Preparatory Commission: Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (Third Session, 30th plenary meeting)

Distinguished delegates, we shall resume our work. This afternoon, we will resume in plenary, beginning with item six of our agenda, credentials of representatives, under which delegations will hear from the co-chairs an updated oral report on the review of the credentials of representatives to the Preparatory Commission. We will then return to item five of our agenda during the consultations held so far, following which we will resume our consideration of item seven of the agenda entitled other matters to provide an opportunity for any delegations wishing to raise any other matters to do so. Afterwards, we will proceed with resuming item eight of the agenda entitled Adoption of the Report of the Preparatory Commission. Following that item, we will move to item nine of the agenda. Moving to the credentials of representatives, we would like to deliver the following oral report on the review of the credentials of the representatives to the Preparatory Commission. On behalf of my co-chair and my own behalf, I wish to provide an update to the Preparatory Commission on the oral report of the credentials of representatives to the Preparatory Commission provided yesterday afternoon. My co-chair and I have the honour to update to the meeting on the credentials of representatives, including those of the representatives of states and regional economic integration organisations that have signed the agreement or have ratified, approved, accepted or acceded to the agreement. Having reviewed the information provided by the Secretariat as of Thursday 2 April at 1.30pm concerning formal credentials issued by the head of state or government or by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I wish to report that the Secretariat received formal credentials from two additional states. Therefore, formal credentials have been received from 100 states and from the European Union. Out of the total of formal credentials received, 91 are from states and one from the regional economic integration organisation that have signed the agreement or have ratified, approved, accepted or acceded to the agreement. In addition, having reviewed the information provided by the Secretariat as of Thursday 2 April at 1.30 pm, with regard to information concerning the appointment of representatives to the Preparatory Commission communicated to the Secretary-General by means of a copy of formal credentials signed by the head of state or government of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, or by means of a letter or note verbale from the permanent mission concerned. I wish to update the Commission that due to a technical error of the eDelegate platform, This information was not reflected accurately during yesterday's oral report. Thus, I wish to communicate that such information has been received from 50 states. Out of the information received by the Secretary General concerning the appointment of the representatives, 39 are from states that have signed the agreement or have ratified, approved, accepted, or acceded to the agreement. On behalf of my fellow co-chair and on my own behalf, The Preparatory Commission is invited to take note of this update and of the information presented concerning credentials and other information concerning the appointment of representatives to the Preparatory Commission, which will be included in the report of the Preparatory Commission. I hear no objection. It is so decided. We now move to item five, which we will consideration of matters to be addressed by the Conference of Parties to the agreement at its first meeting and additional matters as identified by the Preparatory Commission. And we will now close item five of our agenda. We now move. No, I think they've got it. I think they've realised. We now move to item seven, other matters. We shall resume our work under item seven of the agenda entitled other matters. So distinguished delegates, I will now open the floor for any matters that delegations wish to raise under item seven of our agenda. Distinguished delegates, this concludes our consideration of item seven of our agenda. Item eight, adoption of the report of the Preparatory Commission. We will now turn to item eight of our agenda, adoption of the report of the Preparatory Commission. Before we do so, I wish to note that owing to editorial issues, In two of the documents issued last night, correction versions were issued over lunchtime. These are the draft terms of reference and modalities for the operation of and the rules of procedure for the subsidiary bodies. That is A\AC296, 2926, 2927, CRP.2 REV.1. 2026. Which was reissued as AC.296.2026.CRP.2 REV.1 CORR.1. And the draft financial rules governing the funding of the Conference of the Parties to the agreement and the funding of the secretariat and any subsidiary bodies that was issued as CRP.3 rev 1, which was reissued as CRP.3/rev1/corr, C-O-R-R.1. I also wish to note that two additional documents were issued over lunchtime. The draft terms of reference for the voluntary trust fund under the agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, that is A\AC.296.2026\10, and draft decision for consideration by the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction concerning the operationalisation of the special fund established under the agreement. Play all songs of CID.

Thank you, colleagues. This is how we wish to proceed now in relation to the work that we've done over the past eight and a half whatever days. So in relation to the documents that have been issued as for the session, which Adam just updated, it's okay. We wish to note that there are documents that relate to intersessional work. That relates to the letter that would have to be issued or sent to the Secretary-General regarding questions relating to secretariat arrangements. There is also the matter of the clearinghouse mechanism and the work that would be required to be done intersessionally. Those documents or references will be included in the report of the Preparatory Commission. We also have documents where, at this point in time, due to practical matters, we are not going to be able to send without brackets. The first one relates to the financial rules and regulations, and simply put, that particular document has some open paragraphs that are dependent on the type of secretariat arrangement that we choose. The second document, where we tried as much as we could to try to get it unbracketed, is the document relating to the terms of reference relating to the subsidiary bodies. As you know, many of you were here with us late last night trying to see if we could reach agreement on composition as well as even up through today, and we weren't able to do that, regrettably. So those are documents that will necessarily have to have brackets in them. We also have documents, however, that we want to clean as recommendations going forward from the PrepCom. These relate to the rules of procedure. So on the rules of procedure, we understand that there has been a lot of effort to try to meet each other. and we want to ensure that that is reflected appropriately within the document. So Adam and I would like to invite those who may have been able to identify solutions, compromise solutions, which would be able to garner the agreement of the room. We would like to invite you to do so now. I wish to offer the floor to Singapore.

Thank you, Co-Chairs.

Singapore was asked by the Co-Chairs to coordinate on Rule 6 on observers. The bridging text is found in the Chair's text at Rule 6 paragraph 2 and it includes the footnote and it is based on the decision adopted in the first session of the Preparatory Committee for the UN Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity in January this year. The common understanding of paragraph 2 was that the process begins with a list of proposed observers being circulated to the parties by the Secretariat. Parties may then object to names on that list. The final names, which is not including the names of those who have been objected to, would then go to the COP for a decision along with the initially proposed names. Parties may request for the general basis of any objections, which will then be disclosed to the COP. At the COP, Any party may propose the reinstatement of a name that had been removed by objection, and such a proposal would require a simple majority to carry it being a question of procedure. The text that is most likely to attract consensus clarifies this common understanding, which was socialized to all delegations when this proposal was presented, and I will read this text out. And this text will find its place at the end of paragraph 2 of Rule 6. So I will read first from the original text. Following which a final decision will be made by the Conference of Parties on participation, and the addition is as follows. Such decision being a decision on a question of procedure under Rule 45 of the present rules. Thank you, co-chairs.

I wish to thank the distinguished representative of Singapore and I wish to ensure that colleagues have heard the proposal and as indicated by the distinguished representative of Singapore, this is likely the best way forward.

I think Japan and Indonesia are coming in on another issue. They're going to be.

Okay, I don't see any requests on this. I will move forward then to the next proposal from New Zealand.

Thank you, co-chair, and my apologies, consultations on this issue are very much running down to the wire. So the co-chairs kindly invited me to assist in respect of rule 34 and rule 44. These are the parts of the rules of procedure that pertain to the right to vote and also quorum. The textual suggestion that I have to read, which I believe is something that groups have been able to consider is for rule 34 paragraph two would read quorum shall be determined on the basis of the number of votes that are entitled to be cast on a decision. Rule 44 would read in its entirety, the rights of the parties to vote are as provided for in Article 64 of the agreement. Thank you, Coach.

I wish to thank the distinguished representative of New Zealand, who I can't find in the room actually. Oh, there you are. Thank you very much. And I understand that this is the best way forward on these paragraphs, at least to ensure that we can send unbracketed text forward. Okay, I see no one. Okay, thank you very much, colleagues. We appreciate that you have exercised a lot of effort towards trying to meet each other. We understand that this doesn't make everyone comfortable. And we are simply asking your goodwill, good faith, and continued cooperation as we try to finish up our task at hand. We are hoping to have this unbracketed text move forward under procedural decision for recommendation for consideration to the COP.

