proposals made by the EU and its 27 Member States at its first reading. However, we do still have concerns on the text. But in light of the limited time to address all the priorities, of this PrepCom and given the fact that cooperation is a key priority for the EU and its 27 Member States, we would be more comfortable in addressing this issue at COP1 and keep the whole decision in brackets as to give it proper discussion as it deserved. We may also stand ready to engage in inter-sessionally on this topic, by the way. Yet, if the co-chair believes the best way now is to proceed with highlighting the concerns, then we might have to come back again in a few moments to address our concerns. Thank you. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:28:03]: I thank the European Union for your comments and I appreciate the clarity and the frankness with which they're put. I need to talk to my fellow co-chair before making any decisions on this. I think I would describe it as following. You're well aware of our approach to the bracketing of text overall. We believe that this PrepCom has a job to do, which is to prepare for the first Conference of Parties, and there are very few issues that will be easier to resolve at the Conference of Parties than at this Preparatory Commission. Now, this, of course, is probably an exception to the rule in that it is, of course, a decision for the first Conference of Parties, so it's not a precursor. I think the decision, and this again is something I need to discuss with my co-chair and then revert back to you, I think, but for the benefit of the guidance of delegations for the hour and 20 minutes we have left, I think the decisions here are either to see if we can come to a text that everyone can live with, so I am interested in your comments, or we simply don't conclude this item. I am not in favour of bracketing the text. I think it would be better to not forward it in the report, given our ambition to ensure that nothing goes forward in the report that is bracketed. But I need to talk about that with my co-chair. So I think point noted and we'll obviously take advice on delegations on that. If you've got particular concerns, I would communicate them now on the basis that it's either a product that we can agree with or it does not go forward. With that, I will return the floor to the European Union, unless you'd like me to hand on. EU, the floor is yours. EU [1:30:17]: With your indulgence, co-chair, give us some moments and I will be back. Thank you. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:30:22]: I appreciate that. All that is without prejudice to the fact that I need to talk to my co-chair who's currently chairing another session. So, okay, with that, I give the floor to Cote d'Ivoire. speaking on behalf of the Africa Group. Cote d'Ivoire, the floor is yours. Côte d’Ivoire · Africa Group [1:30:39]: Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair, and thanks again for the document provided. We have a few comments. In Chapter 3, membership, the African Group thinks it's important to keep the paragraph R7, which has been deleted because It gives clarity to the mandate of the experts while in the SPs and contribute to reduce any conflict of interest. So we support the reintroduction of this paragraph. One free number of members, we see that some numbers have been proposed. No consensus has been reached yet, so we suggest leaving this session open to allow further consultations. for the number of members in each subsidiary bodies. And on languages. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:31:48]: My sincere apologies, Cote d'Ivoire, on behalf of the Africa Group. I think you're on subsidiary bodies. Côte d’Ivoire · Africa Group [1:31:54]: Yes. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:31:55]: We're in IFBs here. Côte d’Ivoire · Africa Group [1:31:58]: On IFBs? Yes. Oh, okay. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:32:01]: Janine and I are often mistaken for each other. Co-Chair · Janine Coye-Felson [1:32:04]: We look very similar. Côte d’Ivoire · Africa Group [1:32:06]: Thank you. Apologies about that. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:32:09]: That's fine. Let me know if you want to come in or if the Africa group wants to come in on IFBs. Côte d’Ivoire · Africa Group [1:32:15]: Thank you. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:32:16]: I give the floor to Japan to be followed by China. Japan, the floor is yours. Japan [1:32:24]: Thank you, Chair. First of all, Japan would like to thank co-chair and the Dwaros for preparing this document. And generally, so Japan can be go along with this current text. But firstly, I would like to have a quick response to the intervention in the previous speaker, particularly on the paragraph one, sub paragraph B. I think the, yes, since there are so many IFBs which BBNJ needs to cooperate, so prioritization is very important and the practical step for the BBNJ Secretariat to develop the cooperation mechanism. In this sense, so we think the later part of this paragraph giving priority to the IFB, with competence or mandate to regulate activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It is, it sounds a reasonable prioritization, we think. We are flexible about wording, but substantially, so we'd like to keep this component to be in this subparagraph B. And also our original comment is very super minor editorial suggestion. It's Paragraph two bis, new paragraph, in the second line from the bottom, equipped to cooperate with bodies. So it is unclear for us what bodies means. If the body means the bodies established under the agreement, so Japan would like to suggest to insert a few words body after body, namely bodies established under the agreement. Thank you very much. