Preparatory Commission: Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (Third Session, 29th plenary meeting followed by informal working group meeting)

Good morning, dear colleagues, distinguished delegates. It's a pleasure to be here with you today on our final day. We're very encouraged by all the work that you've done and the consultations that have been ongoing even this morning, all in the spirit of concluding our work in good time. So we are resuming our work this morning in plenary for oral reports on the parallel discussions held yesterday under item five of the agenda. We will also hear some feedback from our colleagues who helped to facilitate, co-facilitate the clearinghouse mechanism. We will then take up item eight of our agenda entitled adoption of the report of the preparatory commission. for an introduction of the draft report. Following this, we will suspend the meeting.

Yeah, we'll go into that

when we- Is it suspend is the right word? Oh, adjourn, sorry. I never remember which one works. Adjourn the meeting to allow delegation sufficient time to review the documents issued overnight. We appreciate that it was late and early morning, so thank you for your understanding. During that time, my co-chair and I will remain available to delegations wishing to engage bilaterally or in small group discussions, given that we are now on the final day of this PrepCom and this is our last opportunity to identify solutions and finalize documents for consideration and adoption by the COP. So we will now provide brief oral reports on the parallel discussions that took place yesterday under item five of the agenda. And as we've always said, these reports are without prejudice to discussions still to be held at PrepCom three, although we're about just finished with those discussions, I think you can all agree. So let me start off with my couple reports. I have, I think, three. So yesterday morning, we held our final session on the draft financial rules governing the funding of the Conference of the Parties, the Secretariat, and any subsidiary bodies. I outlined a proposed approach going forward on all outstanding issues, except on the provisions relating to the mandate of the Finance Committee on financial resources, which were discussed separately in an informal, informal by a group of states. On supplementary budget proposals, sub-paragraphs 1 to 4 under draft rule 3.6A would provide the conditions under which such a budget proposal could be submitted. Delegations appeared in agreement to delete draft rules 4.4 bis to 4.4 quinquies and to address issues relating to those rules in the terms of reference for the voluntary trust fund. With regard to assess contributions, the proposal to proceed on the basis of the UN scale of assessments, which would mean that the due date for contributions is one January of each calendar year, seemed acceptable to delegations. On draft rule 5.3d concerning the extension of the payment deadline for state parties that have been affected by force majeure, the proposed way forward is to make the extension mandatory in cases of force majeure, to make the rule applicable to all developing state parties, and include a transparency element, which means that the request for extension and justification is provided to the Bureau and the COP. on potential consequences in cases of arrears. Option A under draft rule 5.3f appeared to present a landing zone. I would also like to thank the distinguished delegate from Palau for presenting the outcome of discussions in the informal informals on the role of the Finance Committee. There appears to be convergence with regard to the timing of a potential review of the budget by the Finance Committee, and in that this function could not be exercised in the first financial period since the Finance Committee has not been established. yet. While some flexibility was expressed, divergent views remain on the Finance Committee and whether it should be involved in reviewing the budget. And we had discussions overnight, so this is perhaps a little bit superseded by already the discussions that have been had. A revised version of the financial rules was issued overnight as document A/AC.296, we then continued our consideration on the issue of arrangements with the global environment facility to give effect to the relevant provisions on funding yesterday morning as well delegation shared progress made in informal informals and bilateral consultations including further Brid proposals on paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 of the revised draft memorandum of understanding between the Conference of the Parties and the GEF Council relating to the role of the Finance Committee on financial resources in relation to reporting, sorry, I'm misreading, monitoring and evaluation and the determination of funding needed and available. it appeared that clear landing zones were emerging on these paragraphs. Building on this momentum and following consultations with delegations, a