So we need.

If there's any delegation wishing to register any views. On this matter. I recognize Brazil. Brazil, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. On behalf of Brazil, I would like to convey our sincere appreciation for the dedicated efforts undertaken by you and your team, together with the Secretariat, in preparing the rules of procedure of the Conference of the Parties. Bearing in mind that the documents under consideration in the annexes of the report are to be adopted by the first Conference of the Parties by consensus in accordance with Article 47, paragraph 4 of the BBNJ Agreement, my delegation believes it will be prudent to allow delegations additional time to undertake a thorough assessment of the draft texts so as to ensure a well-considered and genuinely consensual outcome. Madam Co-Chair, with respect to draft Rule 39 bis of the Rules of Procedure, My delegation would like to reiterate that in our view, the inclusion of such a rule is of critical importance in order to effectively operationalize Article 18 of the BBNJ Agreement. Article 18 provides legal certainty by establishing that the Conference of the Parties shall not consider for decision proposals for the establishment of area-based management tools within national jurisdiction. We regret that the current wording of draft rule 39 bis was circulated at short notice, which has not allowed sufficient time for proper consideration of such an important issue. At this stage, Brazil is not in a position to join consensus on the proposed language for rule 39 bis. We accordingly reserve our right to revert to this matter in due course, bearing in mind that the final decision rests with the Conference of the Parties. I would kindly request that this position be reflected in the record. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil. I now give the floor to Japan, the distinguished representative of Japan.

Thank you, Chair. And first of all, our delegation would like really thank the chairs and co-chairs and the for the very hard work in the couple of weeks. And Japan has constructively engaged in the negotiation by drafting some textual proposals as well as joining the informal sessions. However, very unfortunately, Japan is not in a position to support the adoption of the report, particularly for the rule of procedures at this stage. due to two reasons. First one is regarding the Rule 44 paragraph 2 and the Rule 34 paragraph 2. So our delegation would like to thank New Zealand efforts to make a bridge about divergence among members. But at this stage, we would like to reserve our position given the importance of this issue. And we would like to constructively engage in the discussion with other members, including New Zealand, for the good solution will be made at COP1. And the second point is rule of procedure, rule 451, regarding secret ballot. So current chair's text, secret ballot provision was deleted. Japan has requested, Japan would like to request to reinstate our revised proposal for secret ballot as our red line. The text of proposal refers as follows. Any party may request a secret ballot. the president shall ask whether the request is seconded. If it is seconded by 10 or more parties, the vote shall be by secret ballot. This proposed language echoes the text of the site's rules of procedures. It is not Japan considers that secret ballot is the most favorable method of voting. Nonetheless, we consider that it is important to have that option to encourage broader participation to the agreement and ensure autonomy of parties in decision making on any issues. This method of voting does not sacrifice the procedural transparency as a result of the ballot will be made public afterwards and parties may express their positions. During our discussion the day before yesterday, several delegations clearly expressed their support for maintaining this provision. Moreover, to our recollection, during yesterday's meeting of the small group, there was no announcement from the-- there was no announcement about Rule 51 will be taken up in the informal meeting. So against this background, the sudden removal of this provision is deeply disappointing. Again, so we don't that every effort to reach agreement by consensus has been exhausted. So that's why Japan cannot join the consensus at this stage. To conclude, since Article 47 paragraph four of the agreement said the conference of the party shall by consensus adopt at its first meeting rules of procedure for itself. Japan would like to continue constructively engage with all members towards a successful conclusion at the COP1 next January. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much to the distinguished representative of Japan. Your reservation is noted. I now wish to give the floor to the distinguished representative of Indonesia. Indonesia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Indonesia wishes to express its appreciation for the efforts undertaken throughout the PrepCom III process. However, we must also convey our concern that there remains no consensus on the language related to observers in Rule 6, paragraph 1, of the draft rule of procedure. We have a concern, and Indonesia objects, the formulation in Rule 6, because we are of the view, as we highlighted this morning, that it should adhere to the formulation as reflected in the BBNJ Agreement, in particular Article 48 on transparency, paragraph 4, as already highlighted, used in this article, but in the letter C or D, it's contradict. Other articles is Article 5, Article 7, and Article 13. These are articles that different with what we have in the Rule 6, paragraph 1. That's why we believe that we need to be consistent when we refer to indigenous peoples and local communities as a single formulation. Again, we emphasize this is different with what we have in the articles I mentioned in the BBNG agreement. Due to that reason, Indonesia therefore proposes that the PrepCom report need or must use the language as follows, recommend the draft documents for the COP1 for consideration, not adoption. Let me repeat that the PrepCom, the third PrepCom report must use the language of recommendation of draft documents for the COP1 consideration. not adoption. My delegation would also like to request that rule six, particularly paragraph one, put in bracket. Indonesia further requests that the following wording language, our statement, be reflected in the report. I will state it that this delegation still objects the formulation on Rule 6, paragraph 1, regarding indigenous people and local communities, because it deviates or is inconsistent with the formulation on Article 48, paragraph 4, and we really wish this to be reflected in the report. Finally, allow me to briefly reiterate that it is imperative that the COP be afforded the necessary space to address this matter fully, in a manner that preserve the integrity, consistency, balance, and inclusivity of the BBNJ agreement. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia, and I'll come back to your suggestion on recommending on the wording for what the report states, because what you've stated is accurate. Philippines, you have the floor.

Thank you, chairs. We thank you for your earnest efforts. We are pleased to see how carefully your team and the secretariat have taken into consideration initiatives that enable meaningful participation in the operationalization of the BB&J agreement, including a rotation mechanism for developing states and the subsidiary bodies on top of the dedicated seats for SIDS, LDCs, and LLDCs. There are many challenges before us in giving life to our common aspirations for the early operationalization and effective implementation of the agreement. Mindful of the need to move our work forward, my delegation is of the understanding that the PIPCOM's report is simply recommending for consideration by the COP. These comments, including the rules of procedures, and for this reason, we would request that our statement be put on record with clear understanding as to its legal nature and limits. Rules of procedures are intended to facilitate the orderly conduct of the work of the Conference of the Parties. They are procedural and institutional in character and remain subordinate to the Agreement. They cannot alter, reinterpret or condition the substantive balance reflected in the Treaty. In this regard, Article 18 already establishes a comprehensive and carefully negotiated safeguard. Accordingly, our understanding is that any reference to Article 18 in the Rules of Procedure does not create new rights, does not introduce any form of veto or blocking effect, and does not preclude the Conference of the Parties from considering matters within each mandate. Any notifications or reference under the provisions should be understood as contributing to transparency without affecting the ability of the COP to proceed in accordance with the agreement. We consider this understanding essential to preserving the integrity of the agreement and the proper role of the Conference of the Parties. Thank you, co-chair.

I wish to thank the distinguished representative of the Philippines and indeed your understanding is accurate. This is the report is just a recommendation for consideration of the COP. I wish now to give the floor to Egypt.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. And I would like to echo the sentiment by participants in the room for thanking the co-chairs, the secretariat, the facilitators and all the co-facilitators for all their roles and efforts during the last days. However, we unfortunately unable to join consensus on some of the rules of procedure and we would like this to be reflected in the report, the official report of this PrepCom. So the rules that we are trying to add our voices here is basically rule 34 about the quorum because our understanding that the quorum here is not just numbers that we are adding in order to start the meeting or take decisions, but it's meant to be for meaningful participation. So we see merit in having a two thirds of parties in order to take a decision that would be affecting everyone, since we are already seeking universal application for this agreement in hand. We also have Article Rule 39 bis. We also echo the sentiment said by others on the importance of having this rule cleared in its relation with application of Article 18 of the agreement. And this is the rule of the rules of procedure in order to add more clearance of how this application should take place in order to guide the Member States in their implementation when needed. We also add our voices to Rule 44 about decision making. We understand that there are some practices in other MEAs that could be relevant to this, especially when we come to reuse. but we preserve the uniqueness and particularity of the BBNJ. So we believe that the qualifier of present and voting is of a paramount importance to see it reflected within the rules of procedure for respecting the sovereignty of countries and the fairness and transparency. Again, we thank everyone in this room who exerted their time, effort and energy to reach this stage, and we preserve our rights to come again and the right of the COP on these and their guidance in this regard. Thank you.