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:34:22]: Japan and I give the floor to China. China [1:34:31]: Greetings. Thank you, Co-Chair. First of all, the Chinese delegation wish to thank the Co-Chair and the WLOS for your efforts in preparing this draft. Overall, after revision, this draft has accommodated the opinions and comments of most delegations. We believe that the overall direction is correct. On specificities, we wish to further elaborate our opinions and small comments. First, the current PP4, that is the original PP3, in our previous statement, we recommended that in the last sentence, we should quote Article 48 of the agreement. when quoting this article, we should include reference to the implementation of the agreement, and this has been accommodated. However, one word is left out, a word that we believe is important, which is in reference to Article 48, paragraph three, in relation to transparency, that information should be disseminated. We believe that for other IFBs, Disclosure of information or making such information public is important for coordination and cooperation, so we believe that we should include the dissemination of public information in this paragraph. Next, we wish to comment on OP 1 bis, or 1b. We agree with what was expressed by the distinguished delegation of Argentina on behalf of CLAM. We believe that mandate is more appropriate than work. We agree with substituting work with mandate. While respecting, we wish to add not amending, which is more aligned with the spirit of the agreement. Finally, a minor editorial comment. We are not sure whether revision is needed. That is on pp. 2. It quotes the full name of Enclos, but this name has been referred to in paragraph 1 and the abbreviation convention was used subsequently. So we are wondering if it's necessary to quote the full name in PP2 again. Thank you. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:37:26]: Cicia, China, and I give the floor to Australia. The floor is yours. Australia · CANZ [1:37:34]: Thank you, co-chair. I'll be brief. I'm coming in on behalf of CANZII and just to say that we appreciate the efforts of the co-chairs and WLOS to turn around this revision in such a short time. And on the whole, we are broadly content with the document, but we do question the alignment of paragraph 1C with relevant language in the agreement. And in this regard, we note, for example, the reference to fully respecting their respective mandates and processes in 1C, but we appreciate we're at the pointy end of the PrepCom and we do need to conclude our work. So we can be flexible in the interest of moving forward. We can accept the text as is, but we did just want to note this question for the record. Thank you, Chair. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:38:31]: I thank the distinguished representative of Australia on behalf of CANZIE. And I would just note that your observation about being at the pointy end is correct. In this procedure, obviously at this point in time, particularly bearing in mind where we are, the terms of the agreement itself will be a first reference point. So let's see where the debate finishes, but obviously as we review the document in light of commentary, the terms of the agreement itself will be the first starting place for any possible future changes that occur, if any. I've got one more inscribed speaker and that is the High Seas Alliance. The floor is yours. [1:39:21]: Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. The High Seas Alliance has very serious concerns with this latest version. The issues of cooperation, mandates and IFBs have been carefully crafted after years of negotiations. Many in this room will recall that negotiators considered other formulations of the net undermining provision, including some formulations that are included in this revised draft decision. But the agreement quite deliberately chose not undermine together with Article 8. In our view, with many elements in this revised text, introduce formulations that are inconsistent with the agreement. Introducing new wording on mandates such as mandate complementarity, fully respecting mandates, and duplication in paragraph 1c are all introducing new language not found in the agreement. We welcome the EU's suggestion to keep the entire document in bracket or taking into account your comments, Mr. Co-Chair. We would also recommend that the decision not be forwarded to the COP. That being said, if this document is to advance, we propose the following recommendations. We would delete paragraph 1C in its entirety. The usage of phrases Ensuring and fully respecting is not only inconsistent with the BBNJ agreement, but it also places a disproportionate burden on the BBNJ agreement that is not clearly defined and moves away from the balanced approach established in the agreement under Article 5, paragraph 2, between not undermining and enhanced cooperation with relevant IFBs, and places a disproportionate emphasis on non-undermining. Similarly, on paragraph 1 appears to defer to IFBs and their procedures, in contrast with Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Agreement and its requirement for parties to cooperate in achievement of the objectives of BBNJ. The task must be to establish procedures in BBNJ and for IFBs to adopt their procedures to be able to cooperate with BBNJ. The same is true for paragraph 1. Given the multiple IFBs involved, attempted coordination with IFB work cycles would mean extensive delays and excessive burdens on BBNJ and its bodies, as well as proponents of BBNJ area-based management tools, including high seas MPAs. We strongly urge PrepCom not to stray from the balance reached in the agreement and urge that it does not introduce new language and maintain maximum flexibility. Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:42:04]: I thank the High Seas Alliance. Before I give the floor to the European Union to be followed by the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Ecuador, I undertook to revert to Argentina on behalf of CLAM with some clarification with respect to the rationale for the deletion of operative paragraph 6. In the last session, delegations questioned what the purpose and clarity of the scope of the workshop was, and there were no proposals to clarify that. So the provision was deleted. I would also note further the Secretariat is gathering information on the relevant IFBs. per operative paragraph four. So that is the rationale that you requested. Obviously, if there is a sense from delegations that there is a desire to reintroduce it and provide some further clarity, then of course, you know, we're open to being guided by delegations. I hope that's of assistance. I now give the floor to the European Union, to be followed by the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Ecuador. European Union, the floor is yours. EU [1:43:31]: Thank you, Chair, Co-Chair, and thank you again for your indulgence in this. On para 1.1, I'm starting from the first, so para 1b, we are not really comfortable with the new text included starting from particularly those with competence or mandate. and until national jurisdiction because we believe that this is narrowing actually the process and it's preventing participation, proper participation from IFBs in this process. And plus it is already, this issue is already covered by para four. On one C, we would like We will ask for the deletion of the first part of the paragraph and, in particular, the reference to the respective mandates and processes and the avoidance of overlapping mandates and processes as appropriate, so the first part of the sentence, and we will ask to We would prefer the previous version that was presented in this trust. So the mandates, we believe that the mandates are already established in the agreement and also within the IFP, so there is no need to explicitly focus on this issue here. And this is a really important and key issue for us, for the EU. On one D, we again, as we said in our first reading, we are not, we don't believe that the reference to the full participation of states basically, regardless of categories, it's it's proper here. So we are referring to the arrangements, cooperation arrangements with IFB, so this is not really the scope to have also states involved in this specific case. So we would like, we would ask again for the deletion of the second part of the para d. on, yeah, and the same is on age. So on the same line, we would prefer not to have a mentioning of states of any categories for the same reason, of course. Well, on para, for yes, no, sorry, I have to go back to GTER, of course, we would like to ask for the deletion of the full GTER. So, Yeah, this not for to us, this what you what we have here is not really feasible and and of course this is not acceptable and plus it's also covered so that the the respect for the work cycles is already covered in 4B. So we don't have to explicitly again refer to the the coordination of work cycles here. On the four, on para four, we first, we believe that the terminology used here as engage and consult with the secretariat is not the terminology used in the agreement. So we would like, as already said in our first reading, to ask for the term facilitate, so to use the term facilitate rather than engage, so facilitate and consultate. Still on paragraph four, we are not comfortable with the new the new inclusion, which refers to comments regarding the reviews. So we believe that it's not the proper way to do it, so we believe that information might be more feasible to ask, to provide. So we will ask for an in exchange from comments to information. Finally, on the financial paragraph seven, we are fine with this. We can accept the paragraph. If you remember, in our first reading, we kindly asked for not dealing with this issue at all, considering that it is something to be dealt with better under the financial track, but in a spirit of compromise we can accept this paragraph with the caveat that it has to be clear that this has to be done subject to available finance funding. So it is our really important and key issues to add here and with this I'm done, thank you. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:49:39]: I thank the European Union and I thank you for that indication of flexibility at the end and I give the floor to the United Kingdom. UK, the floor is yours. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [1:49:49]: Thank you, Co-Chair, and to Wallace for preparing this revised text and we are grateful for their ongoing impressive efforts throughout PrepCom. The UK welcomes the revised text and thanks the Co-Chairs for their efforts to prepare this so quickly. We won't restate opposition, however, we echo CARA COM and the views expressed by the EU and query the need for OP1 GBIS and GTER as we believe paragraph G goes far enough and these additional paragraphs are too prescriptive. We remain flexible to views in the room, however, and if there remains a desire to keep this language, we would suggest softening and replacing taking into account in GBIS with having awareness of. jumping back to OPC, oh sorry, OP1C, it is also our preference to revert to the language of the previous text. We feel the revised text goes beyond the text which was carefully crafted for Article 22 of the agreement and Article 5.2. But in the efforts to remain constructive, we remain open and flexible. Thank you, Mr. Kocher. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:50:51]: I thank the United Kingdom for that very clear indication of your position and willingness to be flexible. And I give the floor to Saudi Arabia to be followed by Ecuador. Saudi Arabia, the floor is yours. Saudi Arabia [1:51:04]: Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair, and we thank you and appreciate the work that was done into revising the draft. We also see progress, particularly instruction, the elements of the cooperation. We have some few interventions on several parts on BP7 we note the new language on contribution and role this new addition we cannot support this new addition we don't see it as appropriate in this part on OB1C we truly appreciate the attention and intention behind the new addition and we support it as is so we Yes, for OB1C, we support the language the new addition added. On OB1E, where formal arrangements such as memoranda of understanding are envisaged, we would see also value in clarifying and in language to clarify that such arrangements are subject to prior approval by the COP, given their potential legal and financial implications. So for us at least, we think that would be appropriate. On OB8, we would prefer a more flexible approach in the language for this matter, and we would consider, for example, language that speak that this matter be examined on basis of reports or periodic review other than what's in the language currently. Thank you. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:52:34]: Saudi Arabia, and I give the floor to Ecuador, who is the last speaker inscribed on my list. Ecuador, the floor is yours. Ecuador [1:52:45]: Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. Ecuador wishes to fully align itself with the words of the delegation of Argentina speaking on behalf of CLAM. This statement is being made in our national capacity. For our country, this agreement constitutes a milestone for the strengthening of the international law of the sea and of multilateralism, as well as an historic opportunity to advance with the conservation of marine biodiversity on the high seas, whose protection is essential for the health of the oceans, for food security and for the well-being of present and future generations. Ecuador reaffirms its support to a coherent and effective implementation of the BBNJ agreement. However, this aspiration must be coupled with common sense and effective coordination. with already existing frameworks and bodies was betting their roles. In this regard, Ecuador believes that it's important to ensure robust coordination and cooperation, comprehensive cooperation in order to safeguard Article 5.2 of the agreement to not duplicate efforts. As an example, regional fisheries management organizations for decades have been engaged in valuable scientific and technical work for managing fish stocks, highly migratory fish stocks, the adoption of conservation measures, mitigation of bycatch and the progressive protection of the marine ecosystem. This experience must be drawn on and articulated as soon as possible. The implementation of the BBNJ agreement must promote complementarity dialogue and institutional agreements as well as the exchange of scientific information and compatible measures Ecuador will continue to participate in this process with a constructive spirit and with the conviction that it is only through effective cooperation with coherent oceanic governance that we will be able to ensure the sustainable use and conservation of marine biodiversity on the high seas. Thank you very much. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:55:12]: Muchas gracias, Ecuador. Just give me 30 seconds, delegates. Oh, I have another speaker, Iran, the floor is yours. Iran (Islamic Republic of) [1:56:17]: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and sorry for taking the floor a bit late. There are parallel meetings I have to cover, all of them. Very quickly, we're still analyzing this draft, but there is one point we would like to mention in relation to preamble or paragraph two, reference to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, as per the consistent position we had and we have, we propose that this should be international law, including international law of the sea, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Thank you. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:56:50]: I thank the distinguished representative of Iran, and there's no need to apologise. There's a lot going on at the moment, so understood. Okay, delegations, thank you. This has been a very instructive discussion this morning. Oh, Tonga. I see that Tonga has requested to take the floor, I presume on behalf of PSIDS, but you can clarify that. Tonga, you have the floor. Tonga · PSIDS [1:57:15]: Thank you very much, co-chair. And we wanted to be a good student and not intervene because we didn't have hard red lines. We just wanted to indicate our flexibility for the decision which has been provided. and we're looking forward to hearing what your suggestion is as we move forward given that there have been new proposals on the floor but just wanting to convey the group's flexibility on the draft provided. Thank you, co-chair. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [1:57:45]: I thank the distinguished representative of Tonga on behalf of PSIDS. My proposal is as follows. We've had some good discussions this morning. I think in some areas we are not necessarily too far away. I want to state very, very clearly that on the opening morning of this third Preparatory Commission, my co-chair and I stated very clearly that it was our intention that no documents go forward with brackets, that in effect that would be an abdication of our responsibility as a preparatory commission to prepare for the COP. It remains my very strong intention that this document not go forward with brackets. So, I suggest there's some clear indications of some differences. on some language. I would encourage delegations to discuss in the time that we have available now, we have at least another 50 minutes before this session was due to finish, to discuss and see if ways forward can be reached with respect to that language. And we will see if we can put together a text that is capable of achieving consensus. You, I think, know my left and right arms being Harry on one side and Isabella who is sitting behind me on the other. If, as a result of discussions between delegations, you're capable of reaching text on some of the contentious items that leaves us in a situation with a document that can be adopted without square brackets, then that is what we will attempt to do. But in going into those consultations, I would like everyone to remain very much cognisant of what I just said. I'm not intending to forward this document with square brackets, so our aim is to agree on a document without square brackets. With that, I think I will declare the formal proceedings closed and I'll leave it to delegations to have the relevant discussions and come back to us. Okay. Co-Chair · Janine Coye-Felson [2:00:16]: Thank you all very much. Co-Chair · Adam McCarthy [2:00:18]: Session is adjourned.