Preparatory Commission: Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (Third Session, Informal working group meeting)

Hello everyone. So we have quite a bit that we want to, that I wish to cover in this room today. So I'm going to outline an approach that I want to do. I know it's 11, almost 11:30, so this might be overly ambitious, but I my intention is to use this opportunity to get as much in the plenary setting or in this informal working group setting of what happened across the different issues that I mentioned in my oral report that would be covered today or in the plenary statement that I made. So I will first get the readout from the infants.

Any comments then if we're dealing with a text that has some brackets, we might go through the brackets. That's for clearinghouse mechanism. In particular, I will treat it a little bit differently with the financial rules and regulations and the GEF MOU simply because we've had a lot of deliberations on that. And I just kind of want to give you an indication of where I think there might be a way to move towards a landing zone. It's not final, but at least the way I think it might be helpful for delegations rather than going back and forth.

We know what the issues are. It's just kind of finding the right language and accommodation. So that's my plan. So first off, I'm going to start up with the Clearinghouse mechanism and I apologize I didn't read my procedural notes, but just again, you know, in this room we don't have interpretation. I'm very sorry for it.

We've done our best, but we can't afford it. And then we will begin with the Clearinghouse mechanism. And for that I want to first off thank the delegation of Palau and the delegation of New Zealand for co convening the informal discussions on that. And I believe I'll give the floor to Palau or to Tim to New Zealand to give us the readout. Thank you.

Thank you. Co Chair. Since the report back yesterday, Palau Chair of AOSIS and New Zealand convened an additional informal discussion on the way forward on the operationalization of the Clearinghouse mechanism. The additional informal discussion yesterday was again well attended by a wide range of states with participation of all regional negotiating groups. Again, the co conveners would like to thank all delegations for their constructive engagement in this informal as well as the previous informals convened during this prepcon.

The additional informal discussion yesterday covered two key matters. First, the time frame for undertaking a procurement process for selection of a technical partner in light of Dualos advice. Yes, yesterday. And second, we conducted a read through of the Draft outcome document for PrepCom 3 relating to the development of a prototype of the Clearinghouse mechanism in relation to the time frame for undertaking a procurement process for selection of a technical partner. There was discussion regarding dualos estimated time frames relating to the different procurement options for engaging a technical partner.

The procurement process options and their associated time frames shared by DualOS have implications for the development of a prototype by COP1. In this regard, the Co conveners would welcome final advice from dualos on this matter as soon as possible. Clarity on the timeframes for procurement is important for determining next steps in relation to the draft outcome document on the Clearinghouse Mechanism for procurement. Prepcon3 we had another read through yesterday. We were able to get the document to a point where we agreed to share it with dualos for consideration in plenary today.

There appeared to be general agreement among those present at yesterday's informal that the current draft reflects the small group's discussions to date. The Co conveners shared the latest version of the draft outcome document with dualos yesterday evening for uploading to the Pre PREPCOM website.

A small number of square brackets remain in the text for two areas.

For two areas square bracketed, we agreed that the CO conveners would seek dualis guidance. These areas related to the name we used to refer to the technical partner and the time frame for inviting expressions of interest from potential technical partners. We therefore ask Dualos guidance on these two matters. Square brackets also remain in paragraphs 11 and 12. The co conveners consider that the version of the draft outcome document shared with delegations in duallos yesterday reflect discussions in the informals to date and represents best efforts at consensus.

We would encourage the outcome document be appended to the CO Chair's report. As mentioned yesterday, the draft outcome document would 1. Invite expressions of interest from technical partners to support the design and development of a prototype of the clearinghouse mechanism. 2. The prototype would optimally deliver on the key functions of the Clearinghouse mechanism, including the BB and J standardised batch identifier, MGR notifications, ability to match capacity building opportunities and transfer of marine technology with recipients, EIA notifications and basic requirements for infrastructure of ABMTs.

3. The technical partner would take into account the parameters for the operationalization of the Clearinghouse mechanism as included in the Annex to the outcome document. 4. The technical partner would be asked to draft a detailed program of work for developing the prototype. The technical part would be asked to draft a summary report outlining the process for developing the prototype, including areas requiring further guidance from the COP and the Technical Partner would be asked to draft a work plan for the fully operational version of the clearinghouse mechanism.

5. The outcome document would request the Technical Partner under the oversight of the co Chairs Bureau and Duallos to consult members of the PREPCOM and other potential non party users during the development of the prototype and 6 the work of the Technical Partner would be without prejudice to the COPS power to make alternative decisions. Finally, my co convener and I would like to thank delegations again for their constructive engagement on this matter over the last few days. We stand ready to assist further as necessary and remain in your hands. Thank you very much.

Once again I wish to thank New Zealand and Palau for the work that they have done in bringing us to this point, which is very far along. We've taken note of the questions and Dualis will seek to ascertain information on those questions. I do want to open the floor for general comments in relation to the other two remaining brackets. I will take your comments and then my next step would be to reflect on these with my co chair and then we are planning a stocktake at 5:30 where we'll give further guidance.

Floor is open.

The Philippines, you have the floor.

Thank you Madam Co Chair. The Philippines thanks the co facilitators for the revised draft. We consider that it faithfully reflects the substance of the discussions during the informal consultations and provides a clear balance and operationally oriented basis for progressing the development of the Clearinghouse Mechanism. In paragraph three relating to the invitation for expressions of interest, the Philippine supports timeline anchored on the date of communication of the invitation, as this provides clarity and predictability for all potential partners. We would have preferred a shorter timeframe of two weeks in order to maintain momentum and support the timely delivery of a prototype ahead of COP1.

However, recognizing the technical complexity and level of detail required, we are flexible to support a time frame of up to 30 days, consistent with established UN practices. In this regard, we express our support for the current formulation as it strikes an appropriate balance between efficiency and urgency in light of the cop 1 timeline and transparency and inclusivity by allowing technically capable and relevant partners sufficient time to prepare meaningful proposals. We also welcome the strengthened provisions on capacity building and training, including their integration into both the development and operational phases of the mechanism. In our view, this is not merely a supporting element, but a core enabler of effectiveness. Embedding capacity building from the outset ensures that all parties, particularly developing States and small island developing States, are able not only to access the Mechanism but to actively participate in its testing, refinement and eventual use.

Finally, we would like to lift the brackets on paragraph 11 on partnerships and those within paragraph 12 on resourcing and underscore that beyond funding, collaboration with relevant organizations is essential to leverage existing expertise, promoting interoperability and ensure cost effective and inclusive development. In closing, the Philippines reiterates its appreciation to the co facilitators, Palau and New Zealand for their leadership. Thank you.

I wish to thank the delegation of Philippines and I now give the floor to Australia.