I wish to thank the distinguished representative of Egypt, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Chile.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Chile would like to express its deepest appreciation for the dedicated efforts undertaken by you and your team, as well to the secretariat, during this third and final session of the Preparatory Commission. Regarding the rules of procedure of the Conference of the Parties, our delegation would like to add our, we would like to express that we share the views with other delegations about the really critical importance of the rules that we are discussing discussing right now, and in particular on the draft Rule 39bis. While we share the value of an effective operationalization of the Article 18 of the BB&J Agreement, we would like to underscore some elements. In the first place, we recognize that the Article 18 is the outcome of delicate balances carefully achieved during BB&J negotiations. In addition, we understand that the operationalization of the article 18 should be considered also in the respective coordination of the effective, the effective use that this rule will have in the context of the ABMT's proposal. Considering that there wasn't enough time for our delegation to consider the current wording on the draft rule 39bis, we unfortunately are not in position to join consensus on this important rule. We regret for not being able to be in a position to join the consensus, and we reserve our right to revert to this matter in due course, bearing in mind that the final decision, not only on this topic, but in all topics that are under discussion right now in this Preparatory Commission, rests with the Conference of the Parties. Thank you so much for your work, and thank you so much for your time.

I wish to thank the distinguished representative of Chile, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Turkey.

Thank you, Chair, for giving the floor. And we thank the co-chairs, secretariat, and all colleagues present here for their dedication and hard work. We believe that our discussions here were extremely fruitful for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and seas. Turkey is aware of the challenges posed by the need to reach consensus. However, with regards to the draft document on rules and procedures, we note with concern that certain views expressed by Turkey and other parties have not been adequately reflected in the text. In situations where convergence has not been achieved, We hoped that such elements would remain in brackets for further consideration by the COP. In view of the above, we would like to underline the following specific provisions which remain of particular importance to our delegation. On Rule 6 regarding the participation of observers, as indicated Rule 6 paragraph 2c, Turkey supports maintaining the principle of non-objection procedure. On Rule 44 on proxy voting, we have voiced our preference for retention of paragraph 44 with the bracketed text present and voting. We believe that proxy voting would undermine the decision-making process and would go against the framework on the direct participation of duly accredited representatives of Member States. We are of the opinion that delicate matters, related to the oceans should not be outsourced. Rule 51 on secret ballot, as we have underlined in our previous interventions, we remain concerned that the latest version of the text omits any reference to the possibility of a secret ballot under Rule 51, despite its established place in the practice of a number of multilateral environment agreements, including the CBD. We also note with concern that support expressed for maintaining a low threshold for seconding requests is not reflected in the current text. I regret to inform that Turkey cannot join the consensus on rules of procedure, and I would like to kindly voice our reservation for the adoption of the report as is. Turkey is looking forward to continue to engage for the pursuit of conservation of oceans and seas. We are hopeful for a productive and constructive conference of parties. Thank you.

I wish to thank the distinguished representative of Turkey, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Paraguay.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. I would like to speak on behalf of a group of landlocked developing countries, 17 landlocked developing countries. Last time in the plenary, we tackled Rule 22.2. We respectfully requested the consideration for the inclusion of a seat for landlocked developing countries in the Bureau of the Conference of the Parties. We regret that we do not see that reflected in the current draft rule 22.2. And as much as we appreciate and thank the efforts of the co-chairs, their teams and the in preparing the documents to put for the consideration of this plenary and in line with the provision that acknowledges the special needs and interests of the LLDCs, in Article 7N of the text of the agreement, we would like to respectfully request for the inclusion of the seat for the LDCs in draft rule 22, paragraph 2. Thank you very much, co-chairs.

I wish to thank the distinguished representative of Paraguay, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of India.

Thank you, co-chair. India has repeatedly voiced its reservations concerning Rule 39bis and Rule 60 of the Rules of Procedure. However, the final text does not reflect or adequately address these concerns. We therefore wish to formally place on record that, in India's view, the current formulations of these rules exceed the scope of Article 18 and Article 47, respectively, and are not in accordance with what has been agreed upon under the BBNJ agreement. We believe that there was no adequate consultations, hence we would not be able to join consensus and we reserve our right to come back on the text. Thank you, coaches.

I wish to thank the distinguished representative of India and I now give the floor to the distinguished

representative of Argentina.

Thank you very much, co-chairs. Argentina, in our national capacity, wishes to recognise that significant progress has been made over the last few days, the result of compromise and the constructive work of the delegations present here in the room, and also on the part of you, the co-chairs. However, we would like to make it clear that we do have some concerns and questions that from Argentina's perspective haven't reached the level of consensus required. We believe that these issues require more time to be negotiated in order to generate the conditions that allow us to arrive at balanced consensus-based solutions. And it's for this reason that Argentina wishes to express a reservation on our position on some specific rules of the rules of procedure of the COP that consensus has not been reached on. First of all, rules 34 and 44. We wish to underscore the need to reach agreements on these two rules and for them to guarantee the sovereign equality of states for both the determination of the quorum and for the votes, we believe that we need to refer to presence and voting, which is something that we have put forward from the group that we're coordinating, as well as in our national capacity since the beginning of these meetings. Now, on Rule 39 bis, we'd also like to put a reservation on that without prejudice to recognising that the meetings were productive and we really felt a lot of flexibility from a lot of the parties in the meetings. However, we do still have some doubts as to the way we are trying to make Article 18 operational and through this rule, in particular in the link between paragraph two and paragraph three of Rule 39 bis. We would like to see there being more correlation between both paragraphs. We believe that it is necessary so that we can finally conclude without a shadow of a doubt that It is not possible, it will not be possible for the COP to make decisions on these submissions, these proposals that have been objected to. And we don't think this is clearly reflected in the text despite the efforts that all delegations have made and also the efforts that the co-facilitators have made. And I'd like to thank them and extend our gratitude to them, I think on behalf of everyone, for all of the efforts they made until late into the evening. I'd also like to refer to references to article six of chapter four. In the last draft, we saw that these references had been removed and we didn't really have time to discuss any alternative that would enable us to save this. We believe that we must have conversation on exactly what the best way of doing it would be, whether it is through a chapeau or through an additional rule that would refer to article 6. Unfortunately, due to the time constraints, we were not able to have substantive negotiation on that point. That is all for now. Thank you very much.

Muchas gracias, Argentina. Delegates, we thank all colleagues for your explanations, for your engagement in this process and, of course, for your expressions of reservations where appropriate. I think we are aware that not only over the course of these two weeks, But in fact, over the course of the last year and all three sessions of this Preparatory Commission, there have been a number of issues raised in the Rules of Procedure report that are amongst the most challenging and to an extent, ones on which views amongst delegations are most divided of the work that has been before us across the board. We would, of course, and I thank the distinguished representative of Argentina and several other delegations for acknowledging and recognising the work of our facilitators on a number of these issues, many of whom have worked late into the evening and certainly got to spend a lot of quality time with their colleagues. we have taken note of the views and the requests that have been made and also in the vein, in some cases, of some dissociation. of on some aspects of the rules, but also the strong sentiment of seeking to come together and to converge that has been notable in all. All of the statements made will be recorded in detail in the procedural report. The rules of procedure, as with all other documents from this Preparatory Commission, are transmitted as recommendations. for the consideration of the first COP. And I see that I think Iceland on behalf of CANZ has requested no. Okay, good. All right. If we can just close out on the item of rules of procedure first and then I'll open the floor. I see the distinguished representative of Iran.

Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. I'm really disappointed that Your Excellency did not give the floor to my delegation for the second time to express its view. With your indulgence, I would like to deliver a statement and explanation of our position. Mr. Chair, we would like to thank the Secretariat and all colleagues for their great efforts in preparation of this meeting. We could not join consensus on the documents presented before the Commission, as clear divergence still exists on many issues that need more time to be resolved. We could not support the report, including due to the content of the rules of procedure. The issuance or adoption of the report could not be considered as our agreement on all content of the draft decision or documents referred therein. It is understood that the documents and decisions are not final, And as many member states highlighted, more time is needed for delegations to have thorough examination of the documents. Given the particular modalities set out in resolution 78/272, which deprives non-parties and non-signatories to the agreement of the right to make decision in the PREP COM, no report or outcome of the meeting could be construed as to prejudice the positions of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Outcomes of the Preparatory Committee on such matters could not be deemed consensual and having consent of all delegations since the modalities stipulated in the said resolution, as we mentioned, does not allow for non-signatories or non-parties to participate in decision-making. I would like to recall Article 5, paragraph 3 of the BBNJ Agreement and also to reiterate our principal position in relation to the UNCLOS and to re-emphasize that the participation of my delegation in the works of the Preparatory Commission or the draft documents presented thereto, including the draft decision contained in document A/AC.296/2026/CRP.6/R1, in particular, preamble paragraph two does not affect nor prejudice the legal status, rights, and prerogatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a non-party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. and any other related agreements with regard to that convention and could not prejudice its sovereign rights. We submit our reservation to the documents in full and written form for the sake of brevity and would like to request that the position of my delegation that we will submit be duly reflected in the reports and records of this meeting and this commission. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran and that will be done. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia.

Thank you, co-chair, for your efforts during the third session. We would like to take the floor briefly to express our reservation on several provision in the current draft of the rule of procedure. In particular, we would like to flag our concern with regard to Rule 34 on quorum, Rule 44 on voting, Rule 39 bis on the application of Article 18, and Rule 60 on amendment to the Rules of Procedure. Even the new proposal by New Zealand just now for Rule 34 and Rule 44 is not supported as it lacks the mechanism of voting. For us, these provisions touch one core institutional and decision-making aspect, including the legitimacy of decision-making, the balance between efficiency and participation, the handling of sensitive legal consideration, and the institutional integrity of the rules of procedure themselves. At this stage, we don't consider that the current formulation fully reflects the necessary balance on this issue. We therefore maintain our reservation on these provisions. In this regard, and in order to allow for further consultation and to preserve flexibility for parties, we would request to retain the previous text of Rule 34.1. 44, Rule 39 bis and Rule 60, which was bracketed and captured different views of a State. We believe this would provide the necessary space for continued engagement and for reaching more balanced outcome that is fully consistent with agreement. Thank you and ask to be recorded. Thank you.

Shokran, Saudi Arabia, and indeed that will be recorded. And I give the floor to the distinguished representative of El Salvador. You have the floor.

Thank you very much, co-chairs. The Republic of El Salvador is taking the floor at this time in our national capacity to make a statement specifically referring to articles six and 39 bis. First of all, my delegation thanks the delegations of Morocco and Ireland for their efforts to facilitate a round of informal consultations on the rules of procedure, and also the delegation of Singapore for their efforts on rule six. Furthermore, on article 39 bis, my delegation from the beginning thought that operationalisation of article 18 of the agreement was important, and we reiterate the importance of it remaining in the rules of procedure. During the informal consultations, my delegation was constructively involved in this approach under the principle of sovereign equality. We respect the concerns expressed. However, my delegation wishes to express, for the records of this meeting, the following considerations. First of all, my delegation continues to consider that all States, regardless of this, whether they are party or not to the agreement, can object to the establishment of mechanisms based in areas, including in marine protected areas, in areas under their national jurisdiction, where there are sovereignty claims, sovereign rights or that jurisdiction, or whether it comes under any dispute in these areas pursuant to Article 18 of the agreement. Second, in order to make Article 18 operational, it was estimated necessary for transparency in the publication notifications that states can go to the secretariat pursuant to the provisions of Article 21 of the agreement, paragraph three, specifically promoting transparency as the basis of this agreement and also for reasons of coherence. Finally, my delegation requests that this statement be recorded in the summary records of this meeting. Thank you very much, co-chairs.

Muchas gracias, El Salvador, and that will be done. Delegates, to sum up we are. We're now moving to Iceland. You've requested the floor. Iceland on behalf of KANZIE? It is indeed.

It's not on behalf of KANZIE, I'm afraid, Mr Chair. But we wanted to come in and respond to developments in this room briefly. Things are happening fast, of course, and we need them to be happening fast. Iceland, where I wanted to see things happening fast from a different perspective here, but here we are. Firstly, thank you co-chairs for all your efforts and that of the secretariat. Now we're coming to the end of a grueling preparatory commission process where we've put all our efforts into coming to consensus together. in favour of the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. We have approached these negotiations in the spirit of consensus. We have engaged with all viewpoints and taken an active role in facilitation to this end. We managed, just to remind colleagues, to adopt the BBNJ agreement under the leadership of President Renali, by striking some painful compromises. Iceland came to the Preparatory Commission ready to honour those compromises and to work in the spirit of the agreement to find more common ground. And we have come so far. We are so close and we think it should be possible to get there. As we hear in this room, colleagues remain unhappy with many provisions in the draft rules of procedure. I promise you, co-chairs, we are equally unhappy. That's essentially where we need to be with everyone, at least equally unhappy, co-chairs. We are nevertheless ready to see this process through and deliver a proposal to the COP. We are, of course, disappointed to hear that is not the sentiment shared throughout the room. And we are most disappointed to hear from the interventions that what is blocking us from proceeding ahead seems to be the wish to renegotiate the agreement. As an example, we are not renegotiating Article 64. Regional economic integration organisations have been settled in the agreement. We understand that there are many that are unhappy with it, but There's stuff in the agreement that for all of us that we're not happy about. We all have to live with it. We honor the agreement. Now, Iceland wishes to underscore that the rules of procedure are a package deal. So if delegations are not able to come to common ground on the text in front of us, then as we see it, we see each other at COP and will continue the negotiations. It seems to be implied from not what we have in front of us. So we would encourage colleagues in the room to think whether that will place anyone in a better position to have to start again. Mr Kocher, Madam Kocher, we are so close. Iceland would suggest to proceed on the basis of what we have in front of us. And that's going to be the most beneficial thing everyone in here could do for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Iceland for those comments. And maybe this is a moment to recap on where we are in terms of this session. and also where we need to get to. Her comments that everyone has worked very hard in order to converge on issues over the course of these two weeks is correct, absolutely, and no one has worked harder than herself, except possibly for Dularos and our teams as co-chairs. It is certainly true that there are things that all delegations would prefer would be different. And certainly if there is any delegation out there who's completely happy, could they please raise their hand now and we'll try and figure out what we've done wrong. But just a reminder of where we are. So we have approved the program of intercessional work. That was category one of documents. The category of two documents are those where we have decided we have exhausted efforts to reach consensus other than with the use of brackets. And those are the financial rules and the subsidiary bodies. Then there are the category of documents and probably the most difficult document being the rules of procedure where we have put the proposal, we have heard Various delegations dissociate on various elements, but that proposal will be forwarded to the COP for the COP's consideration and decision. So just to reassure the distinguished representative of Iceland and others, that work is captured and will go forward. The dissociations of various delegations on various issues are recorded. They are also captured. This will all now go forward to the COP as recommendations and for the COP's decision. I am now moving, and I'm very conscious of time, to move to, for want of a better word, a hopefully very happy bracket, I will just explain the next steps before I take further interventions with your indulgence, just so that we're clear of what we need to do by six o'clock. I will now move to a, for want of a better word, a happier set of documents. Those are those documents on which we are confident that there's been full convergence and that can be sent to the COP as documents from the Preparatory Commission with full convergence. So, to review those documents, they are the decision on the modalities, or the recommended decision on the modalities for the selection of the seat, the voluntary trust fund, the special fund, and the MOU with the JEF. So those are the proposals that when we adopt the report, we are confident we have convergence on. Then there are two proposals which are proving that everyone can multitask, have been the subject of late negotiations, but where I will shortly invite delegations to inform the room on compromise proposals that individual delegations have advised us are confident of reaching approval. That is where we need to get to by 6:00. So that is just the state of play as it is. I've seen that one delegation has withdrawn and I greatly appreciate that. Just give me one second, delegations. I see that the Russian Federation has requested the floor. The floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll be very brief. I wish to clarify that our understanding is that in accordance with paragraph eight of General Assembly Resolution 78/272, we cannot participate in the decision-making and accordingly we are not party to the consensus. Otherwise, we would be forced to dissociate from that consensus, since the resulting documents that have been worked on very hastily are not able to show the necessary balance and they are imbalanced in favour of the rich delegations. It only strengthens that imbalance that is already enshrined in the BBNJ. Thank you very much.