further revised draft memorandum of understanding between the Conference of the Parties and the GEF Council was issued last night as document A/AC.296/2026/CPR.4/Rev.1. The revised draft reflects, in our view, landing zones on these and other outstanding issues, including operative paragraph 7 bis and 7 ter in the section on conformity with COP guidance. We hope this provides a solid basis for us to conclude our work on this issue. Before we adjourn yesterday morning, we also heard a report back by the delegation of Australia on the informal informal held on Tuesday evening on the draft COP decision. concerning the operationalization of the special fund. These discussions focus on the composition and decision making modalities of a potential ad hoc committee with limited membership as a process for the operationalization of the special fund. It was noted that there was an understanding during this discussion, these discussions, that in the absence of consensus on the composition of a potential ad hoc committee, discussions would revert to the alternative option. However, as you all know, we've had discussions on this matter, so those discussions have hopefully brought us closer to a place where we can move forward. We had our fourth meeting on modalities for the operation of the clearinghouse mechanism. The delegation of New Zealand reported on informal discussions it co-convened with the delegation of Palau on the way forward for the operationalization of the clearinghouse mechanism. These discussions had focused first on the preliminary information provided by the Secretariat on the indicative timelines for procurement through formal methods of solicitation before progressing with a reading of the draft decision of the PrepCom. It was noted that there was still some bracketed text in the document, some of which required further advice from the Secretariat concerning timeline and terminology. There was general support for advancing work towards the development of an operational prototype of the clearinghouse mechanism by the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties, with a broad understanding that such work should be without prejudice to any decisions that may be taken by the COP. Delegations expressed views on various aspects of the draft decision and put forward additional proposals. At the request of delegations, we suspend in consideration of this issue to allow further discussions in an informal setting and to provide additional time for delegations to finalize the draft decision. Since, again, events have now superseded what I've already outlined from yesterday's discussion, I would like to just make sure that we're all on the same page where we are with respect to those informal informals. And I will give the floor to, I'm not sure who I'm giving it to, is it to Palau, to just give us a readout of the informal informals so that we all know where we Thank you very much. Floor for Palau.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. From the outset, Palau is Chair of EOSIS and New Zealand convened several informals to discuss the way forward on the operationalization of the clearinghouse mechanism. Many thanks to New Zealand, its fellow co-convenor, for the support and assistance in navigating those discussions. The co-convenors would like to sincerely thank delegations for their constructive engagement in these informal discussions. As indicated, these discussions have been well attended by a wide range of states with the participation of all regional negotiating groups. Following our last report back, we managed to resolve a number of areas with bracketed text and wish to congratulate colleagues for getting us there. Importantly, we were able to finalize the annex of the draft outcome document on the parameter issues outlined in paragraph 131 of the draft consolidated study with the aim of facilitating clarity on guidance for the development of a prototype for the clearinghouse mechanism before COP1. In relation to the body of the draft outcome document, we have managed to achieve agreement on all paragraphs except paragraph three, which relates to the invitation for expressions of interest to develop the prototype. Paragraph three also has a placeholder pending advice or guidance from DOALOS on appropriate options for a timeframe. We are therefore 99% at the finish line, co-chair. Based on the views expressed in the room, the compromises made in the text as we understand it in version six of the document that was circulated yesterday, and given the co-chairs request for clean text, an outcome document has been developed by the co-facilitators as a balanced text enjoying broadest support in the room that would help us achieve what was the collective agreed objective, a pathway to efficiently and effectively developing a prototype for the clearinghouse mechanism by COP1. Again, we wish to thank colleagues for their support, trust and cooperation during the informal sessions. And I thank you, co-chair.