Thank you Chair. I make this statement on behalf of Kanzi. Kansi notes the emerging consensus and strong preference for an operational prototype of the Clearinghouse mechanism to be presented and demonstrated at COP1. However, we are concerned with the advice that a tender process could take six months at the best or more. To us this is not a viable option to get to work as soon as possible.

We support an approach to the consideration of a technical partner for the design and development of a prototype for the Clearinghouse mechanism that ensures an operational prototype is available for our consideration at COP1. Kansi would also like to note its appreciation to the co facilitators of the informal group Saeed and Tim and commends the draft outcome document as reflecting the discussion of the group. We would support the appending of the. Draft outcome document to the co Chair's report. Thank you Chair.

I wish to thank Australia for your statement as well as for indicating your willingness to see this appended to the report of the co Chairs. Is there any other request for the floor? I don't see any, so we will aim to Brazil. Speaking on behalf of clam,.

Thank you Co Chair for giving me the floor and sorry for coming in a little late.

I would like to start by sincerely thanking the co facilitators of this work. They have done amazing work and we have come to a document that maybe for the first time set out clear parameters of what parties expect from the Clearinghouse and we have moved along very well what we heard yesterday about the procurement taking way too long from what we expect to have a prototype by COP1. It was a bit of a hard pill to swallow, but I think also we are managing to work through this and to come up with new options and the text we have before us, it leads in that direction. We would however have some amendments to propose and I will be happy to send these in writing but for now for transparency and so the whole room has access to this. I'll read them out.

So I. I apologize but I ask you to bear with me for a little while in paragraph three where we invite expressions of interest.

We have CLAM has thought of a different proposal that would open this not only for entities which may have a link to the un, which according to the would be the fastest way for a procurement, but we also thought about the possibility of opening for potential donors and this would be done, for instance, if a philanthropy or any possible donor wants to develop the prototype without any cost. And then maybe this wouldn't demand a procurement.

So I'll just read out what new 3alt would look like. It is invites expressions of interest by and then brackets for time frame, which we are completely flexible on, to provide support for the design and development of a prototype from all those potentially interested, including those organizations referenced in Article 51. Such support may take the form of a proposals to provide technical support for the design and development of the prototype on a remunerated basis or b offers to provide for the development of the prototype as a voluntary contribution in kind.

Paragraph 3 would then have subparagraph 3.1. Expressions of interest must include a detailed work plan and for option A costings for the design and development of a prototype by COP1 and then sub paragraph 2. The CO chairs, in consultation with the Bureau and with the assistance of the Interim Secretariat, will invite the best applications subject to the availability of resources to develop the prototype. Any such support or contributions shall be provided under the oversight of the Co Chairs in consultation with the Bureau and with the assistance of the Secretariat. So, moving on from this alternative to paragraph three, and this is whether we decide to go with the original paragraph or with this alternative option, we would also wish to include two new additions that would be new paragraphs, and I'll read them out as well.

Three BIS in carrying out the work, the Partner or Consultant may as necessary engage external expertise in including through subcontracting arrangements, collaboration with relevant organizations and the recruitment of specialized technical services subject to prior agreement with the Division. This is because we would like to leave the Technical Partner or Consultant the possibility to subcontract and to keep these options open and then three Vector, which is particularly important to clamor because we believe this is what will safeguard the Clearinghouse remaining within the BB and J. The engagement of the Partner or Consultant shall be strictly time bound, covering the design and development of the prototype up to the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Any continuation, extension or modification of this engagement beyond COP1 shall be subject to a decision of the COP based on its assessment of the Prototype and of future operational needs and then I'm sorry, I know this is Taking a little long. It's the last comment on this Part 3 quad is intended to guarantee that any product.

If we decide to go in another way at COP1, the product that was developed so far will remain within the BB and J. And it reads as follow. This work will be undertaken without prejudice to COP having the power to take decisions on the CHM as it sees fits and the prototype, including all associated components, be delivered and become exclusive property of the Agreement. This shall include, inter alia, all intellectual property rights, source code, technical documentation, system architecture, data and metadata, as well as any other materials necessary to ensure its full use, modification, maintenance and further development. Such transfers shall be affected in full in a permanent basis and at no cost to the Agreement, and shall not be subject to any restrictions that would limit the ability of the Conference of the Parties to operate, adapt or further develop the prototype.

I would also have a few comments on the annex. I don't know if you would like me to. I can go. Okay. So.

For the Annex, we would like to include in F where it says interoperability. We would also like to have reference to interoperability with within the CHM and the subsidiary bodies of the BB and J. This could read.

It's a very simple text and I'll provide it in writing, but it just asks that the functions of the subsidiary bodies also be considered. Thank you.

I wish to thank Brazil, speaking on behalf of clam, and we wish to request that you submit the language in writing. I want to make one clarification. Since this potential decision will be interim, it's likely that we would have to include this in some other format other than appended to the report, which is intended to capture those recommendations that are going to be forwarded to COP one. So just maybe a logistical but consequential issue. I'll give the floor to European now, European Union, the distinguished representative of the European Union, followed by the Bahamas, speaking on behalf of caricom.

Thank you, Co Chair, for giving us the floor. I speak on behalf of the European Union and its 27 member states. We would also like to echo all the delegation that spoke before us in thanking very much the distinguished delegate from Palau and from New Zealand for the excellent work and for driving us here. We also notice, as Kanzi, that there is emerging consensus on the prototype to be in place for COP1. And we also have concerns that the tender procedure would not be the most appropriate given the timing we heard.

Thanks. We would like to thank the distinguished delegate from CLAM for the new proposal. We would need to see them in writing to evaluate and to assess. So I cannot position ourselves for the moment on this and we also wait for your clarification on the logistics of how this document will be treated. Thank you very much.

This is for now. Thank you very much.

European Union I wish to give the floor to Bahama. Speaking on behalf of CARICOM

Co Chair,. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the Caribbean Community, caricom.

We thank Palau and New Zealand for facilitating the informal informal consultations and all delegations for their constructive engagement in advancing those discussions. Based on these exchanges, CARICOM considers that we are approaching convergence on the core parameters needed to move this work forward. In this context, CARICOM can broadly support the outcome document which informs the development of a prototype and outlines the potential future development of the Code Clearinghouse Mechanism without prejudice to decisions by the Conference of Parties. In this regard, CARICOM supports progressing the Clearinghouse Mechanism through the development of a prototype following Propcom 3 in advance of COP1. We view this as a technical evidence gathering, evidence generating exercise aimed at testing feasibility and functionality rather than an operational launch and support an iterative approach that includes structured user feedback and intersectional consultations.

This will be essential to ensuring that decisions taken at COP1 are informed by practical experience and technical evidence.