Given the circumstances, I thank the Russian Federation for the brevity of the intervention, and that is noted. So we will now move to the decision on secretariat arrangements, where I understand that there is a compromise proposal that may well be capable of attracting consensus, and I give the floor to Palau. Palau, the floor is yours.

Thank you, co-chair. Apologies, I think I might have taken the floor a bit too early. I think we were going to provide an update on the clearinghouse mechanism.

My sincere apologies, Palau, on one compromise proposal ahead of the play. So, I think in terms of the potential compromise or advice, further advice on the secretariat arrangements, perhaps either the European Union or Mexico can advise delegations further. Mexico, the floor is yours.

Thank you. You were asking in respect of this decision of the arrangements of the secretariat, right? So we were working in the room with many groups. They were We have an advancement on the issues of the secretariat. So in respecting the decision in respect of the arrangements, we had a little amendment which was agreed by the group. And it was in paragraph 53, which to change, just to make a little change in respect of shall be selected, to remove that so that it says that the head of the secretariat shall serve for a four year term. It was just in respect of that decision, right? Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico, and I'm aware that there's been considerable work that has gone into that proposal and into the decision on secretariat arrangements. And I trust with that amendment that has been obviously discussed extensively with delegations, we can now add the decision on secretariat arrangements to those documents on which there has been full convergence that can be forwarded to the COP. And I now give the floor in correct order of compromises to Palau, who I think is in the position to report on further discussions on the issue of the clearinghouse mechanism. Palau, the floor is yours. Oh, and then I give the floor to the European Union. So it's Palau, then the European Union.

Thank you, co-chair. As indicated at the plenary earlier today, my co-facilitator in New Zealand and I had managed to achieve agreement on all paragraphs of our outcome document except paragraph three, which relates to the invitation for expressions of interest to develop a prototype for the clearinghouse mechanism. In an effort to meet consensus, it is our understanding that we have managed to secure a compromised text. We have circulated this and for transparency and with your permission, I will read it out loud. Invites all those potentially interested, including but not limited to those organizations referenced in Article 51, to express interest either through an individual proposal or through a joint proposal to provide technical support for the design and development of a prototype by a timeframe or dates to be determined based on guidance from DOALOS. Such expressions of interest must include a detailed work plan and costings for design and development by COP1. The co-chairs, in consultation with the Bureau and with the assistance of the interim Secretariat, will invite the best application in accordance with the principles of cooperation, openness, transparency and non-discrimination, subject to the availability of resources to develop a prototype. Of note, co-chair, we do understand that the timeframe will be resolved in due course subject to the Walus guidance. We wish to thank colleagues for their support, trust, and flexibility. This decision was also sent to the Walus and we're in your hands in terms of next steps. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Palau and I particularly thank the delegations of Palau and New Zealand for the great effort that has gone into this and the skill with which they've conducted the facilitation process. and that is news that will be very welcome to all delegations. I give the floor now to the European Union. European Union, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. Related to the secretariat issue, following cross-regional consultations and as announced in this morning's plenary, we have prepared letter, draft letter to UN Secretary General together on selection of the head of the secretariat and two approaches for the institutional arrangements of UN and BBNJ secretariat that can be considered. Thank you.

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. CLAM would like, within the context of the consultations among all of the regional groups, I would like to thank the compromising commitment by all participants to reach a compromise position, the solution and a consensus. We thank you for your time and for your patience. We know that this has been tricky. We'd also like to thank you for being constructively engaged in this work. the various groups believe that we have shown a great deal of willingness, uh, and we thank everyone for their collaboration. We hope that this can be a text upon which you as the co-chairs will be able to put it forward to the COP and one that will allow us to move forward with the construction of this agreement. And thanks to all of the delegations for their involvement in this process. And we hope that the result this afternoon, if they don't make us all happy, will at least make us all equally unhappy. Thank you very much.

Hopefully we leave happy just because we're leaving. I wish to now give the floor to South Africa.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam co-chair. I'm speaking on behalf of the African group. Just to support the proposal or the result that was given by Mexico on the slight amendment that was done on the decision regarding the secretariat, but also to add to the comments that have been made so far in thanking you in the on the work that you have done on behalf of the African group, we really appreciate the work you've done so far. But also just to highlight on the comment that has been made by the representative of the EU regarding a draft letter that was submitted, in fact drafted by a group of states and sent to you for your consideration. please be informed that the African group has made further inputs onto the draft letter which has been shared with the responsible or relevant colleagues. So the content of the letter is not yet approved by the African group until those considerations from the African group have been taken on board. Thank you.

I wish to thank South Africa speaking on behalf of the African group and thank you for the confidence that you have placed in us. But let me also underscore that we have equally had a lot of confidence in all of you and you've demonstrated tremendous agility, flexibility and really good spirit of cooperation. And I'm sure we will be able to move forward with many of these matters that we have before us, even if we need a little bit more time. I just wanted to be clear that there are intercessional issues, and I mentioned it in the opening, that the co-chair Adam and I, along with the Wallace and in the case of the clearinghouse mechanism, I believe also the Bureau, will have to take forward and to just to flag that that we have all intention to do that and to do so faithfully to what the delegations here have put forward to us as a good basis for moving forward on those intercessional matters. So that's clearinghouse mechanism. And we've heard, of course, what South Africa said, but also in relation to a letter to the Secretary General. I wish to move on to another set of documents where we understand there has been convergence, and that relates to the Voluntary Trust Fund, the Special Fund, and the Memorandum of Understanding relating to the Global Environment Facility. We are very grateful to all. We know that not everyone got what they would have wanted to see in the documents, but at least there is a basis to move forward on a steady footing for the consideration of the COP when that conference is convened. Delegations are reminded that in paragraph eight of resolution 78/272, the General Assembly decided that after 20 September 2025 or the date of entry into force of the agreement, whichever comes later, the taking of decisions by the Commission shall only be by states and regional economic integration organizations that have signed the agreement or have ratified, approved, accepted, or acceded to the agreement. May I take it that the PrepCom wishes to adopt the draft report issued as document A/AC.296/2026/CRP5 on the understanding that the finalized report, incorporating annex and any necessary adjustments to fill in blanks and reflect the developments as we have heard here today after its issuance will be issued after the conclusion of this session. I hear no objection. It is so decided. This concludes item eight of our agenda. There, colleagues, I feel like I should give the floor to Adam because he has much more to say than I do. I want to ensure that everyone gets the credit that they deserve. Everyone in this room gets the credit that they deserve. Everyone on the bleachers, to use a term. gets the credit they deserve. And especially I want to recognize, and Adam did this earlier this morning, but I haven't gotten a chance to do it, but I do really sincerely want to thank the Diwalis team and my own team and Adam and Adam's team for this long haul through the three prep comms. We still have a ways to go. We are going to be doing that with you, and I certainly look forward to that opportunity when we do meet finally, finally, for the Conference of Parties. to take on these decisions and start up the BBNJ agreement on the right footing with the right foundation to realize the ambition that it embodies. So let me thank all of you and let me thank the interpreters who have been able to be with us this week in this room. Thank you, everyone.