Let me offer on behalf of my co-chair and myself, our gratitude to Palau and New Zealand for kindly co-facilitating our structured dialogue, informal and formal. And I'd like to thank all delegations for their engagement and their contributions to where we are now. And now I turn the floor to Adam.

Thank you, Janine. I'm just going to present the oral report on the meeting yesterday on IFBs. We continued our consideration of the issue of arrangements to enhance cooperation with relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional, sub-regional, and sectoral bodies yesterday morning, 1 April. on the basis of the revised draft decision of the Conference of the Parties, that's CRP6, issued Tuesday 31 March. Discussions covered the document in its entirety with delegations encouraged to concentrate on issues of core concern. While delegations were generally content with the overall direction of the revised draft, several proposals were put forward to amend specific preambular and operative paragraphs. Further consideration was to be required on the formulation of certain elements of the text, including those relating to the prioritization of early cooperation arrangements with particular IFBs, the recognition of mandate complementarity, and managing possible overlaps, the flexible approach to cooperation arrangements and the taking into account of the respective capacities, resources and operational limits and cycles of the IFBs concerned. Delegations were encouraged to engage with one another to bridge the remaining gaps, focusing on their core concerns while exercising flexibility in areas where it may be possible to do so. A revised version of the draft decision was issued overnight as document A\AC.296\2026\CRP.6\rev1. Can I offer our thanks as chairs? to the group of interested delegations who remained back in the room after the formal session to resolve all of the remaining issues and reach the text that we now have before us. As we always need a modality here, I think we will describe it as an informal, informal, informal or an informal cubed, but may we thank everyone who's involved in the informal cubed for their work. Delegates, we shall now take up item eight of our agenda entitled adoption of the report of the preparatory commission to allow us to introduce the draft report, which was issued on Tuesday as document A backslash AC.296 backslash 2026, backslash CRP five. You will recall that in resolution 78 backslash 272, the General Assembly decided that the Commission would take decisions on any recommendations to the Conference of the Parties to the agreement at the final meeting of the Commission. You will also recall that in the same resolution, the General Assembly decided that the Commission should prepare a final report on all matters within its mandate for presentation to the Conference of the Parties to the Agreement at its first meeting. In line with Resolution 78/278, the recommendations of the PrepCom to the COP will be contained in the annexes to the report. In this regard, I wish to draw delegates' attention to the documents issued overnight and this morning as follows. I won't read the rev numbers because it will take up too much time, you've got them all. Revised draft rules of procedure for the Conference of the Parties. Revised draft terms of reference and modalities for the operation of and rules of procedure for the subsidiary bodies. Revised draft financial rules governing the funding of the Conference of the Parties and the funding of the secretariat and any subsidiary bodies. Revised draft memorandum of understanding between the Conference of the Parties and the Council of the Global Environment Facility. Revised draft decision of the Conference of the Parties on arrangements to enhance cooperation with relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional, sub-regional and sectoral bodies. Draft decision of the Conference of the Parties concerning the relationship between the Secretariat established under Article 50 of the Agreement and the United Nations. Draft decision of the Conference of the Parties on modalities for the decision on the seat of the Secretariat established under Article 50 of the agreement. In addition, you will recall that the Preparatory Commission held an exchange of views on reporting requirements under the agreement during its second session on the basis of a note by the Secretariat on this issue. The co-chairs were then requested to distill the discussions on the matter into key points on reporting to be conveyed to the Conference of the Parties. The annex to the conference room paper A/AC.296/2026/CRP.7 issued last night contains the key points to be included as part of the annexes to the report of the Preparatory Commission. In addition to the annexes, you will also note that a number of placeholders addressing procedural matters are included in the draft report. In accordance with the usual practice, these placeholders will be completed and the report finalised by the co-chairs after the end of the session. Furthermore, Placeholders were also included to account for possible understandings emerging from the discussions or for possible intercessional work. One such matter relates to the strong interest by several groups and delegations to consider the question of the establishment of an advisory mechanism on indigenous peoples, local communities, and traditional knowledge at the first meeting of the COP as a result of which a group undertook to carry out intercessional work in that regard. This will be reflected in the report. Delegates, before we move on to some final observations on the organisation of work for today, let me just note that Janine and I have thanked you all many times for your hard work and the spirit of compromise and consensus in which you've approached your work. I think it's worth noting that a number of members of the staff have now been working for more than 24 hours straight. I think Janine and my own personal teams of Harry, Iliana and Bella have been probably working for more than 24 hours straight. Janine and I both did manage a couple of hours sleep, I think. maybe two or three. But if circumstances this afternoon mean we are pushed for time and we don't get the chance to say it properly, we've been supported by the most extraordinarily hardworking and dedicated team that two co-chairs could ever ask for. So thank you to ALOS and thank you to our personal team. Thank you, delegations. We will resume plenary at 4pm this afternoon. Did I mention that we haven't had a lot of sleep? We will resume plenary at 4pm this afternoon. At that time, we plan to adopt the report with its annexes by consensus. If you listen to one thing, I want you all to listen to the next thing. We have consulted with the secretariat and we cannot go beyond 6pm. That is absolute. After 6pm, we are on First Avenue. Which as far as I know has no interpretation and is not a convenient place in which to conduct negotiations. Folks, we're serious about this. It's 6pm, okay? I trust everyone is clear on that. We have had six weeks to do our work, not including the intercessional period, handing a decision to the COP with square brackets is failing in our responsibilities. We would be effectively asking the COP to do our work for us and therefore delaying the COP from its important work, including in terms of establishing the access and benefit sharing regime and the establishment of marine protected areas, the goals that we are also committed to, as well as the other goals of the convention. Clean text will be given to the COP. 00 p.m., a reminder that PrepCom will continue to operate under the rules applicable to the ICG as per resolution 72/249. Under paragraph 17, the PrepCom shall exhaust every effort in good faith to reach agreement on substantive matters by consensus. Under paragraph 19, if those efforts fail, the PrepCom will adopt its substantive decisions by a two-thirds majority. We also recall paragraph eight of resolution 78-272, that after entry into force, the taking of decisions by the Commission shall only be by states and regional economic integration organisations that have signed the agreement or have ratified, approved, accepted or acceded to the agreement. Between now and 4pm, Janine and I will be based in CRD and our doors are open. Session adjourned. Thank you all very much. Oh, too late. Would you want to? Sorry, delegates, Mexico has requested the floor. Mexico, the floor is yours.