From our perspective, the outcome document usefully clarifies the scope and direction of work by setting out key technical and operational parameters to guide the prototype. We support lifting the brackets in paragraph 11 and 12, but we are flexible with respect to paragraph 12. We also support appending the document to the Co Chair's report, but we look to your further guidance with respect to that. Regarding clam's proposal, we would have to see the text before pronouncing, but based on what we've heard, we feel that we could consider the references to time bound elements as well as ownership of the prototype and associated rights. Thank you.

I wish to thank the Bahamas speaking on behalf of caricom and I now give the floor to Senecal speaking on behalf of the African Group.

Thank you, Madam Co Chairs for giving me the floor. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the African Group. The African Group expressed its appreciations to Palau and New Zealand for steering our informal discussion during the last days. The African Group is of the view that this text as presented now offers a good reflection of the discussions we had these last days and are a token of the common will to have an early operationalization of the Clearinghouse Mechanism and for the technical partner we would go with to provide with a prototype by COP1 without prejudice of the decision that could be taken by so called Cop 1.

In the spirit of the discussions we had these last days, the African group would like the retention of the para 11 that is in bracket now and also the retention of para 12 with the brackets removed. As regards to the proposals made by clam, we thank them for exposing them this morning, but we cannot offer an informed decision without having them in writing. So we are looking forward to have them in writing now. Regarding to the timeline, we are also looking forward for more information from Dohalos regarding the potential avenues we could take to have this early operationalization of the Clearinghouse mechanism and to have a prototype by KAP1. Thank you.

Thank you Senegal, speaking on behalf of the African group and I now give the floor to Van Motu, speaking on behalf of P sits.

Thank you Co Chair. Pacific SIDS would like to thank New Zealand and Palau for their stellar stewardship. Of the Small group As others, we. Felt that the discussions were very fruitful and we were pleased with the document which was submitted. We support the suggestion of the CO.

Chair that we likely need another procedural. Way forward for the document which the. Small Group worked on, given that PSIDs have strong hope that work on the prototype would or could begin expeditiously.

We also look for more guidance from DOLOS and we thank CLAM for for the proposals which we look forward to seeing in writing for our group to consider. Thank you very much.

I wish to thank Vanuatu, speaking on behalf of the Pacific small island developing States and I now give the floor to Samoa speaking on behalf of aosis.

Thank you Co Chair and we would also like to join colleagues in thanking the CO facilitators from Palau and New Zealand for conducting a very fruitful discussion within the Informal group that we've had. We'll be very brief.

We would just like to say that the text is a good way to move forward and that we would also need to consider the text that was and the ideas shared by CLAM in principle, but we would still need to see the text as well to consider it. Thank you.

I wish to thank Samoa, speaking on behalf of eosis. I now give the floor to China.

Thank you Madam Co Chair. China appreciate the discussions on CQM in the informal group and we also appreciate the efforts of the CO Chairs in advancing this agenda. Item China notes that the draft study submitted to the meeting provide a soft analysis of cleaning house mechanism and we think the provisions on the chm in Article 41 of the Agreement constitute the basis of our discussions on all relevant issues which should be grounded in a full understanding of Article 51, particularly paragraph 2 and 4 as a starting point for the work of the precom, the Preparatory Commission's work on the CHM, including its elements and timeline, shall be based on the implementation of the of these paragraphs. It shall not preempt or prejudge matters failing within the decision making authority of the COP and shall shift guard the unimpend appended management authority of the Agreement Secretary over the cgm. China acknowledged the design of the developing countries to access the information and technical resources, enhancing the capacity building and connect with relevant project and providers of marine technology transfer through the CHM and hope that the future cleaning mechanism, a clean horse mechanism should be an information network built around a central system linked to several regional and national nodes.

Following or during the development of the central system, regional and national nodes may be established in parallel along with relevant training and workshop to assist developing countries in excising information and using the cleaning host mechanism for capacity building. Based on the above, China believes precom's next stage next phase work should focus on call system parameters, user access rights and the specific functions supporting the participation of developing countries and we appreciate the professional information and advice provided by relevant international organizations. From the justice study we recognize that the international organizations and relevant bodies have established various information platforms and data systems tailed to their mandate and strengths and their experience is highly valued for developing the BPNG's CHM. Nevertheless, BBNG has its own distinctive features. Prestead technical pathway may not met BBNG's requirements, so we remain open to cooperation with other international organizations and we welcome the participation of IOC IMO as relevant to regional organizations or bodies in early technical bright parent needs for this and sharing their extensive experience and technical expertise.

At this stage. We think COP will the PRECOM now lacks a mandate to design the technical implementing entity of CHM but should maintain is engagement with all relevant parties and pressure flexibility towards all qualified international organizations and technical entities. We recommend that co Chairs coordinate with relevant parties which have already showed these opinions on our draft outcome document and we are very appreciated the informal groups discussion and now we getting through all these documents. We think the paragraph three does now to reflect the decision making process or demonstrative the transparency of soliciting feedback and identifying the most suitable applicant. So we will probably wide or suggestions for this program in the informal group and we also have some other suggestions and we will provide it to the Coordinator and join the discussion in the informal group in the future and thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. China, I have Japan, then Indonesia and then Palau. I'm hearing an interest in potentially going back into an informal. Informal. And I think if that's the case, if I could encourage our colleagues to be brief so that we can just establish that that's the way forward.

Let me give the floor to Japan. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. Japan thanks to co facilitator Parawan and New Zealand for their effort in preparing the text. And also I'd like to mention at the same time, in line with EU's comment, Japan considers crime text contains number of elements that require careful examination in written form, including regard to several technical and legal implications. Given the level of detail introduced at. This stage, Japan needs additional time to review text thoroughly.

Accordingly, Japan is not positioned to accept the crown text at present time. This position is without precess to Japan. Continue constructive engagement and further consideration of this matter. Thank you.

I wish to thank Japan and I now give the floor to Indonesia.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair for giving the floor. I would like to extend our appreciation to the distinguished Lakers from Palau and New Zealand. Facilitate the discussion yesterday and come up with this draft decision. We would like to suggest some in some paragraph and first on paragraph 4, Indonesia proposed that the term consultant to be replaced throughout the document with technical partner. This better reflects the collaborative and substantive nature of partnership required.

We prefer UN to UN cooperation model in this regard. Ioc, UNESCO as a technical partner or engaging specific individual technical expert. We have some reason on this one, since technical partner reflects a substantive collaborative relationship rather than a mere commercial transaction. Explicitly mentioning ioc, UNESCO provides a concrete example of an existing institutional partner with necessary infrastructure, e.g. Ocean biodiversity information System and Global Ocean Observing system that already administered by IOC.

UNESCO on paragraph 5 about progress reporting, Indonesia supports the requirement for co chair to keep commission informed through periodic stock text. Regular reporting is essential for maintaining transparency and ensuring the technical build remains aligned with the political expectation of the parties. And in this regard we would like to add requirement for geographical balance by reference Article 51 and this to ensure the technical design is sensitive to the specific geographical and connectivity challenges faced by archipelagic state. As for paragraph 12, Indonesia suggests to the alternative tax. We support the alternative tax and can agree on the press potential additional funding sources.