Adam.

Colleagues, firstly Janine, I'm not quite sure how you could suggest I'm more loquacious or have more to say than you do. I simply don't know what you're referring to. I think it's often a common thing that when politicians are preparing for an election, they prepare a speech in case of victory and a speech in case of defeat. And I think probably in the case of Janine and I alternately there is no speech at all when you're really working right up until the very last minute as we all have been. Just a couple of words, which would be a first. Firstly, why are we here? We're all here because we are committed to this convention. that does so much and for the first time seeks to systemically regulate half of this planet's surface, two thirds of the oceans. And that is what we have been committed to. But I think all of us in our own ways have also been committed to the idea, particularly at this moment in history, at this point in time, of showing that the international system still works that the UN and its member countries can come together to make progress both for the planet and its people. So we have done that. It's at times been a grind. It's required compromise. It's required collegiality and a lot of hard work. But we thank you for the spirit of compromise and dedication with which all of you, everyone in this room, has engaged in this process. So give yourselves a pat on the back. We have to say, as I said this morning, and I had the privilege of doing it, the DUALOS team has been extraordinary, absolutely extraordinary. And maybe it's only when you sit in the position that Janine and I sit in, that you just see how hard they work and the size of the lift that they make. You get the totality of the picture. So I'd like to thank Vladimir, I'd like to thank Charlotte, and through them the entire team. We have to thank, yeah, I've got it, I'll finish it then. It's alleged that I talk too much. We have to thank our personal teams. And it's really a team, Harry, Ileana, Bella, and Sarah, who can't be here. They've been the most extraordinary support to us. And can I say in closing a profound thank you. Merci, tiramakasi, tashaku aderam, siabonga, muchas gracias, dankjewel, thank you. The distinguished delegate of Uruguay has requested to take the floor to be followed by the European Union and Nicaragua. Uruguay, you've got the floor.

Thank you very much, Mr. Co-Chair. Dear Co-Chairs, distinguished delegates, I have the honor to deliver this final statement on behalf of the group of the G77 and China. The group of 77 and China wishes to express its sincere appreciation to you, distinguished co-chairs, the Bureau, and the ALos for your dedication, hard work, and leadership throughout the session. Your efforts have been instrumental in advancing our discussions in a constructive and inclusive manner. We underscore the importance of equitable geographic representation in the institutional arrangements of the agreement, including the importance of establishing the secretariat of the BBNJ agreement in a developing country, while acknowledging that the Conference of the Parties, COP1, at its first meeting shall adopt a decision on the functioning of the secretariat, including on its seats. In this regard, we note with appreciation that two of the three proposals for hosting the secretariat originate from our members, Chile and China, demonstrating our strong commitment and readiness to support the effective operationalization of the agreement. We also stress that the rights of developing state parties to fully participate in all processes, including serving as members of the bureau, must be upheld irrespective of their financial standing. Financing remains a critical and central pillar for the effective implementation of this agreement. We reiterate the urgent needs to secure adequate, predictable, and accessible financial resources for developing countries to enable their full and effective participation, as well as the implementation of their obligations. The group reaffirms the fundamental importance of multilingualism across all aspects of the agreement, including the Conference of the Parties, the Clearing House Mechanism, and all subsidiary bodies. Ensuring respect for multilingualism within the United Nations is essential for transparency, accessibility, and equitable participation of our experts. Turning to the subsidiary bodies, the group reiterates the importance of equitable geographical representation and the meaningful participation of developing countries, particularly small island developing states, least developed countries, and landlocked developing countries. We must ensure that the selection process remains transparent, inclusive, and practical. Regarding the clearinghouse mechanism, the group wishes to underscore its critical role in implementation of the agreement and the importance of its early and effective operationalization. The mechanism must serve as a platform to facilitate international cooperation, including the matching of capacity development needs with available support and providers for the transfer of marine technology. This functionality is particularly important for developing countries, which will rely on the mechanism to access information, technical resources, and capacity building programs. In this regard, we consider it essential to ensure an approach that promotes equitable access. The mechanism should be accessible, user-friendly, interactive, multilingual, and interoperable. We also highlight the critical role the mechanism will play in the implementation of the agreement, particularly all provisions related to marine genetic resources, digital sequence information, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits. Looking ahead to the period between now and the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties, COP1, our focus must be firmly fixed on operational readiness. We must use the remaining intersessional period judiciously to ensure a seamless transition from the preparatory phase to the operational phase of the agreement. In this regard, we would welcome clarity on whether any intersessional work is envisaged, and if so, including whether you can provide us with information on the steps and timelines that will guide us to our next first session of the COP. To conclude, We have made important progress in this session, but important work remains. Our group stays fully committed to the successful early operationalization of the BBMG agreement. This history of the process of elaboration of the BBMG agreement attest to the crucial role of developing countries in the finalization and adoption of the agreement. The fact that the agreement, as well as relevant resolutions, including resolution A/RES/78/272 establishing the present commission, paid particular attention to the developing countries should continue to inspire and guide discussions in the COP. We look forward to continuing to work with all delegations in a spirit of multilateralism, cooperation, and mutual respect to ensure that the institutions we are building are effective, inclusive, and fit for purpose. I thank you very much, Mr. Co-Chair.

I thank Uruguay, and it was remiss of me, my apologies, not to say speaking, of course, on behalf of the G77 and China. Three quick things before I pass to the European Union. Firstly, somehow in all of that, I forgot to thank the other most important person in this process, my co-chair, Janine. We've gotten to know each other so well and worked so closely over the last almost two years now, at times partners in crime, at times alter egos, and always a privilege and a pleasure to work with, with an almost complete sense of teamwork from go to way. So thank you, Janine. Thank you very much. It's been a pleasure and a privilege. Secondly, we lose interpretation at 6.10. So we will release the interpreters at 6.10. And thirdly, on the question of further intersessional work, just a reminder that the Preparatory Commission terminates on the last day of the first COP. Our term as chairs terminates on the last day of the first COP and for the Bureau it's the same. As we said previously, there will be some areas where there will be a requirement to make significant intercessional process. The clearinghouse mechanism is one of those, but there will be work going on intercessionally, so no one gets to escape quite yet. But with that, I will give the floor to the European Union. The floor is yours.