Thank you, co-chairs, and thank you for all the work that you've done until now, and for all the work that they have arrived. I just take the floor in order to let you know that we have been talking with other groups in respect of the topic of secretariat, and with him we have arrived to an agreement on the way forward in respect to the topic. And if you as we having some time, we strongly believe we can arrive to a consensus in respect of the way forward. So thank you.

Muchas gracias, Mexico. We thank you very much for the work that we know has gone into this. It's a very welcome news you've provided us with and we're very grateful for your efforts and good luck. And yes, we we look forward to hearing from you. Thanks for all those colleagues involved. Indonesia has requested the floor. Indonesia, you have the floor, and then I'm proposing to draw a line under proceedings so that we can all get on with our work. Indonesia, the floor is yours. Oh, Indonesia's...

Yes, thank you, Co-Chair. First of all, the delegation of Indonesia wishes to thank you to the Co-Chairs for all the revised text. And this intervention is basically going to specifically stating and want to have an understanding in regards to one of the documents that we really have a concern for and it hasn't been reflected on the revised draft text, which is the rules of procedures for the conference of the parties. Indonesia would like to convey the following comments if if it's okay to the co-chairs for us to give this intervention. In our view, rule six, paragraph one of the current revised draft of the rules of the procedure deviates from and creates inconsistency with the agreed language and negotiated balance of the BBNJ agreement. The language of the agreement does not establish a distinction which we have a concern for in regards to the indigenous peoples and local communities. Indonesia is of the view that it should adhere to the formulation as reflected in the BBNJ agreement. In particular, Article 5, the general principle and approaches, Article 7, international cooperation, and Article 13, the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities. which consistently refer to as a single formulation. From a legal perspective, this formulation reflects a carefully negotiated compromise achieved during the intergovernmental conference process. It accommodates diverse national legal systems and approaches to the recognition of the indigenous peoples and local communities. Introducing differentiation at the level of the rules of procedure would therefore risk reopening this agreed balance and may create unintended interpretative hierarchies. In many jurisdictions, including Indonesia, communities possessing longstanding traditional knowledge and sustainable practices as recognized as local communities under domestic frameworks. Those communities are no less legitimate holders of relevant traditional knowledge. Differentiating the terminology risk excluding such communities from the scope of the agreement contrary to its very inclusive spirit. Consistent with this consideration, Indonesia would like to reiterate and further giving the drafting input as we have sent the written input to the Dualos on Monday, in which we maintain a non-differentiated formulation on the rule six paragraph one point C, Indigenous people and local communities, with their relevant traditional knowledge. Indonesia would like to underline the importance of ensuring consistency in the use of terminology and formulation across the agreement and its related instruments, including the rules of procedure. Indonesia is open for further discussion regarding the drafting on specific rules, rule six, paragraph one, and it is our priority to have the consistent language in the rules of procedure in line with the agreed outcomes of the intergovernmental conference process. Lastly, Indonesia would also like to underscore that all states cannot afford a situation where instruments that are intended to give effect to the agreement, such as the rules of procedure, selectively diverge from its agreed language. Any perception of cherry picking risk undermining legal certainty, eroding trust among parties and weakening the integrity of the carefully negotiated package. For a universal good faith implementation of the BBNJ agreement, it is essential that all subsidiary instruments remain fully aligned with both the letter and the spirit of the BBNJ agreement. Thank you, co-chairs.

I thank Indonesia and I thank you for your indication of flexibility. I need to reiterate two things. Our doors are open. At this stage discussions are ongoing. If delegations have concerns with the package of documents that are in front of them, they should raise those concerns with other delegations, and if they are confident that they have amendments that have broad support or consensus on the basis of those consultations, they should come and see us. Again, our doors are open. This is not the environment now to prosecute issues with respect to the documents that are in front of you. I will emphasise two things. It is a finely balanced package. It is a finely balanced package. It remains open. We are available. You have four hours and 10 minutes to talk to your colleagues and where you are confident that you have alternatives that are capable of attracting consensus this afternoon, When we open the report for consideration at 4pm, then you should come and see us. Again, discussions are ongoing. I intend to adjourn this session now to allow those discussions to continue. This session is adjourned.