Well, we maintain that primary source source of sustainable funding for the mechanism should be in the funds established under Article 52, paragraph 4. We acknowledge the pragmatic necessity of exploring diverse funding streams and other relevant mechanism to Support the rapid development of the prototype and ensure it is ready for launch by January 27th. And we'd like to suggest a couple of tweaks around annex language NAI on subparagraph H where the prototype may start in English. It must be designed also in all six official UN languages. Crucially, Indonesia aligned with the position that artificial intelligence, or AI should not be used for translation purposes at this stage due to lack of global AI governance.

So in this regard, we'll would like to retain the prohibition of AI translation. Thank you so much, Madam Co Chair.

Thank you very much. Indonesia. Palau, you have the floor.

You, Madam Co Chair. I think based on the work that we've done, New Zealand and Palau, I think we're very close to a final outcome document. There are some new textual proposals that are being delivered on the floor. I would suggest to the room that. Perhaps we could consider breaking out to.

Huddle to discuss that text because I've heard that colleagues have not been able to have the benefit of reviewing said text. And there seems to be some tweaking of language in other areas that we have in the outcome document. Just to say to the floor that I've consulted with New Zealand and we are willing and able to facilitate a further inf to sort out the language and deliver a more final, final product for consideration by the room. Thank you. Thank you very much.

We appreciate that. And I think we would be able to have a room. Still checking. We're just checking on that. I'll give the floor to United Kingdom and then I'll wrap up so that I can move on to the other topics.

United Kingdom, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The UK would also like to thank the distinguished delegates from Palau and New Zealand for facilitating what we thought were very constructive discussions. And for the most part we were quite comfortable with the text that was presented this morning. We do recognize the views expressed by by Australia on behalf of Kanzi this morning with regards to the procurement of a consultant technical partner to do this work.

And we're very mindful of the timeline required to get this done by COP one. So we would certainly support the Kanzi view there. We also listened very closely to the Indonesia expression of support for the ioc. The IOC have been here very proactively promoting their capabilities in this space. And I think there was general view that IOC would be a very capable partner.

But of course we'll go back to that. Very mindful of the new proposal by CLAM for new text in paragraph three. So until we see that Text, we can't make a call on that either. And also mindful of the suggested additions by China. So we very much look forward to seeing them as well.

So thank you and thanks to the core facilitators again for enabling another chat sometime today. Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues. What's clear is that we need a decision because everyone wants to have something by COP1. So we need a decision coming out of PrepCom 3 and that decision has to be activated as of the conclusion of PrepCom 3.

So in terms of the sequence of the SEPS now, it's to ensure that first of all there's an agreement on what that decision looks like. We know that there are two questions that have been raised for dualists to respond to. They will ascertain that information for you, hopefully, because we rely on others to give us this information. And then three, there are a few new, new issues that have come up and these probably need to be socialized. So if you want to use CRD now, the clearinghouse mechanism, folks, you can go ahead and do that.

But at one we'll have to ask you to vacate the room and we'll find an alternate option to convene. But in any case, my guidance to you is that it has to be concluded by latest end of the lunch hour. So that would be by 2:45. And I would appreciate getting your feedback. Thank you.

I will now transition to the discussions on financial rules and regulations. Thanks.

It's.

It.

Okay, thank you very much, colleagues. I was going to start with the INF readout on the Finance Committee related issues, but the colleague who facilitated that discussion is not yet in the room room. So let me just walk through potentially the way we will deal with the financial rules and regulations. We've had several readings of this text and there are areas where we continue to not be able to meet each other. But it's not a condemnation of the text itself.

It's just I think some ways of how to accommodate various issues. So I just, I'll quickly run through. I'm not going to address the discussions relating to the Finance Committee because I understand that those discussions were productive and there are potential landing zones on that. And we'll hear from our colleague from Palau who helped to facilitate that discussion. But what I want to go through is the discussion on in the right document on the budget.

So just a flag that I understand that this issue for the finance committee on 3.3 that was addressed and there is a potential way forward on that. I want to go to the supplementary Budget and we've gone back and forth on this. I would want to encourage you to consider that we would simply address this, the subparagraphs under 3, 6 as the conditions upon which a supplementary budget proposal would be drafted or may be submitted. So that's the first point.

There is a provision in 3.6D that deals with the Finance Committee. Again, I'm not touching that one. Waiting to hear back on the informal. Informal in relation to. Is it the appropriations that.

I have a clarification. I have a clarification for 3.9 on appropriations which was asked several times. The clarification is that this rule applies cumulatively over the financial period. Multiple transfers are possible from the same budget line as long as the cumulative amount remains within the cap.

Okay. And that's how Minamata applies that particular provision.

Moving on to the issue of.

The funds. So the voluntary trust fund on these provisions we are anticipating that there would be a residual rule. But the issues relating to 4.4 bis and onwards to. Is it 4.4, 4.4 quarter.

Sorry, 4.4 quincus would be addressed in the context of the tors of the voluntary trust fund. I did. I do want to request just clarification because several delegates did express that there were some reservation to 4.4 quinquests. But I just want to make sure that this would be able to be addressed within the context of the voluntary trust fund.

Don't see any reactions there. In terms of contributions then the delegations all indicated an interest in using the UN scale of assessment as a the basis. I wish to suggest that we proceed on that ground which would also mean that the time frame for payments would be 1st January.

And that would be in 5, 3. And then on the issue of the force majeure, I wish to propose that you consider that we will take this forward by focusing on the recognition of the extension of payment deadline triggered by a force majeure. I'm proposing that we look at this in respect of developing state parties without the listing and that a payment schedule is agreed and that there would be a transparency element included which would be that the request for extension and the justification is provided to the Bureau and to the Conference of the Parties in terms of the arrears. The period of time in E we're proposing to consider the two year time frame and then in terms of the arrears policy where there was a lot of focus on option A, we're proposing that we look to that as the possible area for working out a landing zone.

And I Still don't see our colleague from Palau. So I will have to revert when he comes back. But I just want to take your quick general reactions and the reason I'm doing it in this way fashion is in order for us to for myself and my co chair to look at this financial rules and regulation so that we can close this out on Thursday. Let me just emphasize that the focus for the financial rules and regulations is critical because we need to be able to have a lawful budget, we need to be able to come collect contributions and we need to be able to ensure the secretariat can function. So this is a matter that we need to agree to and we're simply looking for potential areas for landing zones.

I wish to give the floor to Fiji on behalf.

Madam Kochia. Just clarification on your last point. If you could just please repeat on the extension and the two year time frame I did not quite capture. And you had mentioned something about its application to developing countries. Yeah, there are two paragraphs there.