Co-chairs, distinguished delegates, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, The European Union and its 27 Member States would like to express our sincerest appreciation to the Co-Chairs for their steadfast leadership and guidance throughout this third session of the Preparatory Commission. We would like to thank all the facilitators and all delegations. We also extend our gratitude to the Division on Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, serving as the interim secretariat, for its tireless work in supporting this process. We warmly welcome and congratulate all the states that have recently ratified the BBNJ agreement. It is particularly encouraging to see continued momentum for this landmark instrument, with 145 states having already signed and 88 now parties. This growing number reflects a shared commitment to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction and sends a strong signal of collective determination to implement the agreement without delay. We encourage all the remaining states to join this effort so that together we can ensure the effective implementation of this vital framework for the protection of our ocean. In this context, we are pleased to announce that Austria has become 88th party to ratify BBNJ agreement this week, and Germany has also completed its legislative process for the required implementation law and is expected to ratify shortly. So these are the important developments also from our side. Co-chairs, distinguished delegates, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, this session has marked another important step towards the effective operationalization of the BBNJ Agreement. The EU and its member states remain firmly committed to ensuring that this agreement becomes a robust, effective and implementable framework that delivers tangible outcomes for the protection of our ocean. In spirit of constructive engagement that has guided our work, Throughout this session, the EU and its Member States have consistently demonstrated flexibility and a genuine willingness to bridge differences in pursuit of consensus. We have engaged in good faith, put forward pragmatic compromises and remained open to alternative formulations where these could bring us closer together. While it is regrettable that consensus could not be achieved at this stage, we made a lot of progress and it is clear that further movement will be required from all sides if we are to advance. In this regard, we encourage all delegations, including those who have expressed more reserved positions, to continue engaging with the same openness and shared sense of responsibility that this process demands.

Co-chairs, distinguished delegates, excellencies, the UN and its 27 member states underscore the critical importance of advancing work across the core pillars of the BBNJ agreement. In particular, we emphasize the need to make meaningful progress on area-based management tools, including marine protected areas as central instruments for achieving conservation and sustainable use objectives. Establishing credible science-based and transparent processes for the designation and management will be essential to meeting global biodiversity targets. A well-functioning and adequately resourced BBNJ Secretariat institutionally linked to the United Nations will be indispensable for the effective and timely implementation of the BBNJ Agreement. It will serve as the institutional backbone of the agreement, ensuring continuity, coordination, transparency, and institutional coherence across all bodies and processes established under the agreement, while supporting parties in fulfilling their obligations under the agreement. As we look towards the first COP, we stress the urgent need to operationalize the subsidiary bodies under the BBNJ Agreement. These bodies must be established at the first Conference of the Parties and be fully functional from the outset. Their efficiency, scientific credibility and ability to provide timely recommendations and advice will be crucial for informed decision-making and for the effective implementation of the BBNJ Agreement. Furthermore, cooperation and coherence with relevant international frameworks and bodies will be vital. The BBNJ agreement must complement and strengthen existing instruments, fostering synergies and avoiding duplication. Enhanced collaboration will be key to achieving an integrated and effective international ocean governance architecture. We also would like to thank the Pacific Small Island Developing States for their proposals regarding a possible advisory mechanism on indigenous peoples, local communities and traditional knowledge, and for the constructive engagement on this issue. We stand ready to continue engaging constructively with the proponents and other interested partners, including during the intersessional period, to further reflect on the possible design of such a mechanism without prejudice to a decision by the Conference of the Parties. Looking ahead, intersessional work will be essential to maintain momentum and to prepare adequately for COP1. We encourage continued collaboration, transparency, and inclusiveness in this work, ensuring that delegations can contribute meaningfully to advancing outstanding issues. This session has demonstrated our collective commitment and the strong sense of responsibility shared by all delegations. While challenges remain, the progress achieved provides a solid foundation for the work ahead. The EU and its member states reaffirm their unwavering commitment to a timely and effective implementation of the BBNJ agreement. We stand ready to continue working constructively with all partners to ensure that this historic agreement delivers on its promise to protect and sustainably use marine biodiversity for present and future delegations, generations. Thank you.

I thank the European Union. Now, much as we all love good news and good interventions, we lose the lights and the sound at 6:10. I'm going to give the floor to Cote d'Ivoire speaking on behalf oh sorry, Sierra Leone speaking on behalf of the Africa Group. I'd like to give the High Seas Alliance at least a minute to have an NGO perspective, but we must move fast. I will give the floor now to Sierra Leone speaking for the Africa Group. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the African Group. At this third session of the Preparatory Commission draws to a close, the African Group wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the Co-Chairs for their dedication, leadership and tireless efforts throughout these two intensive weeks. We also extend our warm thanks to the Secretariat and the WLOS team for their exemplary work in supporting this process under considerable time pressure. The African Group came to this session with a clear commitment to engage constructively, to seek landing zones, and to ensure that the rules of procedure and related instruments are fit for purpose for the first meeting of the Conference of Parties. We believe that this commitment has been demonstrated throughout our work. We wish to express particular appreciation to all delegations that have engaged in good faith on the most sensitive provisions. If we are all equally unhappy with the outcome, then we may have found the right balance, and that in multilateral negotiations is perhaps the highest standard we can aspire to. More broadly, We believe that this PrepCom has demonstrated that when there is political will and mutual respect, everything is achievable, even on the most difficult questions. If the agreement itself was possible, then so are its operationalization documents. The African Group reiterates its firm commitment to the success of the BBNJ agreement. This agreement represents a historic achievement for the international community and for the ocean. Its effective implementation will depend in large part on the quality and balance of the institutional framework we are building together. The African group stands ready to contribute to that effort. Lastly, before I close, I want to take this opportunity to thank all the subject leads in the African group. We're such a large group, this could not have been done without you. We look forward to the first meeting of the Conference of Parties and to the continued engagement of all delegations in the period ahead. Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair.

I thank you, Sierra Leone, on behalf of the Africa Group. Delegates, I'm going to try and get through the remaining speakers on behalf of groups before we close. I think that's all we will manage. So I'll go now to Fiji for PSIDS, to be followed by Palau for AOSIS, Antigua and Barbuda for CARICOM and Norway for CANZII. Fiji, the floor is yours.

Mr. Co-Chair, can we come after Palau, please?

Palau, on behalf of AOSIS, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, co-chairs. I take the floor on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States. We, of course, align ourselves with Uruguay on behalf of the Group of 77 and China. We extend our appreciations to you, co-chairs, for a sterling leadership of this process and commend your team for the work undertaken, often without sleep, to bring us to this point. We also acknowledge with appreciation the work of the and their consultant, co-chairs on behalf of EOSIS, we sincerely thank you for your tremendous efforts. We came here for a collective goal to leave here with clean text. And yet, despite our best efforts, we must be honest with what this session has produced. Two weeks, four for those who also carry ISA. weeks of negotiating time that the biodiversity crisis simply cannot afford. And we leave with less progress than the moment demanded. EOSIS came prepared to work constructively, and we did so. We worked on solutions for issues that did not involve our group. We made proposals to genuinely seek consensus and move the process forward. We have operated in good faith and expected the same. Ideas born of SIDS will today benefit all parties to this agreement. We accepted compromise. We showed flexibility. Admittedly, we stretched in some instances beyond what we could comfortably bear, including what we must plainly say, accepting positions that really tested the integrity of Article 7m of this agreement. That is not something we do lightly, it is not something we intend to make a habit of. This process has been incredibly difficult. Co-chairs, I must say, it was disappointing. Throughout, red lines emerged suddenly and shifted unexpectedly, making bridging difficult. Flexibilities, where they existed, suddenly reached their limits. That in itself is not unusual in multilateral negotiations. What is unfortunate is that so much of what consumed this session had nothing to do with the ocean. Too often we, as small island developing states, found ourselves considering not the complexity of the issue before us, but disputes that belong to other arenas, other relationships, other agendas. Let us be clear, the BBNJ process will not resolve those differences. The ocean should not become collateral in other conflicts. Stewardship of the ocean on behalf of present and future generations is our collective responsibility and should never be a secondary consideration. Time is of the essence. We have our agreement and we must dedicate ourselves to implementing it. Today, AOSIS consists of 28 parties of this agreement with more to come. The BBNJ agreement It was built because the international community chose to rise above its fractures in the service of something larger. It was built because we collectively demanded it and because negotiators of good faith made it possible. We owe it to that history and far more urgently to the ocean itself and the people who depend on it to do better as we head towards the first conference of the parties. Given the lack of consensus on many of the issues under consideration at this PrepCom, EOSIS looks forward to considering these issues as parties. We too reserve our right to return to any matter under consideration. We will continue to engage, to advocate, to propose, to bridge where we can, but where those bridges are not yet possible, know this, we will not go dark. We will remain the beacon, visible, unwavering, and a guiding force that keeps this agreement on course. Thank you, co-chairs.