So if you go to.

Five, 3D, that's where I address the developing state parties.

And then the two year time frame is in E. Thank you. Again, these are not definitive. This is just in a way for us to move forward. Otherwise we'll be going back and forth on the same discussion, discussions that we've had now in several sessions. I wish to give the floor to the European Union.

Thank you very much, Madame Couture, and thank you very much for all the work you are doing on this. Having heard what you said, we have the feeling that this goes in the right direction. Of course. I mean it would be important for us to see this in writing, but I have the impression that we could go in that direction too. I just wanted a clarification in relation to paragraph 3.6, Little Roman 4.

This relates to inflation and currency fluctuation. I would like to know whether this paragraph is still in or has been deleted. Thank you.

So in setting out the fixed conditions that was included in it. Thank you. I recognize that my colleague from Palau is in the room. May I invite Palau to just give us a readout from the INF on the Finance committee paragraphs. We're on the financial rules and regulations.

Good morning everyone. Sorry. Afternoon. Thank you, co chair. So just quickly on the financial rules and the references to the finance Committee.

The main thing that we had a general understanding on in the room and please, others come, come in, is that they could be distilled into a couple of key points. So first of all is that there was an understanding that the Financial Committee's role cannot supersede or basically do or overcome the work done by the Secretariat who is providing the budget proposal. And that would be basically that if there is any role for the Finance Committee is that it is providing inputs on the budget proposal and the integrity of that budget proposal has to be maintained going to the cop, given that the COP has the clear function to consider and adopt the budget proposal. So for those who are pushing for the budget, the Finance Committee to have this budgetary function, it is to do so in somewhat of an advisory manner and for the COP to then take into account those what advice, comments, non binding inputs, et cetera, all the terms that are used in the text. The other element that we discussed was on timing and timing as it relates to the constitution of the Budget Committee.

Given as you said Kochi yesterday and alluded to it, the Budget Committee is the only SB that hasn't been established as yet. And given that we would have to adopt the first budget at the first cop, we can't imagine a role for the Finance Committee if we were to give it a budgetary function in any way. And so there was an understanding at least that for the first financial period, whatever financial period that we do decide on is that there would be no role for the Finance Committee if we go down having a discussion on that route. So those are the two things in relation to the financial rules. We had some discussion as it relates to the Finance Committee in which the Jeff But I'll pause because I know that we're only discussing financial rules at this point.

Over to you, Co Chair.

Thank you very much, Palau. So the co Chairs will take that understanding, that baseline understanding that seem to have been reached and try to address the text with that understanding in mind. Are there any comments? I did suggest to you that I would open the floor for comments in relation to any related matters.

European Union.

Thank you very much Madam Co Chair and thanks to the representative of AOSIS who really correctly reflected the discussion we had. In the course of the discussion there was another point which came on the table which is this distinction between may or shell for the work of the Finance Committee on certain budget proposals. And the question we had was whether if we choose the word maybe, who's going to actually ask the Finance Committee to carry out a budget task. So this is a question that received no answer, but I think it would be important to answer it so that we can also take out the brackets on one of the two options we have in the text.

Thank you very much Madam Co Chair,.

Thank you very much our colleague from European Union for flagging that particular issue. We will certainly bear that in mind. I wish to give the floor to Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair for your reflections this morning regarding the Financial rules. We listen to you carefully and we feel that your reflections reflected clearly the preponderance of views so far on the financial rules and pending when we see this in writing, you can be assured of the group's support to assist you, Madam Chair, for all of your hard work to finally come to a consensus on the financial rules. In the same vein, I would like to thank our colleague from Palau for facilitating our discussions, especially on Rule 3.3. I think it was a very fruitful discussion that we had and the Africa Group would like to stress that during the conversation, even though we had noted that the agreement had not created any role for the Finance Committee, we felt we could meet the others in the middle by working on the basis of the B part of the paragraph 3, 3a and using the term may. And we believe that the word may clearly captures the essence of the agreement, giving the opportunity for Finance Committee to provide technical inputs and observations that are not non binding so that the co op, which retains the right to approve the budget, can also take these observations in take these observations as they decide on the budget.

So that was the premise in which the conversation were held and we're happy that it was also presented as such by Palawa. I just want to highlight that we didn't find any difficulty in reading and understanding the Part B of your proposed text. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group.

I give the floor now to Guyana speaking on behalf of Caricom. And then I'd like to wrap up. Guyana, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. CARICOM wishes to thank the facilitator for his sterling efforts yesterday in guiding our discussions on the provisions related to the Finance Committee within both the Jeff MOU and the Financial Rules. We believe that his report is an accurate reflection of the discussions which occurred in the session. In addition, CARICOM wishes to express its appreciation for the clarity and structure brought to this complex issue. During the discussions.

We recognize the importance of ensuring coherence between the institutional arrangements under the agreement and the financial architecture that will support its effective implementation. At the same time, CARICOM would like to reiterate our position regarding the role of the Finance Committee within the Financial Rules. We remain OPU opposed to any expansion of the mandate of the Finance Committee through the financial rules. In our view, the financial rules should not prejudge or preempt the function, scope or authority of a body that has not yet been formally established by the cop. Moreover, we underscore that the Finance Committee will not be operational prior to COP1 as such, or it is both premature and, we think probably impractical to assign it rules within the financial rules that are intended to guide the immediate functioning of the Conference of the Party at its first session.

CARICOM therefore respectfully request the deletion of those provisions in the rule that seeks to expand or define the mandate of the Finance Committee at this stage staged. We believe that this approach will preserve the prerogatives of the COP to determine the Committee's functions at the appropriate time in accordance with Article 5214, while ensuring that the financial rules remain fit for purpose for COP1. Of course, we remain engaged and committed to engaging constructively with all delegations to arrive at a balanced and workable outcome. With respect to your proposals, CARICOM could go ahead. We could go along with the UN scale the January 1st deadline with respect to the issue of arrears, I think, and your proposal regarding working on the basis of option A.

We remain flexible on the. We can be flexible on the listing and yeah, we look forward to seeing the proposed text and we thank you.

Thank you very much. Guyana. I have three more delegations on the list. As I said, I'm just trying to give the sense of the direction of travel when it comes to the issue of the Finance Committee. I think we're trying to find a middle ground that accommodates what has been identified, identified as an issue regarding the budget proposal and potentially how it gets reviewed and then considered by the cop.

I've heard the concerns about the issue of the timeline. So a committee that's not established and I think we can think about ways in which that can be addressed so that whatever role is effectuated for the committee is given effect at the appropriate time. I will give the floor to the Philippines, followed by Iran and then Japan and then I just want to stress to you, I do want to get to the Jeff mou. I do want to get to the Special fund and I do want to give you an indication of the voluntary trust fund because I don't want you to have any surprises. I'm not planning any.

Informal, informal. And so over to Philippines. Thank you, Co Chair. First, we thank Palau and other colleagues for the productive discussion at INF yesterday on financial rules. On Op.

3.10 On the budget, the Philippines supports option A on the mandatory review by the Finance Committee of the budget prepared by the Secretariat. This is on the understanding that the review should inform the COPS to decision and not prejudge it and remains non binding. Our delegation is open to language refinements to reflect this recommendatory nature of the Finance Committee's comments in line with its mandate to provide reports and recommendations to the COP under section 52, paragraph 14 of the agreement. This ensures that the COP's decision will have an expert assessment to draw from. This also has precedent under other MEAs where a subsidiary body such as the SBI under the UNFCCC reviews the budget before the COP considers it.

Similarly, we support the Finance Committee's review of the supplementary budget and generally support taking advantage of the Finance Committee's expertise and rotation in relation to the financial rules. Thank you.

I wish to thank the Philippines and I now give the floor to Ron.

Thank you so much Madam Co Chair. We do not want to repeat our position. I believe we have duly reflected them throughout these two weeks. Just a point that is cross cutting with the rules of procedure and that is the Rule 5, 3F in relation to payments in areas equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions. We believe that the formulation to be adopted should be in a way that no developing country be denied its rights for membership in the Bureau due to its financial situation.

So we hope that option A could be reformulated in that regard. And last comment on 5 3d we believe that the payment deadline shall be extended for developing countries instead of may and reiterate our position reflecting this meeting. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Iran and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Japan.

Thank you Madam Chair.

Regarding the paragraph 3.3 a Japan still retains a position that the budget proposal has to be checked by the Finance Committee or whatever the expertise because the members of the COP are not necessarily the expert of the budget. In order to make the BB&J functioning properly and effectively the budget has to be going through the expert review. And in that regard we still prefer option A shall but for the flexibility may could be fine as long as there's some hook that the budget proposal has a chance to go through. There's some expert check before tabling to the COP and also about the timing I understand that for the first COP1 it is impossible for the Financial Committee to check the budget. So for that the first budget it is fine for us to not to go through the Finance Committee.

Thank you very Much.

Thank Japan for that clarification And I wish to give the floor to the distinguished representative of Switzerland and then I'm moving on to Jeff Mou. Switzerland, you have the floor. Thank you very much Madam Co Chair. Very quickly I just want to also to raise our support to on paragraph 3 3, option A. We are also understanding that other delegation may have other views.

So we also have flexibility with respect to the wording as was said by the delegates of Philippines and as was said by delegates from Japan, we are also fine with the first budget not to go through the FC. And with respect to Section 5, our progress preference would be to keep option B. Thank you very much.

I wish to thank Switzerland so I've heard all the views. We're trying to bring you guys even closer together because we have to land the financial rules.

So I hope to have your trust. We will be consulting. Obviously this is not going to make be the final state of the document but I just wanted to give a sense of how things are likely to progress so that everyone knows no surprises. I'm not having another Chile, on behalf of clam, you have the floor. Thank you Madam Chair.

CLAM is flexible with Rule 3.3 wording and we could support the lead the option A. Thank you. Thank you very much. Julia. On behalf of clam, I'm now moving to the gef.

Mou, I know you have done a lot of work on this. There was an issue of the Finance Committee and some other items that Palau and I know Brazil have been trying to help us progress forward. I think in general this is in really good shape. The challenges that we have is, you know how much deference we give to Jeff and you know the role of the COP in terms of providing the guidance. I can assure you that we appreciate that that needs a balance needs to be struck there and we're going to try to work towards that.

But let me hear from I don't know who Palau will read out the any updates on the on the Finance Committee issues and any other issue. We'll take the open the floor to get feedback on Palau.

Thanks a lot Madam Co Chair. So I'll just speak to the involvement of the Finance Committee in the Jeff Mou and I'll leave it to other colleagues because I know there were some as you said there was some work that was being done by colleagues since last night. So we discussed four paragraphs for transparency for the room as it relates to the role of the Finance Committee with regards to the Global Environment Facility. So that's paragraph 15, 16, 19 and 20. So it was reflected in the room that we had already decided and sort of discussed amongst ourselves that 15 that dealt with the reporting and that basically it said that the COP would send reports received from the Council to the Finance Committee and the CBMT as Well as in 19 where it discussed the Finance Committee would periodically report and make recommendations on the identification of mobilization of resources is that these are internal matters that would be best dealt with in the context of COP decisions that relate to the Finance Committee, the CBNT Committee, et cetera.

And so the general sense in the inf inf room was that we could delete that first part of 15 which was in brackets, which I alluded to, but leaving the remainder of 15, if memory serves me correct. And then you had 19 where we would delete 19 in its entirety. Then we had a discussion on 16. And here after I finish, I'll have clarity.

Brazil on behalf of CLAM introduced the proposal. But we had some good proposals and some flexibility, quite a bit of flexibility shown by CLAM as it alluded to the monitoring and evaluation and basically that there could potentially have been comments made by the Finance Committee as it relates to the periodic review. So there was a fix that claim has been able to come up with. And so I'll have them read it on the floor after I'm finished. Which then leads me to the last paragraph, which is paragraph 20 and that deals with the determination of funding.

And a lot of the discussion that was had there really and truly was about who really is the subject of that sentence of about providing information into these resource mobilization processes for the information of the gef. And one thing that colleagues sort of could agree to is that potentially that the Finance Committee be improper for them to necessarily have a role in this context. And so we should focus more on what is the copy role as it relates to providing that information, given that there is precedent in Minamata, UNFCCC and CBD as it relates to this, the only other area in that paragraph. So there seemed to be consensus, more moving towards just making sure it's focused on the COP and the cop's relationship to informing the Jeff Trust Fund. The only thing that was still remaining, which other colleagues and I would like to think thank Canada on behalf of Kanzi they proposed, I think that formulation and we discussed it.

But one thing that we just needed to put a pin in and sort of finalize is the mention to including its replenishment processes, if memory serves me correctly. But I do think that what the balance was is that if we could potentially take out the Finance Committee mention, we could potentially live maybe with the replenishment process mentioned. But colleagues still had to go back and discuss with their groups. So I'll pause here. And to you Kochi, if we should give the floor to CLEM to introduce the textual edits.

Thanks. Thank you Palau. I note that Fiji has requested the floor is it on this particular issue? And then I go to CLEM or let's go to Brazil first. Brazil, speaking on behalf of clem.

Thank you very much Madam Co Chair. And once again a huge thanks to to Palau for facilitating that relevant discussion. I think that we are indeed closer to to landing zones there in paragraph 16, Klam explained expressed interest and the need actually for us to keep the second part of bracketed text that pertains to how the JEFF will address the changing needs of developing countries. We express however flexibility in terms of how we incorporate that key element for our group. And this has to do of course with the role of the Finance Committee and the CBT mt.