I thank Palau on behalf of IOSIS and I give the floor to Fiji on behalf of PSIDS. Floor is yours.

Distinguished participants, distinguished co-chairs, I have the honor to deliver these remarks on behalf of the Pacific Small Island Developing States. Pacific SIDS align itself with the statements delivered by IOSIS and by the Group of 77 and China. In the interest of time, we will deliver an abridged statement and we will send in our full statement. We request that our full statement be reflected in the records of this meeting. As we draw the third session of the Preparatory Commission to a close, Pacific Seeds wishes to express its gratitude to you, co-chairs, for your steadfast leadership in guiding this process from PrepCom 1 through to where we stand today. We commend your efforts in keeping our deliberations inclusive and true to the mandate of the Preparatory Commission. We also thank Dollarus for its guidance and facilitation throughout this process, and the Clearing House Mechanism consultants for their technical guidance and availability to explain novel concepts to us. Co-Chairs, distinguished delegates, PCs came to close the all draft decisions and to give COP1 a strong foundation upon which to begin this historical new work. As oceanic and maritime states, Pacific SEEDS underscores that ocean is central to our identity and development. Pacific leaders have reaffirmed our strong commitment to prioritizing the ocean agenda, which underpins our engagement. P-SEEDS has demonstrated considerable flexibility and a spirit of genuine compromise, We have made significant concessions across multiple tracks of works in hope that the finished text would faithfully reflect our shared priorities. We have moved from our preferred positions where doing so served the collective interest, and we have engaged constructively with the proposals of other delegations and groups. We ask, in a spirit of mutual respect, that this flexibility be met in kind. We came to build an agreement that works for the ocean, for our people, for the most vulnerable, and we trust that all delegations share that commitment. Co-chairs, the BBNJ agreement is a massively ambitious undertaking. It holds an amazing promise, the promise of true global governance of one of our most important global environments. But that promise will never be realized if we continue to look to our narrow interest and fight over every inch, willing to run down the clock to the point where the machinery of multilateralism breaks down. We in the Pacific, whose diplomatic capacity is the most stretched by investing in this process, know all too well that it will be our ocean and our people who will bear the greatest cost when we fail to agree. We have and continue to be the group that demonstrates the true values of leadership. We have shown flexibility, yet we have not seen it met by others. We know that this is not the end and we will continue to work diligently with our eyes on the horizon. PC's request that the records of this meeting also reflect our disappointment and our request to all delegates here today is to reflect on what they could have done differently to prevent this outcome. The close of PrepCom 3 marks not a conclusion, but a beginning of a long journey still ahead of us. Our focus must now turn to the intersessional period to ensure operational readiness for COP 1. We would welcome clarity on the specific intercessional work and vision, including the steps and timelines that will guide us to the next year. Next session, sorry. Coaches, distinguished delegates, PCs can confidently say that we have done all we can. We have shown maximum flexibility, strived up to living our responsibilities as stewards of the Pacific Ocean. and as staunch advocates of a healthy and sustainable, sustainability of our world's ocean. We urge colleagues to show the same spirit, to rise to the moment and beyond your self-interest, and to allow us all to move forward. I thank you.

I thank Fiji on behalf of PICs. Let's hope we can get there Antigua and Barbuda on behalf of CARICOM and then Norway on behalf of CANZEE. Hopefully we can at least have some indulgence with the sound and lights if nothing else. So I now give the floor to Antigua and Barbuda on behalf of CARICOM.

Thank you, Co-Chair. I have the honour to deliver the statements on behalf of the 14 member states of the Caribbean community. At first, we'd like to outline the statement with interventions given by EOSIS and on behalf of the G77 and China. CARICOM wishes to express its profound gratitude to you, the co-chairs, and the team at Dualis for your steady stewardship and tremendous efforts you have put in throughout the session, day and night, to guide the progress of our work. Your dedication to navigating the complexities of this process has been instrumental in our collective pursuit of a balanced, fair and equitable outcome. Caricom arrived at this session cognizant of the immense task before us, and we acknowledge the significant challenges inherent in harmonizing the diverse views and priorities of the global community. Bringing together such a vast array of perspectives is no small feat, and we appreciate your efforts to work constructively and reach consensus where possible over the last two weeks. To our fellow delegates, CARICOM appreciates the spirit of compromise shown in several key areas. It is only through such flexibility and shared sense of responsibility that we have been able to advance those areas. While it advanced our work, those concessions were made on the understanding that they were accepted in the spirit of good faith and as a result of our collective recognition that the health of our oceans cannot wait. While we welcome the progress made, we must also express our notable disappointment that the collectivity we were unable to reach, that we are unable to reach a final consensus on several critical issues that would allow us to operationalize the agreement. Even though clearly enshrined in Article 7M on the agreement, SIDS in this prep com have had to fight for the operationalization of the special circumstances of SIDS at every step. The recognition and operationalization of special circumstances is not and has never been a tool for us to seek additional benefits at the expense of others. It is a matter of equity. Equity demands that we actively take steps to protect and assist those who are marginalized, and those actions should raise the floor for treatment for all. Co-chairs, the business as usual approach is not an option for CARICOM. While we leave this section with work unfinished, our resolve remains unshaken. Caricom stays fully committed to the BBNJ process and we look forward to working with all partners in the coming months and at COP1 to bridge the remaining gaps. We must ensure that the final treaty is not just a document of procedures but a robust framework that safeguards the biodiversity and sustainable use of our global oceans for generations to come. Thank you, co-chair.

I thank Antigua and Barbuda on behalf of CARICOM and I give the floor to our final speaker, Norway, speaking on behalf of CANSE. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Co-Chair, and indeed I'm speaking on behalf of Australia, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand and Norway. First, to be clear, CANSE aligns with the statement made by Iceland on the rules of procedure made previously. we are beyond grateful for your work, co-chairs, and that of your teams, and we reiterate our full support in this regard. We also extend our sincere appreciation to the Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, as well as to the interpreters. While we celebrate the progress made, we must acknowledge that much remains for the first COP and we regret that. Cancun are in many ways an unlikely alliance. We are five states separated by fairly vast maritime spaces, but we approach BB&J as bridge builders. We still work together and we must all still work together to get this over the line at the first COP. We will be ready. continue to work with you all and we trust all parties will attend COP with a spirit of constructiveness and compromise. And finally, in a national capacity, Norway regrets that we never heard our co-chairs sing in these negotiations, so I'll make a final attempt of getting it to happen and say on behalf of Norway and Kansi, Tusen takk.

Tusen takk, Norway. Not sung, but nevertheless, while not singing, we've done a lot in terms of the lyrics of songs, most notably the Rolling Stones. Delegates, we're about to lose the sound and the light, so can I just say maybe by mutual acclamation, congratulations and thank you all. Safe trip home for those who are going home and thank you. And a profound thanks while we're at it to the interpreters who've stayed over time and have served us so well over not only these two weeks but the last three sessions. Thank you to the interpreters. Thank you.