So based on the discussions we had yesterday and now I have clearance to speak on behalf of CLAM on this one. Our idea is to delete all the bracketed text. So one that begins from taking into consideration until Technology Committee and also the second set of brackets on the Conference of the Parties. We will also review the ability of the channel Jeff and on and then the paragraph will read would read as possible as follow. The Conference of the Bodies will conduct a periodic review of the financial mechanism comma, including the JEFF Trust Fund to assess the adequacy, effectiveness and accessibility of financial resources comma, including for the delivery of capacity building and the transfer of marine technology comma, in particular for developing state bodies, comma.

And this is the new element or approach as provided for in paragraph 16 of Article 52 of the Agreement and taking into account inter alia considerations under paragraphs 14 and 15 of Article 52 of the agreement. So we wouldn't have to have necessarily a direct reference to the Finance Committee but we would then refer to their overall process for consideration of elements including the ones on the assessment of needs. Thank you. I thank Brazil, speaking on behalf of CLAM for introducing that proposed at 16 alt. And now I give the floor to Fiji for speaking for Fiji.

Okay, Fiji.

Thank you Madam Co Chair. So following on from the update by Palau who facilitated the informals and I firstly would like to thank Palau for facilitating a very robust conversation and a meaningful one to drive us to a very clean text. So we did in the plenary provide an update where we still had issues with 17 alt with the group decided that we will all agree to work on 17 alt which does not discuss anything with financial committee, but we had one bracketed tax which we were trying to consider and para 20 on the replenishment process. In the spirit of compromise and based on multiple bilaterals, I would like to also thank the distinguished delegate of Maldives and Papua New guinea for also supporting these discussions on behalf of PCIDs and AOCs with NClem Brazil for their agreement and flexibility.

We have agreed that on 17 alt the paragraph can or the sentence can stop after all other relevant independent assessments. So the bracketed text on existing or new assessments is a compromise where we would be happy to have this removed with the understanding that in para 20 the references to specificities including the replenishment process is retained. So I repeat, so the sentence would stop after the alteration is all other relevant independent assessments full stop. And so the bracketed text on 17 alt which talks about existing or new would be removed. Everything else is not bracketed.

So that's not discussed. The 20 the brackets around replenishment process is lifted with the understanding that we are as explained by Palau as well as the compromise between Cairns, EU and the rest of the delegations. I hope that that means, Madam Co Chair, that the Jeff MOU text is completely clean with the exception of 16. Thank you.

I wish it were completely clean.

I still have to come back to a couple paragraphs in the 7 bis 7 and pp. 9. Let me offer the floor now to the Europeans. But first of all thank you very much to colleagues for working to get on common ground. We're almost there, but we still need just a little bit more push.

European Union, you have the floor. Thank you very much Madam Co Chair. And thank you very much, dear colleagues, for the fruitful discussions of the last two days. I think we came onwards and we are on the way to find good compromise. Let me start with the proposal of my distinguished colleague from Fiji on paras 17 alt and para 20.

So the European Union and its member states agree with the proposal that has been made and we want to thank you all for this spirit of compromise and flexibility that has been shown with regards to the new text on Paris 16. I want to first of all thank my distinguished colleague from Brazil on behalf of clam. We would like to reconsider this text and to keep it in brackets, but I want you also to be assured that we will have a look at this text in a spirit of compromise with the goal to ultimately solve also or to lift the brackets that we have in para 16. Thank you.

Very much.

Sorry. I wish to give the floor to say thank you your communion. I wish to give the floor to Seychelles on behalf of the African group.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On behalf of the African group, we. We noted our views on para 16. We were part of the discussions and as a group we're still considering the reformation that was just articulated by Brazil. On behalf of clam.

We're positively reviewing this, but we don't have a specific yes yet. But we are. We are on our way. So just wanted to let you know that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Seal Speaking on behalf of the African group, I now wish to acknowledge my dear friend from Papua New guinea speaking on behalf of the Pacific small island developing state and General. Just acknowledge how wonderful it is to see you today.

Thank you. Co chair. Good morning. I have the honor of speaking on behalf of the Pacific small island developing States. And of course, as is my custom, although I don't know how many more opportunities we'll have left to express how pleased I am to see you in the chair.

It's indeed a pleasure. I wish this could go on, but I want to thank my distinguished brother representing Palau for his excellent facilitation and of course Fiji for acting as a bridge builder and as he mentioned, Maldives. On behalf of aosis P. SITS and CLAM Brazil. I also want to thank the destination distinguished representative of Brazil as well as the eu. I think everyone worked very constructively together and I think as the summaries have shown, there is a positive direction of travel.

So PSIS would like to thank all the respective delegations and again hope for a successful conclusion. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Papua New guinea on behalf of the Pacific small island developing States. And I now give the floor to Antigua and Barbuda speaking on behalf of caricom.

Thank you, Madam Co facilitator and good afternoon all. First, thanks to Palau for facilitating this informal discussions. Your reflections or your readout does reflect our understanding of the mostly positive discussions we had.

Thanks to Brazil on behalf of clam for your proposal on 16. We are still considering, but I think we're considering positively at this time. When we get back to you, we appreciate the readout from a colleague from Fiji regarding to 20 and 17 and yes. So we look forward to working with other delegations to just fine tune these areas so that we can close this text. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Antika and Barbuda speaking on Behalf of caricom, I have five speakers. I do want to get to the readout of the Special Fund so that everybody knows where that sits. So I have Brazil for clam, Ecuador I presume for the group of countries, Switzerland, Philippines and Russian Federation. At 12:55 I will get the readout from the Special Fund.

Brazil, you have the floor. Thank you very much Madam Chair. Just two comments. First of all, thanks also to Fiji for the readout as well as for the expression of flexibility on paragraph 20 which we can of course support as mentioned by the Distinguished Colleague. And secondly would be an overall comment.

We are really glad to have made substantive progress in on the Jeff mou. Indeed there's a question on seven, but we think that throughout the INS we've been able to land on possible solutions for the JAF MoU. But I have to put it from the floor that CLAM is not seeing the same pace and flexibility when it comes to the discussion on the Special Fund and to have things set out very clearly. This group will not accept forwarding any document on the Jeff MOU to the COP if we do not have a clear, concrete, time bound ad hoc committee tasked to develop an outcome document for the Special Fund. So this is our red line because we know we are in the last day or last days of this prepcom.

We are supportive of the way forward. On the on the job we have shown many flexibility. But when it comes to the Special Fund we still have many things to solve and this would be our approach when time comes, when push comes to shove tomorrow. And just to make a heads up to everyone not to have any surprises. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Brazil and now the list is growing. I will unfortunately not take all of you. I wish to give the floor to Ecuador and I kindly encourage you to please be succinct. Thank you so much Madam Co Chair.

As you mentioned, I am speaking on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Uruguay and my own country Ecuador. On 7 Beasts, our group still supports sending the sentence after support for developing countries for developing State parties without entering in the discussion on specific subgroups of developing countries as this MoU should not prejudice the Council allocation process processes and on 7th there we will support its full deletion in the current articulations as previously expressed, we are supporting of the provision of the agreement, but we do not think it pertains to regulating the relation between the COP and the GEF but a discussion at the GEF Council. Thank you so much,. Very much. And before that statement triggers a round of statements on these issues.

The Co Chairs are aware of the challenges with PP9, 7vis and 7ter. We are going to try to find a way to address this in a manner that will bring us towards an agreeable solution. Let me give the floor to Switzerland for followed by Philippines, Russian Federation.

Thank you very much Madam Kutcher. And we would like to thank all delegates for the very constructive discussion we had and the delegate from Fiji for their proposal on Para 17 AL 1020 which we are fine with. And we also thank the delegate from Brazil on behalf of CLAM for their support suggestion on paragraph 16 which we'll examine with a constructive and flexible spirit. We are hopeful that we can finalize this text and be inspired by this progress for other texts. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much Switzerland for those kind words to our colleagues. I think maybe I will just pop pause to get the Special Fund readout and then go back to the list of speakers. So Australia please can you advise us what's happening in the Special Fund? Yes, thank you Co Chair. Let me just pull up my notes so I'll just read out the discussions that happened yesterday evening on the Special Fund.

So the session focused on possible composition of an ad hoc committee. This is without prejudice to any delegation still wishing to pursue an open ended working group model. So the session first discussed the membership of the ad hoc committee with many delegations reiterating that it must remain a state driven process and supported a distinction between decision making or voting members which would be states, parties and non decision making or voting members. But I note the terminology of decision making and voting was discussed, but there was not a resolution on a preferred term. Notwithstanding any potential distinction made in membership in respect of voting or decision making rights.

Delegations spoke of the importance of indigenous peoples and local communities as forming part of a core membership group. Delegations observed that paragraph 7 of the Terms of Reference could be redrafted to account for the rules around decision making or voting rights of members, rather than making any kind of differentiation in paragraph 33 of the decision on decision making or voting, there seemed to be a general consensus that the Committee should aim to make its decisions by consensus, as is currently Provided for in paragraph 7 of the Terms of Reference, but that voting may be necessary. Next, on the possibility that the private sector may be involved in the work of the Committee, there was general convergence that the private sector should somehow be engaged. Noting Article 52 four singles this group out as a key stakeholder. However, most delegations seem to prefer the private sector not participating as members of the Committee.

Some groups favored private sector engagement through the technical support unit. Other delegations were open to the private sector, engaging either as observers or as Provided for In paragraph 5 of the decision, or as experts as Provided for in paragraph 9 of the Terms of Reference. Overall, delegation seemed quite flexible in how the private sector could be included on numbers and representation. There was continued discussion of the best model for defining the membership. There was a continued discussion of the proposal the membership of the Committee be structured by the categories of States which were required to make annual contributions under Article 146 of the Agreement and States which are not, with the second category of States not having to contribute then being further defined into regional groupings.

Some delegations spoke out in support of this proposal. There was also a further discussion of the split of membership that there would need to be a balance between those contributing and those not contributing, but the balance would also need to be equitable. Some delegations continue to speak in favour of the model outlined in the Cochez paper which reflects a regional grouping approach, warning that using a developed developing or a contributing non contributing split would not reach consensus. There was a new proposal made during the session of a possible split of numbers for the Committee and I understood that delegation planned to submit the proposal to Duallos to be published on the website. Finally, there was brief acknowledgement that similar discussions were occurring in the subsidiaries body's track of negotiations about the structure of the Finance Committee.

Delegations also all seem to be aware that if there wasn't consensus on membership of the ad hoc Committee, discussions would be returning to the possibility of an open ended working group. Thank you, thank you very much Australia and thank you for the readout. So everybody knows where the discussions are. With that I will revert now to the list Philippines followed by Russian Federation.

Thank you Co Chair. First, the Philippines thanks Palau and other colleagues for the productive discussion at the INFIN yesterday. The Philippines supports identifying the Finance Committee's role in relation to Article 52 paragraph 14 on the identification and mobilization of finance under the mechanism. We can go along with the emerging convergence around allowing the COP to decide what to communicate to Jeff based on the Finance Committee's reports and recommendations. We find this fully aligns with the agreement, has precedent in other MEAs and takes full advantage of the expertise of the Finance Committee.

We still have to take a close look at CLAM suggested text, but offhand our first impression is that this would be acceptable to our delegation. We also fully support having a section on determination of funding needed and available which has precedent in the CBD MOU with a jeff, we would be open to language refinements to capture the recognized relationship between the Finance Committee and the cop. Thank you.

Thank you and thanks for showing flexibility. Russian Federation, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Madam Co Chair. Unfortunately, we didn't have an opportunity to state our position on the draft MoU between CoP and Council of GEF earlier. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to highlight just a couple of key points. First, our previous comments regarding the unclear legal status of the draft memorandum remain fully relevant. The Conference of the Parties to the agreement and the JEFF Council are still considered to be the parties of the document.

However, neither of them are subjects of international law. They do not possess the legal capacity to conclude international agreements. Despite this, the draft document still contains certain provisions typical of legally binding international documents. Specifically, this refers to paragraphs 29 and 30 of the draft memorandum.

Going further, we understand that para 7, including 7Bs and 7 TER as well as other provisions of the draft memorandum have not been finalized yet. However, it is already clear that they provide for an overly complex and cumbersome mechanism designed to ensure the financing of activities and projects in the interests of developing States. The description of this mechanism contains numerous conditions and caveats and uses non operative language such as may and will instead of shall, which leaves the JEP with the broadest possible discretion and makes it virtually impossible to effectively achieve goals of this mechanism and to implement it in practice. Unfortunately, we once again have to note that this is driven by the notorious he who pays the piper calls the TUNE approach. It is clear that funding the agreement through the JEFF is likely to become yet another tool for intrusive interference in the interests of of developing States.

We do hope that this imbalance will be rectified during the first COP of the agreement and maybe during this meeting. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Colleagues. I had Egypt and Turkey to speak.

However, it's one and I'm worried that the mics will get cut off. So I respectfully request our colleagues. I beg your indulgence for this. There is going to be a stocktake at 5:30, so we'll come back on the way forward to structure our discussions tomorrow. The intention is that we will have documents out by the end of the day, but that would be night, so please be.

Please be watchful of your inboxes.

With that, colleagues, I will adjourn this meeting.

I have to adjourn.